Hey there! I want to clear up a little misconception for you here. The Big Bang is both a theory and a fact. Just like gravity and evolution.

The “fact” is the observable parts of the big bang. For example, we observe things like the Cosmic Microwave Background (the static on your tv!) and the expansion of space in all directions, and then we build a theory that explains all the evidence. So, Big Bang Theory is our best explanation for the Big Bang evidence we have. As more evidence comes in we adjust the theory to completely explain the evidence. NASA actually just completed the WMAP survey which gave us the most accurate age of the universe yet: 13.73 billion years. How’s that for old???

That is a world away from having faith in supernatural events written in a book by man several thousand years ago. A scientific theory is only as good as the evidence that supports it.

Same thing is true of Evolution. We have the “facts” of evolution, such as genetic records, fossil records, and direct observation of species. And then we have the current Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection, which explains those facts. As more evidence comes in we refine the theory to explain the facts. If something in the theory is wrong or doesn’t fit the evidence we rework the theory to fit the evidence.

It’s this ability to change out minds based on more evidence that makes science so much more powerful than faith. I’ve always found it funny how people of faith revel in revelation; in discovery… but when in fact, the greatest revelations of our time are coming from science! We’re in the thick of it right now and some don’t even realize! We’re uncovering the mystery of the infinitely small, and peering back in time through telescopes that can nearly touch creation! This is the most wonderful time of discovery to be alive in all of human history, but a large majority of people in the world just sit there reciting verses from books written by men in the desert thousands of years ago. It makes me sad that more people don’t appreciate and understand the giant leaps humankind is taking right now! We need to shed the skins of our past and plow bravely into this new and exciting world that’s just waiting to be understood! Cheers!

Expelled; No Intelligence Allowed is simply asking that question.”

Uh, are you sure that’s the question it’s asking? My understanding is that it claims there is valid scientific evidence, using the standard scientific method, to support the existence of an “intelligent designer”, and that this evidence is being suppressed for ideological reasons by an atheistic conspiracy. Please correct me if I’m wrong. That’s not quite the same thing as what you’re saying. What you’r saying is that the scientific method itself is antithetical to the religious world view (the fundamentalist version, anyway) that all knowledge ultimately comes from divine revelation. With that, I couldn’t agree more.

Christians aren’t being forced to be indoctrinated into anything. Our society has decided, rightly I think, that a scientific education is something of value to be imparted to every citizen. And there are certain rules and procedures that must be followed in order for science to be science. A scientific education requires presenting the facts and theories as they are best understood at the moment. And if people feel those facts contradict their religious beliefs, frankly that’s their problem.

It was once considered blasphemous, to the point of deserving execution, to believe the earth rotated around the sun, or that matter was composed of atoms. Religion’s track record on defining “truth” is not too enviable.

Much of what is taught as “fact” in the realm of science is not fact at all, but is the current best hypothesis. When I went through the public education system too many years ago to be proud of, one “fact” that was taught was that the smallest building blocks of matter were atoms. Science now understands that atoms are composed of much smaller particles than the proton, neutron, and electron, i.e.; the grouping of particles into the families of fermions and bosons; fermions being represented by leptons and quarks, each of which is represented by six variations. Then we get into the mechanical concept of “spin”.
It’s not my intent to discuss or debate particle physics in this forum, my point is that science correctly updates the “current best hypothesis” fairly often and when new findings support it. That is a good thing.

The problem is that we’re talking about ultimate truths here, not best guesses. I don’t believe you’ll find an instance where a scientific “FACT!” contradicts Biblical truth. Many, many commonly held “facts” are not factual at all, but are based on layers and layers of assumptions.
We all have faith in something…be it science, our God, or ourselves. To deny that is an exercise in futility. Fundamentalists put their faith in the word of God.

Do you think a Fundamentalist is less offended at being forced to listen to satements of faith, such as the Big Bang theory, than an Atheist is at being forced to listen to statements of faith such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Oh, wait…..Atheists aren’t forced to be indoctrinated into a Christian worldview. Why should Christians be indoctrinated into secular naturalism?

Expelled; No Intelligence Allowed is simply asking that question.

“I was wondering though, if the 1st 11 chapters of the Bible aren’t true.. How can the rest be? In answer I say none, if the foundation of the Bible is just a story, then the Truth of of Salvation, is also false….”

To me, it seems the obvious answer is: If the facts contradict your beliefs, then you should modify your beliefs. However, the fundamentalist approach is: If the facts contradict your beliefs, you must modify (ignore, distort) the facts.

Two different world views, to be sure. It seems obvious to me which is the right one to follow.

No one has an open mind, true. That is what gives the scientific method its power. When properly applied, it allows the discovery of knowledge that is not encumbered by subjectivity. The proof of the power of this method is in its results: The technologies, medical treatments, and discoveries of the physical workings of the universe (from the largest extraterestrial bodies to the most minute subatomic particles) speak for themselves. True, there are instances where an individual’s subjectivity might impede his ability to properly follow the sceintific method, but that is why the peer-review system exists: to correct any such errors.

When creationist institutions like AiG state up front that they are assuming from the outset that all results must conform to a narrow, literalist interpretation of the Bible, they are expressing their contempt and disregard for the scientific process. And that’s their prerogative. However, it is then hypocritical of them to demand that they be given any credence from legitimate scientific institutions, and that their beliefs be taught as science.

I also wonder how you can reconcile your belief that scientific facts are open to subjective interpretation, with your insistence that there is only one objectively true interpretation of holy scripture. The existence of hundreds of different sects of Christianity, alone, would seem to bely that.

Thanks for the link to NAIG… I’ve explored there a good bit I was wondering though, if the 1st 11 chapters of the Bible aren’t true.. How can the rest be? In answer I say none, if the foundation of the Bible is just a story, then the Truth of of Salvation, is also false….

And your statement “Science requires examining evidence with an open mind” I find quite interesting… For no one has a completely open mind… For each and everyone of us (including scientists) has a presupposition, all facts are neutral, nothing comes with tags on it saying how old it is… These neutral facts are interpreted by scientists who are subjective.. Plain and simple… And I have to say according to AiG’s statement of faith… If the Bible is true, which it has proven to be many times… Then what better place to start our thinking from..
Cheers,
LydiaC