Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

In my science class, we are currently learning about the "Big Bang". The teacher presented the theory as fact and I was a bit concerned. There are many, many theories about the creation of the universe, why did she have to teach this one? I asked her "Why do you only teach the "big bang"? Why don't you teach, say, the theory of Intelligent Design?" She said, "I'm not supposed to teach that one, and anyways, you'll learn all the other theories in college". I overheard her saying to a student later, "The point of schooling is to let you gain a vast amount of knowledge before you go onto college." Whoa!

Now I believe that god created us, and I have a strong belief in it. No "big bang" theory is going to swagger my faith. My concern is that my teacher completely overlooked other possibilities, and took one and presented it as fact.

Why don't people teach other theories? I get the impression that people say that if there is anything taught in school that even leads to the thought of God, it should be banned. What's wrong in thinking there was a creator? It's not religion; it's philosophy, like the big bang, right?

Should they teach other theories of such as I.D.? How do you think the universe began? Are there other theories I haven't seen before?

Discuss. I hope I can get some good input; I'm going to email someone about it.

Beleive, nothing. God did create all this. But that's beside the point.

Yes, you're right. Actually, I think if you added all the various religions together, you would get far more people that beleive in Intelligent Design than the Big Bang.

Also, it's unfair to the people that beleive aliens came and planted human seeds or whatever the theory is. Of course, the big argument against that, is where did the aliens come from? Either way you need a Creator.

I think evolution, the Big Bang, and atheism are just man's fruitless attempts to get away from our Father, because they don't want to be responsible for anything they do wrong. If there is no Creator, then this life means nothing, and there's no reason not to commit various crimes that I probably shouldn't mention.

So there you go! I'll check back in tomorrow.

Oh, by the way, I've been trying to sound less arrogant when I talk about religion. Tell me if I do.

_________________

I think the Big Bang is taught because it's the most widely believed scientific theory of the universe. It's also the simplest. "The universe just started", that's practically what it says.

_________________
Guten tag, Johann, du riechst ganz richtig. Danke schon, Heidi. Und du auch. - A Bit of Fry and Laurie

I don't know about the situation over there in Uncle Sam Land. Here in Blighty we are taught the Big Bang in Science, because it is the leading scientific theory and the only one with sufficient grounds to be taught as science.

However, in Religious Studies we are taught intelligent design, because it is a religious belief.

Incidentally, it's quite possible to believe in both. It's important to make that distinction between Creationism (literal interpretation of Genesis; does not gel with the Big Bang) and intelligent design (we were created by a higher power, possibly through the Big Bang).



You don't seem to be trying very hard. Case in point:



Hmm.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

This is a big can of worms, but it's worth pointing out that from a scientific standpoint, Intelligent Design is not a theory. Most people toss the term "theory" around without much thought, but there's a substantial set of criteria for a hypothesis to be considered a theory; criteria that the big bang and Darwinian evolution meet, but that Intelligent Design does not. To rip one straight from Wikipedia, "Claims such as intelligent design and homeopathy are not scientific theories, but pseudoscience."

The reason they don't teach you about creationism (whether you prefer to call it Intelligent Design or, say, Pastafarianism, or whatever) in your science classes is simply because it isn't science. Hey, maybe creationism is a fact and evolution and the big bang are all hogwash, but until we see at a decade or so worth of papers supporting it published in peer-reviewed journals, don't expect it to get any attention from sensible science teachers.

_________________

How is it unfair for scientologist to practice their beliefs? What would you be doing if I would say, its unfair to say an Intelligent Being created us, where did he come from? Some one could say Ozzy Osbourne created the universe and there is no way we could disprove them.

On your second paragraph there, I find that quite offensive, its just another belief system. Is Hinduism, Judaism, or Wicca just ways to get away from Mr. Christ?

And on your last state, no you still sound arrogant.

_________________
TIRES TIRES TIRES

He's not saying it is unfair for scientologists to practice their beliefs.. He's saying that teaching the Big Bang as the only way things have come into existence is unfair to them. I think..
That's the way I read it, but I'm not going to try to put words in his mouth.

The whole "Big Bang is a fact, everything else is a theory" thing cracks me up. Even people who study things like this admit it is a "best guess" of sorts.
There are no laws in science. Only theories. To become a law, a theory has to be shown to hold absolutely true for ALL cases. Still, since, theories are "good enough", as they've been refined throughout their lives, they'll do for most scientific work. That's something I've definitely learned in meteorology.

My opinion is that there had to be interatcion from someone. The odds of everything happening completely at random to get us to where we are are a long shot. Does that mean it was impossible? No, but I still know what I believe.
If someone could prove evolution to me, with no "question marks", I would accept it, but until then, I'm gonna count it as a theory.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Who said it was a fact? As far as I know, all mainstream scientists consider it a theory.



Are the odds of a universe spontaneously coming into existence any less than the odds of an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent creator spontaneously coming into existence? Or did someone create God--oh, sorry, I mean the "Intelligent Designer"--too? And if so, who created them? Is it turtles all the way down?



That's good, because the scientific community counts it as a theory as well. Welcome to the mainstream.

_________________

It's true that scientists do consider it a theory. The people who seem to think it is a fact are the people who are in on the debate. The people on TV shows, in the editorial pages, etc. Not that IDT/Creationism people don't have some closed eyed wackaloons, too. Trust me, there are plenty of 'em in our ranks.

I don't know if the odds of a spontaneously generating universe are any less than that of a created one. I'd say they're aboot the same, which would mean that the odds of us being here are infinitesimal. But, since I believe one thing, for me to change my mind, I have to be compelled to do so. So far, I haven't seen a lot to convince me. Does it mean the proof isn't out there? Certainly not, but I haven't seen it.


I've been in the mainstream scientific community for a while. Most people are born into it. All a 3 year old asks is "why?".. Some of us never lose that.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I disagree. I don't beleive in a god, and that's jsut because I don't beleive in one. It just doesn't seem to make sense to me, and science does. Science has proved things, and therefore I trust it and beleive in it

I do hwoever beleive in karma, but not in the same way others do. Karma actually makes szense, as when you're positive, you make others happy, and therefore everyone will be happier, and vice-versa. I need to have a logica;l explanation for everything to beleive in it

Now, a bit mroe on the subject, I do agree that other theories should be talked about, as science in this case it sort of a religion, just not a religious one. They should tell students that "the theory you beleive in is your choice, there is no right or wrong answer" (Though soem beleive there is a wrong answer) I have nothing against others beleiing in a god or multiple gods, and I'm interested in learnign more abiout religion (But to tell the truth, and in no way do I want to offend anybody by sayign this, I'm interested in it to find its flaws)

Therefore, students should be taught other theories and be given the chocie to choose the one that sounds the most appealing to them (Apeallign probably isn't the right word, but you know what I mean)

Given the quality of education I got in elementary, middle and high school, I'm actually glad they didn't try teaching religion.
The preacher in my dad's church said it best (on the subject of God and/or the 10 Commandments in schools): "If you want your kids to know about God, shouldn't you be teaching them about him? Don't be lazy and rely on someone else to do it. You'll go out of your way to make sure they get to football, band, or cheerleading practice, but somehow you can't take 10 minutes out of your day to talk about God? We all know how good the schools are here. Do you REALLY want THEM to teach religion?"
The school systems in the area back home are kinda corrupt, and, in general, really don't do that good a job of educating students. The AP classes finally got summer reading lists (something that all the students here in Huntsville have). It's funny, really.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

The problem is there aren't any other widely-accepted theories. In case you skipped my post from before: Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. Until the creationists actually come up with a scientific theory, none of what they have to say has any place in the science classroom.



If only more creationists were sensible like your preacher.

_________________

You'd be suprised. For the most part, Christians are sensible people. They aren't the hatemongers that a vocal minority of Christians portray us as. Fred Phelps is a good example of the nutjobs we have to contend with to let people know what Christians REALLY stand for.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

To throw my opinion as an Old Earth Creationist...

Science can't prove the divine, due to the limited nature of science. Science will never be able to prove the existence of God, because science can only observe the world around us. From what we see, and the fact that there are natural laws set forth in the universe, we can infer that God exists, but it can never be proven.

Remember, faith is an important aspect, and if God's existence could be proven, you wouldn't need faith.

That said, faith is required either way as far as the universe's origins. The Big Bang can't be proven either, scientifically. We can gather evidence from that evidence, infer that there was a big bang...but it can't be proven. So the Big Bang and God both require equal amounts of faith.

I believe that the origins of the universe shouldn't be taught in schools at all. No ID, and no Big Bang. Neither can be proven. Just say the universe exists and move on to more important aspects of science.

_________________
DISCLAIMER: The preceding post was the opinions of Nate, and should be taken as his two cents. Actual exchange rate may vary by location, see stores for details, void where prohibited under penalty of torture.

It's not like I can easily give up...the feelings...of needing her. - Sohma Hatsuharu

So really, at best, the Big Bang can be taught only as what we can conclude to the best of our ability with the science available to us. And the science available to us cannot address the issue of whether or not there was an Intelligent Designer (be it a Sghetti Monster or YHWH). But, and I'm guessing here, Utard's complaint is that at least in his school, the tendency is toward discounting the possibility of an Intelligent Designer without consideration for the limitations of the science available to us. Correct me if I'm wrong in that, Utard.

_________________

Avoiding the whole can of worms is a very nice way to avoid dealing with it. Unfortunately, you can't teach "what is known", mainly because most of the stuff we "know" represents our best guess of what is really happening. Even the traditional "laws" of physics break down at extreme values of temperature, mass, size, velocity, etc. While, for your average high school physics student, things like relativistic effects (things that happen when you travel at very high speed) aren't important, students should be taught that the "laws" they are learning are just theories that represent a "best guess approximation".

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

That may be true, it's just that the way they teach it (at least in my school) they regard it as fact. On a question on a test I took on Friday, it asked "How did the universe begin?" and the awnser that the teacher wanted us to say was "in a big explosion" or something like that.

What also my be taken into consideration is the thought that the big bang is true, but God caused it. In Genisis it says that God (or Christ) created the earth in seven days. What if time to God is longer? 7 days to him may be 13 billion years to us!

Just a thought:

Doesn't believing that the Big Bang happened take a bit of faith too? How can we know that it actually happened, for sure? None of the scientists that came up with the theory were actually there when it supposedly happened. And it seems to me that it would take an awful lot of coincidence to bring us to where we are now. For instance, if we were just a short distance further away from the Sun than we are now, we would all be dead. That's what leads me to believe in intelligent design. Everything is placed exactly right in the universe.

Well, yes, if you believe that the big bang is a fact (rather than a very plausible theory for which there is a lot of evidence), then you're making a leap of faith. Fortunately our science textbooks call it what it is: not a fact, but a very plausible theory for which there is a lot of evidence.



I know a lot of people who would emphatically disagree with that sentiment (a few former residents of New Orleans among them), but then, that would bring us to a wholly different conversation.

_________________

You got a point there, IJ. However the universe was formed, the fact remains that it doesn't always work in a way beneficial to those of us who live in it. We are still helpless in the face of the sheer power at work in the universe.

_________________

But nature had milliosn of chances to get it right, what with how many planets there more than probably are.

I think you mean--to channel Carl Sagan--Billions and Billions!

_________________

^Yeah. As always. >_>

But nature works slowly.

Because 'Intelligent design' is not science. Read this article: http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/In ... sign.shtml

Furthemore, there's no evidence supporting it, while we have plenty of evidence for the Big Bang.

Religious ideas need to be kept out of science class, if you want to study religion, take a theology class or something.

You know, if you wanted to add something intelligent to the debate a "Intelligent design is not a science" and a link to a biased website isn't what you wanted to do.

What is this "evidence" of which you speak. There are plenty of clues that point towards some sort of "big bang", but they aren't completely definitive (meaning, they COULD logically be interpreted as something else). There may or may not be another single event that could explain them. I don't know and neither do you.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Kind of hard to do when very few public school offer anything of the sort.

_________________

Don't just ignore all the valid points that site makes.

You want evidence? Fine:


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE420.html

That should cover it.

The Big Bang is the accepted scientific theory and the one that satisfies all the evidence. There are no other theories that do so, and 'intelligent design' isn't even a theory at all (it has no mechanism, it is unfalsifiable, not to mention it has no evidence).

Furthermore, as far as 'intelligent design' is concerned, it does not even intersect with the Big Bang, since the Big Bang deals with the properties of the universe, and 'intelligent design' is a a (unsupported, non - scientific) attempt to explain the emergence of life on Earth.

That's what college is for.

Religion is NOT science, and the two should not be confused.

Once again. Not a peer reviewed site, but it's eleventy times more reputable than the previous one.

the Big bang is a theory. Contrary to the site you listed, which states "Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them.", the Big Bang model was formulated, like all good models, based on observations. If a model doesn't predict the observations with which you formed it, then you've misformulated your model or don't understand the processes at work. That holds true in every model used to explain a process, be it a numerical weather model or a model of the Universe.

The site DOES do a good job, though, saying that there are things we don't know/understand. The biggest being inflation. The whole notion of inflation has led some to scrap the big bang model and come up with other ideas. Will they come up with something different? Possibly.
The one thing that gets under my skin is the way the site presents big bang as the only thing that could have happened.

I'm not saying that Big Bang is incorrect. I've always believed that, if it was the "genesis", it was because that was the way God felt like doing it. Hey, when you're omnipotent, you can do whatever you want.

If it was as cut and dry as you're trying to make it, there wouldn't be any debate.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

You're misunderstanding the scientific method.

The Big Bang theory was based on observations, yet it predicted further observations that had not yet been made, and later reinforced it.

Furthermore, just because it does not explain EVERYTHING does not mean it should be just thrown out for a theory that explains NOTHING at all.

Scientific theories, unlike creationist dogma, are constantly changing and evolving, being refined and tweaked with new observations, in order to create more accurate models to describe the behavior of the universe.

Until someone can come up with an alternate theory that:

- fulfills all the requirements of a scientific theory (testable, falsifiable, etc.)

- explains the evidence better than the Big Bang

- makes more accurate predictions than the Big Bang

Then it will continue to be the accepted scientific theory, and will continue to be taught, like it or not.

Also, you're comitting a logical fallacy by stating 'if it was really as cut and dry as you make it, there wouldn't be any debate'.

People can debate anything, someone who knows nothing about math could debate that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4, yet that hardly means that there is a good chance it doesn't.