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

[DarthTom]

And it would be inappropriate for a statement about science to mention God in any case, because science is only about testable hypotheses, and the involvement of a deity in the creation of the universe is a matter of conjecture or belief. Leaving it out of a discussion of science is not a rejection of the possibility, merely an acknowledgment that it's a matter which science does not address one way or the other.

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.

 

[RAMA]

Evolution isn't a theory.

Evolution IS a theory. It's the mechanism for the origin of species.

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.

 

[Christopher]

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.

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.

 

[DarthTom]

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.

 

[MacLeod]

For many scientifically literate Christians the way the question was asked takes God out of the equation and IMO they lose confidence.

Had the question been asked separately as well, " ~ 13 billion year ago, God started the big bang and the universe unfolded and man came about through natural selection...," the number of respondents who agreeed would have been higher.

The Catholic church for example embraces a 13 billion year old universe, the big bang and natural selection. They just also believe that God lighted the match that started the whole process with the intent for man to be eventually created.

But with the question as asked

"The Universe began 13.8bn years ago, with a big bang"

Does it matter if a person thinks God started the universe 13.8bn years. If they think 13.8bn years ago God started the universe with a Big Bang they could still answer in the affirmative. Isn't a negative answer basically saying I don't believe a big bang occured (no matter how it started)?

Yes, actually it does matter. Take me, for example. I'm a scientist who spent many years in graduate school earning a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. I also have more than a passing interest in physics and other sciences relevant to the survey. Yet I am also quite religious and firmly believe that the universe was created by God. I am most decidedly not a young-earth creationist. When I read that question I was brought up short and I don't think I would have answered that question as "Extremely/very confident", and possibly not even "Somewhat confident". That is not because of some belief in a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of the creation (I don't), but for a couple of other reasons.

First, the way it is worded strongly implies a God-less creation, at least to someone who does believe that God had a hand in it. I would have difficulty answering the question at all because it seems to setup a false dichotomy of either a God-less creation or a young-Earth creation.

Second, as a scientist, I don't "believe" anything of a scientific nature. I accept or reject hypotheses based on data available. Regarding the Big Bang, I don't "believe" it, but I do accept it as the best available hypothesis with the data currently available. Saying that, though, there's still a bit of faith there because I'm not a physicist; I'm only basing that acceptance on the word of those who have the data and the expertise to analyze it. That wouldn't be true of topics in my own field because I am capable of looking at the data and interpreting it for myself and deciding whether or not I accept the conclusions offered, but on the topic of the Big Bang, I only have their word to go on. I can't say I believe it, or even have high confidence in it; I can only say that it sounds good to me because those who do have the expertise say it's the best explanation and I have to take their word for it. Since I don't have any better ideas or data to contradict theirs, I go with theirs. That's really all anyone (other than those who do have the expertise, anyway) can say, so anyone who does say they are "Extremely/very confident" doesn't understand science and is putting more faith in scientists than they should.

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?

 

[farmkid]

...First, the way it is worded strongly implies a God-less creation, at least to someone who does believe that God had a hand in it.

How does it imply that? It just says "The Universe began... with a big bang," without saying anything about the mechanism of its creation one way or the other. I can talk about Star Trek without mentioning Gene Roddenberry. I can talk about making a phone call without stopping to remind people of Alexander Graham Bell. But that doesn't mean I'm claiming they didn't create those things. I'm just not bringing it up.

And it would be inappropriate for a statement about science to mention God in any case, because science is only about testable hypotheses, and the involvement of a deity in the creation of the universe is a matter of conjecture or belief. Leaving it out of a discussion of science is not a rejection of the possibility, merely an acknowledgment that it's a matter which science does not address one way or the other.

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.

 

[Yminale]

Evolution is an observed phenomenon.

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

 

[Yminale]

Wrong. The Big Bang is a theory,

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

Biological Evolution has long been considered a fact.

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.

 

[farmkid]

Evolution isn't a theory.

Evolution IS a theory. It's the mechanism for the origin of species.

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.

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.

 

[Yminale]

Science is not set in stone and things that science once believed/disbelieved can later be found to be innacurate.

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.

 

[MacLeod]

Science is not set in stone and things that science once believed/disbelieved can later be found to be innacurate.

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?

 

[gturner]

So 51% said "not confident" to the question

"The Universe began 13.8bn years ago, with a big bang"

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.

 

[Yminale]

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?

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.

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?

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

 

[Yminale]

So 51% said "not confident" to the question

"The Universe began 13.8bn years ago, with a big bang"

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.

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.

 

[farmkid]

The last remaining building block of human knowledge is the Grand Unified theory. After that it's basically filling out the details.

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.

 

[Stoo]

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

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

But with the question as asked

"The Universe began 13.8bn years ago, with a big bang"...

...First, the way it is worded strongly implies a God-less creation, at least to someone who does believe that God had a hand in it.

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.

re: evolution being a theory or a fact, Stephen J Gould [...]

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.

 

[Stoo]

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

 

[2takesfrakes]

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

 

[YellowSubmarine]

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.