51% of Americans don't accept the Big Bang theory

I cannot speak for Farm kid but leaving god out of the equation implies that you're suggesting someone is an atheist. Logical or not, that's how in my experience, scientifically literate Christians view it.

God needs to be included as the watch maker for many Christians to buy into big bang theory or they will reject the notion.

 

Wrong. The Big Bang is a theory, albeit one that has gained even more credibility recently . Biological Evolution has long been considered a fact. Only the actual mechanisms of evolution are theory. The basic idea that a species adapts from one form to another to better exist in it's environment (not from monkeys for humans) is not in question, and has mountains of evidence. Only people uncomfortable with this idea because of religious brainwashing call it a theory.

 

I refuse to believe that an omnipotent being would be so pathologically insecure as to require such constant affirmation, acknowledgment, and ego-stroking. That's a symptom of human insecurity.

 

Of course it is and fear of the greatest unknown in the human experience - death. Is it really that surprising that many people have a need to believe that the end isn't for most of us at around 80 years - snuff - it's over - nothing more?

They need to believe that God / Jesus / Allah etc. will lead them to a happy afterlife.

In any case, this need prejudices the way people look at some scientific principles.

 

I would disagree it merely asks the question do you believe the universe came into being 13.8bn years ago with a big bang.

It doesn't ask the question about who/what caused this big bang just did one occur 13.8bn years ago. That's a different question.

So if people believe God created the universe with a big bang 13.8bn years ago why can't they say they are confident that the universe was created 13.8bn years ago with a big bang?

Well would you prefer if they had choices like :-

Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree or Disgaree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

Science is not set in stone and things that science once believed/disbelieved can later be found to be innacurate. For example most scientis believe that Humans are having an impact on climate change. Sure they might be wrong, but equally those that don't believe man is having an impact might be wrong. But one could reason it is better to err on the side of caution and believe that man is having in impact if it is later found out not to be true what damage would have been done to the climate? Conversely if those who don't believe are wrong and man is having an impact and we did nothing what would the climate be like?

 

While that may be true based only on the grammar and logic of the statement, the reality is that a statement worded in the way it, to most who believe in God, at least, implies a God-less creation, and to wholeheartedly agree with the statement with no qualifications would mean endorsing the idea of a creation sans any supreme being. This is because of history of the debate more than anything else. Over the years many have insisted that the lack of evidence for a supreme being and the fact that science can explain as much as it does about the universe means that there is no supreme being. Worded the way it is, this statement comes across as being from that side of the argument.

 

Speciation is the observed phenomenon. Evolution has long meant Darwinian Evolution since Darwin's theory has long been the only theory of evolution with any scientific evidence.

You and Rama are arguing semantics

 

If we are arguing about terms. The Big Bang is an EVENT. The theory is General Relativity (or Cosmic Inflation).

Evolution can be used interchangeably as both Darwin's theory of Evolution and Speciation. Complain all you want but even scientist use the term interchangeably.

 

No, evolution is a theory. In scientific jargon, a theory is the best way to explain data. Scientific facts are data; theories are not scientific facts. Take gravity for example. Gravity is not a fact or a law. What we have are data; e.g. I drop something and it falls to the ground. That's pretty consistent. We have a law of falling objects, or of objects attracted to one another. Gravity is the best theory we have to explain the observed data that objects with mass are attracted to one another.

Regarding evolution, we have a lot of data, or facts if you prefer, suggesting that species change over time (fossils, genetic data, experimental data, etc.), and evolution is the best explanation for those data.

When you say "theory" I think you're referring to what a scientist would call a hypothesis. A hypothesis may one day become a theory, but it takes a lot of evidence to become so.

 

I hear this a lot and it's an misunderstanding of how science works. Science is based on evidence and as the amount of evidence builds that chance of being wrong diminishes accordingly. Yes science can never be 100% accurate, there is a point when the preponderance of evidence is so great that by denying it means you are denying reality.

And Science has never done a complete 180 on anything. That's a myth.

 

Yes but can't scientist come up with a theory that they believe to be correct but through observation/evidence later turns out to be wrong?

It might be accurate to say science has never done a 180 on a scientific fact but have they ever done a 180 an a scientific theory/hypthosis?

 

So 51% said "not confident" to the question

That just shows there smart, because only limited confidence should be placed in 13.8 billion years, as the current best estimate (as of 2013) of the age of the oldest stars in the universe is 14.6 billion years.

 

In the past when scientific knowledge was nonexistent but it would be nearly impossible now. That's how much progress we've made in the last 400 years. The last remaining building block of human knowledge is the Grand Unified theory. After that it's basically filling out the details.

Hypothesis are overturned all the time but theories especially major theories like General Relativity and Evolution not likely.

 

I doubt people stated "no confidence" because of a disagreement with age especially when other studies have shown that America literacy in science is somewhere between awful and comatose.

 

Be careful with statements like that. I remember a physics professor once saying that in the late 1800's and early 1900's students were being discouraged from pursuing a career in the field because it was all but wrapped up. They just needed to figure out the speed of the luminiferous ether and a couple of other things and then the field of physics would be done (sound familiar?). They would have it all figured out. Then the crazy ideas of relativity and quantum mechanics came along and screwed that all up.

 

re: evolution being a theory or a fact, Stephen J Gould summed it up nicely.

 

You obviously suffer from quite the persecution complex to take from "The Universe began 13.8bn years ago, with a big bang" any implication about god.
Hardly rationally-minded of you, farmkid.

Stephen J Gould is not a scientist, but a propagandist.
His most popular book, "The mismeasure of man" contains so many scientific mistakes - most, both major and obvious - it's just ridiculous. But it's well-composed PC propaganda, so it gets a pass.

 

Propagandist or not, I'm pretty sure paleontologists and biologists are scientists. He's spot on about facts and theories, anyway.

 

Humans are the only species where the stupid are allowed to breed.

 

Homo sapiens should just follow the good example set by sponges and pandas and introduce more plutonium in our diets.