The Big Bang Theory a Fairy Tale? So says presidential candidate Ben Carson....

[russ_watters]

I'm sure that Dr. Carson would tell you that he believes in the scientific method. He has published peer reviewed medical research papers. Believing that God created the universe does not mean that you reject the scientific method or that you are anti-science.

We were specifically referring to creationism which (as with many religious tenets) makes very firm, testable beliefs about the world which can be confirmed or refuted with science. If you reject the science because it refutes your beliefs then you fill the definition of anti-science.

I agree with Ryan. Evolution may be The benchmark issue that best judges where a person stands when it comes to science vs religion. The science is just so solid that rejection of it in favor of religion means (to me) that anywhere science and religion intersect, religion will be chosen over science. It doesn't mean total rejection of the scientific method, just rejection of it when it conflicts with religion, which is still pretty bad and pretty much the same thing (not a hair I think needs to be split).

 

[russ_watters]

Anyone you're leaning towards?

No, I'm kinda waiting for the Republican field to thin out. It would take too much effort to read-up on all of them.

 

[Geofleur]

Why? The Big Bang has only escaped the worst attacks from creationists because they have been so busy attacking evolution instead. Neither the Big Bang nor evolution fits with six-day creation in 4004 BC. Since creationism spawned Intelligent Design in a failed attempt to get around the US prohibition on teaching religion in schools, one may expect something similar for cosmology. I solemnly predict the Teleological Argument will be dusted off and re-branded as Fine-Tuned Purpose. I hear the scratching of pencils across paper right now! It will be easier for them the second time round, but that's going to be balanced against the fact that they are going to have to grapple with some serious maths.

In retrospect it seems kind of obvious, especially thinking about it strategically like that. I was very focused on the evolution front. In the news almost all you ever heard about was evolution. It just didn't occur to me that they might switch "teach the controversy" and the "wedge" strategy over to physics topics like the big bang.

 

[Bandersnatch]

It just didn't occur to me that they might switch "teach the controversy" and the "wedge" strategy over to physics topics like the big bang.

Look up Spike Psarris' talks on Youtube, if you don't mind for your brain to hurt for all the wrong reasons.

 

[phinds]

Look up Spike Psarris' talks on Youtube, if you don't mind for your brain to hurt for all the wrong reasons.

EEEEYYUUUUKKKKKK !

 

[Derek Potter]

I think the fringe elements of pretty much every group qualifies, it's just that in religious groups almost everyone seems to qualify.

Qualify as what? I can't tell what you're referring to but from tone of your remark it's an entirely gratuitous insult to those of us who do have a brain and occasionally use it. That's the majority in the UK, by the way.

 

[Evo]

No more off topic posts on religion. Posts in this thread need to be about Ben Carson and his personal views.

 

[russ_watters]

No more off topic posts on religion.

Partial response to a deleted post (oh, the power!):

Analyzing the issue from the direction of different flavors of creationism (or other anti-science beliefs) is looking the issue at hand from the wrong direction. It matters not why, precisely, the scientific conclusion is rejected in favor of the religious one, only that it is rejected for religious reasons. Indeed, certain sects such as, famously, the Catholic Church, may choose to modify their beliefs (ironic) to accept theories previously rejected. But even those decisions just serve to highlight the problem, that these issues are not being judged on their scientific merit alone. For the Catholic Church, acquiescence looks to me like an issue of marketing.

 

[Evo]

Partial response to a deleted post (oh, the power!):

Analyzing the issue from the direction of different flavors of creationism (or other anti-science beliefs) is looking the issue at hand from the wrong direction. It matters not why, precisely, the scientific conclusion is rejected in favor of the religious one, only that it is rejected for religious reasons. Indeed, certain sects such as, famously, the Catholic Church, may choose to modify their beliefs (ironic) to accept theories previously rejected. But even those decisions just serve to highlight the problem, that these issues are not being judged on their scientific merit alone. For the Catholic Church, acquiescence looks to me like an issue of marketing.

I'm trying to keep the thread about Carson, and not religion in general.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm trying to keep the thread about Carson, and not religion in general.

Fair enough -- I was just trying to emphasize why discussion of the particulars of the religious beliefs isn't relevant anyway. Feel free to remove.

 

[Evo]

Fair enough -- I was just trying to emphasize why discussion of the particulars of the religious beliefs isn't relevant anyway. Feel free to remove.

Nah, it's a good post.

 

[gleem]

Much of humanity will take the view of Dr. Carson for they like him cannot or will not grasp the assumptions and methodology the the science. It would be a matter of belief for most to accept this theory. I doubt an introductory physics course will cure it and may exacerbate it. With a superficial and thus dangerous knowledge of the science it can used against the science e.g. Carson use of Entropy to try and discredit the Big Bang Theory.

In this age of sound bites, texting, tweets etc where the attention span the average person is decreasing at an even more rapid rate and totally distracted what can be done? If you had the opportunity to talk to Dr. Carson at any length what would you say to him so that He might realized that the Big Bang Theory is credible and cause Him to reflect on His beliefs so that He might seek a resolution to this conflict?

 

[Evo]

Much of humanity will take the view of Dr. Carson for they like him cannot or will not grasp the assumptions and methodology the the science. It would be a matter of belief for most to accept this theory. I doubt an introductory physics course will cure it and may exacerbate it. With a superficial and thus dangerous knowledge of the science it can used against the science e.g. Carson use of Entropy to try and discredit the Big Bang Theory.

In this age of sound bites, texting, tweets etc where the attention span the average person is decreasing at an even more rapid rate and totally distracted what can be done? If you had the opportunity to talk to Dr. Carson at any length what would you say to him so that He might realized that the Big Bang Theory is credible and cause Him to reflect on His beliefs so that He might seek a resolution to this conflict?

You can't talk sense to people that were brought up with these beliefs. The best thing is to make sure that Carson and people like him do not hold political offices where their misinformation can cause harm.

 

[Loren]

There's not all that much spinning that can be done regarding direct statements that he has made. Do you think Carson believes in the Big Bang Theory? Evolution? Does he not believe that the Earth was created in six 24-hour days? Do you think the liberal media has fabricated his statements about these things?

I don't know, but I have seen a lot of quotes seriously taken out of context, again, to serve someone else's agenda.

I am only raising a red flag here because it is easy if not typical to take what is in print at face value.

As I said, I really don't know the man's true position on these things and I am weary to get it based on a media with its own agenda.

I see the Earth being created in six days as more of a parable, but irrespective of that — science mixes with religion no better than oil and vinegar.

 

[Loren]

You can't talk sense to people that were brought up with these beliefs. The best thing is to make sure that Carson and people like him do not hold political offices where their misinformation can cause harm.

The best thing is education, but even that gets corrupted.

As someone thousands of years ago said, the penalty for not getting involved in politics is to be ruled by your inferiors.

 

[Evo]

I don't know, but I have seen a lot of quotes seriously taken out of context, again, to serve someone else's agenda.

I am only raising a red flag here because it is easy if not typical to take what is in print at face value.

As I said, I really don't know the man's true position on these things and I am weary to get it based on a media with its own agenda.

I see the Earth being created in six days as more of a parable, but irrespective of that — science mixes with religion no better than oil and vinegar.

There have been videos of him saying these things posted in this thread. They are not misuses of things he said.

 

[Loren]

There have been videos of him saying these things posted in this thread. They are not misuses of things he said.

Again, unless you see the whole video or transcription of what he said you can't be sure of the real context.

He may be a true believer, but I can't make that call at this time.

 

[phinds]

I see the Earth being created in six days as more of a parable ...

But this thread is not about how you see it, it's about Carson and he can be seen on video saying that it is not a parable, it is the literal truth. Six 24-hour days. Period. He does hedge his bets on the age of the Earth and does not insist on 6,000 years but the creation was done in six of our normal days. He says the Earth might have been around, devoid of life, for millions of years before God decided to create everything on it in six days and he implies that that happened about 6,000 years ago.

 

[Loren]

But this thread is not about how you see it, it's about Carson and he can be seen on video saying that it is not a parable, it is the literal truth. Six 24-hour days. Period. He does hedge his bets on the age of the Earth and does not insist on 6,000 years but the creation was done in six of our normal days. He says the Earth might have been around, devoid of life, for millions of years before God decided to create everything on it in six days and he implies that that happened about 6,000 years ago.

Isn't this thread about how we see it in contrast to Dr. carson?

I think few people here would agree with Dr.Carson's view, myself included.

 

[Evo]

Again, unless you see the whole video or transcription of what he said you can't be sure of the real context.

He may be a true believer, but I can't make that call at this time.

Isn't this thread about how we see it in contrast to Dr. carson?

I think few people here would agree with Dr.Carson's view, myself included.

This thread is about what Carson thinks.

 

[hagar]

This thread is about what Carson thinks.

Politicians in general, whither new or old have a habit of saying what they think the people they are speaking to want to hear. This is true of both sides.

 

[phinds]

Politicians in general, whither new or old have a habit of saying what they think the people they are speaking to want to hear. This is true of both sides.

I agree but the problem w/ Carson goes deeper, I think. He BELIEVES the creationist nonsense, he isn't pandering to his audience.

 

[hagar]

I agree but the problem w/ Carson goes deeper, I think. He BELIEVES the creationist nonsense, he isn't pandering to his audience.

You may well be correct but it is probably a bit of both, we just do not know to what extent yet.

 

[Monsterboy]

Politicians in general, whither new or old have a habit of saying what they think the people they are speaking to want to hear. This is true of both sides.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/b...cation&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Religion

About 42% of Americans believe that evolution is "just a theory ", so there isn't any great advantage. There are some who believe that evolution did happen but it was guided by God, so let's raise it to 50% , so there is only a 50-50 (almost) chance of success for being anti-science.

 

[phinds]

You may well be correct but it is probably a bit of both, we just do not know to what extent yet.

His belief in creationism long predates his interest in politics, so yes, I'd say we DO know.

 

[hagar]

His belief in creationism long predates his interest in politics, so yes, I'd say we DO know.

So then it is settled, both you and Carson are exactly at opposite poles.

 

[phinds]

So then it is settled, both you and Carson are exactly at opposite poles.

On this particular issue, yeah, I'd say so. I believe in science and he believes in God. But I don't think it matter nearly as much what I think, because I'm not running for president.

 

[hagar]

On this particular issue, yeah, I'd say so. I believe in science and he believes in God. But I don't think it matter nearly as much what I think, because I'm not running for president.

Then I will withdraw, I give you the last word.

 

[Derek Potter]

Partial response to a deleted post (oh, the power!):

Analyzing the issue from the direction of different flavors of creationism (or other anti-science beliefs) is looking the issue at hand from the wrong direction. It matters not why, precisely, the scientific conclusion is rejected in favor of the religious one, only that it is rejected for religious reasons. Indeed, certain sects such as, famously, the Catholic Church, may choose to modify their beliefs (ironic) to accept theories previously rejected. But even those decisions just serve to highlight the problem, that these issues are not being judged on their scientific merit alone. For the Catholic Church, acquiescence looks to me like an issue of marketing.

I wish you and others would stop referring to creationism as *the* religious view! It is at best *a* religious view, a very specific one largely ignored by everyone except Biblical-literalists in the US. The situation with the Catholic Church is very different. Obviously it was, or regarded itself as, the main repository of knowledge and wisdom until long after the Reformation. So you would expect it to attempt to understand and explain stuff, get some of it wrong and change its views as knowledge increased. It's different now because science is secularized and as far as I can tell, the Catholic Church accepts all the findings of science unequivocably. Though, having said that, I am not sure what its stance is on Schroedinger's Cat.

 

[Derek Potter]

My last comment - unless someone takes the bait :)

This thread is about what Carson thinks.

Actually it's not. It's about his potential for harming American science.

Might we see representatives of our community sitting before a congressional committee defending their research. Or more importantly Is he undermining our nations faith in science. With an ever strained federal budget will His beliefs still be able to influence NSF funding?

Perhaps Americans should welcome Carson and the possibility of having creationism examined for funding? It has, after all, been deemed a religion by an American court. Presumably funding committees are competent to decide what is truly science and what is crackpottery? Otherwise how do they decide what to fund? If they are not capable of deciding, then American science has bigger problems than Carson.

 

[hagar]

My last comment - unless someone takes the bait :)

Actually it's not. It's about his potential for harming American science.

Perhaps Americans should welcome Carson and the possibility of having creationism examined for funding? It has, after all, been deemed a religion by an American court. Presumably funding committees are competent to decide what is truly science and what is crackpottery? Otherwise how do they decide what to fund? If they are not capable of deciding, then American science has bigger problems than Carson.

Over the years even science has had quite a bit of “crackpottery” funded.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

About 42% of Americans believe that evolution is "just a theory ", so there isn't any great advantage.

That greatly depends on the distribution of those people and to what extend this factors into their political beliefs. If the electorate in your range (be it the geographical area you are running in or the party you are running for) have a higher percentage than the national average and it's an important political issue there is certainly an advantage.

 

[Derek Potter]

Over the years even science has had quite a bit of “crackpottery” funded.

Then we are doomed.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Then we are doomed.

We really aren't. If you totalled up the amount of funding to legitimate science and how much went to crackpot nonsense I doubt you would even be able to see the latter because the former would dwarf it so severely. Plenty of funding has gone to bad scientists, "pointless" subjects and generally hasn't been allocated efficiently but even that is most likely a small minority.

 

[Monsterboy]

That greatly depends on the distribution of those people .
If the electorate in your range (be it the geographical area you are running in or the party you are running for) have a higher percentage than the national average and it's an important political issue there is certainly an advantage.

Well, I was specifically talking about running for president (or prime minister) depending on the country, one cannot take different stands on evolution on different geographical areas( that will be funny) depending on the electorate there.