I'm not a scientist, nor have I studied evolutionary science in great depth, so forgive me if I'm oversimplifying.
As I understand the theory: at one point in time, billions and billions of years ago, "nothing" exploded and sent space dust into ... well, nothing ... expanding the nothingness out into something. Later, that space dust in one particular universe and galaxy sort of reacted to other space dust and life was formed. It was mostly single-celled organisms, but eventually, bacteria and algae appeared, and over billions and billions of years ... what? Adapted to environmental factors and "became" the first living fish? Or did the fish just "appear"? Either way, these organisms became more complex because it was more advantageous to one's survival to be a monkey than a fish (and a man than a monkey).
Regardless, this chain could not have been broken at one point in time, since ending "life" as it was on Earth would have meant that man would have never evolved.
Modern understanding of evolution is essentially silent on the the question of the origin of life. I am not a biologist myself, but someone who has studied physics - but what little I know that seems to be the case.
>>>at one point in time, billions and billions of years ago, "nothing" exploded and sent space dust into ... well
We just dont know what happened. The Big Bang is just one explanation (which has a lot going for it, btw) but there are several other models that deal with this.
>>>nothing ... expanding the nothingness out into something.
This is not difficult to believe if you understand general relativity.
>>>Later, that space dust in one particular universe and galaxy sort of reacted to other space dust and life was formed.
That is what definitely happened - biochemical reactions are real - but the cause of such an abrupt phenomena suddenly happening is not explained by secular scientists. Why did it happen this time and not other time such as can be tested in a science lab at human whim?
>>>Later, that space dust in one particular universe and galaxy sort of reacted to other space dust and life was formed.
I dont know what exactly you mean. I am assuming you meant elemental atoms reacted with each other in a way that created protein, life and the whole nine yards.
So both religion and science agree that the universe had a beginning, it seems. It is not eternal. I'm not a young Earth Creationist, so I don't find it problematic to say that this point in time occurred billions of years ago (or at least appears to have occurred that long ago).
I just think it's strange to suggest that this event occurred ex nihilo. Biology and physics assume that things occur as a reaction to some external cause. Given "x", thus "y". The problem with the Big Bang is not the theory itself, but with the atheist insistence that there was no "x" in the equation. It's an implicit rejection of science's own primary rules, it seems to me.
James McCloud wrote: --- No. We just dont know. The model that suggests a beginning is a faulty physics model, so all bets are off! ---
This is 100% correct. To piggy-back off it, I would say that those who hold to an eternal universe have a more faulty physics model as we look at it today, but the problem for everyone is what looks faulty now might be orthodox in a hundred years.
Either way, current cosmology suggests that upwards of 90% of what makes up the universe is dark matter and dark energy, which by their very nature cannot be directly observed (which is why they are "dark") and the only real evidence we have for them is that our math about such things as the size & distribution of galaxies, or how fast stars spin on the edges of them, etc., doesn't work unless we add it in. Personally, I find it much more likely that our current mathematical models have significant errors than that dark matter/energy actually exist. I mean, if this theory had come before Relativity, I could easily see the scientific community arguing: "The reason Mercury's orbit doesn't match Newtonian physics is because of the influence of dark matter and energy, and we know it exists because Mercury's orbit is so wonky."
>>>Personally, I find it much more likely that our current mathematical models have significant errors than that dark matter/energy actually exist.
I just think we are not even close in currently understanding gravity even at a conceptual level. I think we have just felt at the elephants legs and built our explanations around it, but the leg cannot explain the ears, eyes, tail, trunk, head, etc. The leg cannot explain many things about itself either. We dont even know if it is an elephant we are talking about here.
I think a proper theory of gravitation must precede the so-called theory of everything. Unification of forces is, in my non-expert opinion, the least of our problems. Properly understanding gravity is the more immediate one, in terms of exotic physics quest. One can only appropriately move from there.
I'm not sure why the only options have to be the Young Earth view or theistic evolution. I have seen many a critique of Darwinism that goes just with the science, apart from any argument from the Bible.
Yup. Theistic evolution as it is generally held is enormously anti-evidential. The ID information has been very hard for the theistic evolutionists to handle. And here they thought they were being the scientific ones; now they've ended up being the real obscurantists.
"I have seen many a critique of Darwinism that goes just with the science, apart from any argument from the Bible."
Indeed, many secular scientists argue against key tenets of neo-Darwinism (e.g. James Shapiro, Stuart A. Newman, Denis Noble, Gerd Müller, Eva Jablonka, Shi Huang).
I find it immensely amusing that his premise falsifies the title of the book, that since Scripture doesn't tell us how God made everything it most assuredly doesn't tell us that evolution is true. A real doofus move for a guy with advanced degrees.
I'm not a scientist, nor have I studied evolutionary science in great depth, so forgive me if I'm oversimplifying.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand the theory: at one point in time, billions and billions of years ago, "nothing" exploded and sent space dust into ... well, nothing ... expanding the nothingness out into something. Later, that space dust in one particular universe and galaxy sort of reacted to other space dust and life was formed. It was mostly single-celled organisms, but eventually, bacteria and algae appeared, and over billions and billions of years ... what? Adapted to environmental factors and "became" the first living fish? Or did the fish just "appear"? Either way, these organisms became more complex because it was more advantageous to one's survival to be a monkey than a fish (and a man than a monkey).
Regardless, this chain could not have been broken at one point in time, since ending "life" as it was on Earth would have meant that man would have never evolved.
This all seems sort of preposterous.
>>>As I understand the theory
ReplyDeleteModern understanding of evolution is essentially silent on the the question of the origin of life. I am not a biologist myself, but someone who has studied physics - but what little I know that seems to be the case.
>>>at one point in time, billions and billions of years ago, "nothing" exploded and sent space dust into ... well
We just dont know what happened. The Big Bang is just one explanation (which has a lot going for it, btw) but there are several other models that deal with this.
>>>nothing ... expanding the nothingness out into something.
This is not difficult to believe if you understand general relativity.
>>>Later, that space dust in one particular universe and galaxy sort of reacted to other space dust and life was formed.
That is what definitely happened - biochemical reactions are real - but the cause of such an abrupt phenomena suddenly happening is not explained by secular scientists. Why did it happen this time and not other time such as can be tested in a science lab at human whim?
>>>Later, that space dust in one particular universe and galaxy sort of reacted to other space dust and life was formed.
DeleteI dont know what exactly you mean. I am assuming you meant elemental atoms reacted with each other in a way that created protein, life and the whole nine yards.
"The Big Bang is just one explanation"
DeleteSo both religion and science agree that the universe had a beginning, it seems. It is not eternal. I'm not a young Earth Creationist, so I don't find it problematic to say that this point in time occurred billions of years ago (or at least appears to have occurred that long ago).
I just think it's strange to suggest that this event occurred ex nihilo. Biology and physics assume that things occur as a reaction to some external cause. Given "x", thus "y". The problem with the Big Bang is not the theory itself, but with the atheist insistence that there was no "x" in the equation. It's an implicit rejection of science's own primary rules, it seems to me.
>>>So both religion and science agree that the universe had a beginning, it seems. It is not eternal.
DeleteNo. We just dont know. The model that suggests a beginning is a faulty physics model, so all bets are off!
>>>The problem with the Big Bang is not the theory itself, but with the atheist insistence that there was no "x" in the equation.
DeleteThe problem with Big Bang, from a physics perspective, is that we dont even know if it is true. We... Just.... dont.... know...
In the 1990s physicists could be forgiven to adhere to the Bang as a fact (not merely a theory). But in 2018, we have outlived that era.
James McCloud wrote:
Delete---
No. We just dont know. The model that suggests a beginning is a faulty physics model, so all bets are off!
---
This is 100% correct. To piggy-back off it, I would say that those who hold to an eternal universe have a more faulty physics model as we look at it today, but the problem for everyone is what looks faulty now might be orthodox in a hundred years.
Either way, current cosmology suggests that upwards of 90% of what makes up the universe is dark matter and dark energy, which by their very nature cannot be directly observed (which is why they are "dark") and the only real evidence we have for them is that our math about such things as the size & distribution of galaxies, or how fast stars spin on the edges of them, etc., doesn't work unless we add it in. Personally, I find it much more likely that our current mathematical models have significant errors than that dark matter/energy actually exist. I mean, if this theory had come before Relativity, I could easily see the scientific community arguing: "The reason Mercury's orbit doesn't match Newtonian physics is because of the influence of dark matter and energy, and we know it exists because Mercury's orbit is so wonky."
>>>Personally, I find it much more likely that our current mathematical models have significant errors than that dark matter/energy actually exist.
DeleteI just think we are not even close in currently understanding gravity even at a conceptual level. I think we have just felt at the elephants legs and built our explanations around it, but the leg cannot explain the ears, eyes, tail, trunk, head, etc. The leg cannot explain many things about itself either. We dont even know if it is an elephant we are talking about here.
I think a proper theory of gravitation must precede the so-called theory of everything. Unification of forces is, in my non-expert opinion, the least of our problems. Properly understanding gravity is the more immediate one, in terms of exotic physics quest. One can only appropriately move from there.
*correctly understanding
DeleteI'm not sure why the only options have to be the Young Earth view or theistic evolution. I have seen many a critique of Darwinism that goes just with the science, apart from any argument from the Bible.
ReplyDeleteYup. Theistic evolution as it is generally held is enormously anti-evidential. The ID information has been very hard for the theistic evolutionists to handle. And here they thought they were being the scientific ones; now they've ended up being the real obscurantists.
Deletegeoffrobinson
Delete"I have seen many a critique of Darwinism that goes just with the science, apart from any argument from the Bible."
Indeed, many secular scientists argue against key tenets of neo-Darwinism (e.g. James Shapiro, Stuart A. Newman, Denis Noble, Gerd Müller, Eva Jablonka, Shi Huang).
geoffrobinson wrote:
Delete---
I'm not sure why the only options have to be the Young Earth view or theistic evolution.
---
Well, speaking for myself, my view is neither ;-)
I find it immensely amusing that his premise falsifies the title of the book, that since Scripture doesn't tell us how God made everything it most assuredly doesn't tell us that evolution is true. A real doofus move for a guy with advanced degrees.
ReplyDeleteHe still got paid though. (Which, yeah, is my cynical way of saying that provocative titles sell more books than accurate titles do.)
Delete