Getting over our love for Darwin

It is also true that evolution in its ultimate sense is an atheistic philosophy.

 

More accurately, Lemaitre suggested that the universe began from a single point about the size of the solar system. He did not articulate the Big Bang. He said that the observations were evidence for the expansion, or firmament, that was created on Day 2. Only when his theory was morphed into the Naturalistic Big Bang by George Gamow was it allowed a place in scientific theories concerning the origin and evolution of the universe.

The point being that, again, theories are judged to be scientific, not on the observations, but on their adherence to the philosophical basis of Naturalism.

 

Most scientists and historians attribute the Big Bang to Lemaitre. Yes, others like Gamow developed it which resulted in wider acceptance than it had when it was initially proposed by Lemaitre. Gamow's contributions were not about "naturalizing" the theory but about filling in key gaps in the theory initially proposed by Lemaitre, specifically Big Bang nucleosynthesis which showed that the Big Bang could explain the presence of other elements in the universe besides hydrogen. Initially, observations of redshifting were done on the hydrogen spectrum because hydrogen is the simplest and most abundant element in the universe.

 

More that it is a non-theistic theory, in that it supposes nothing about the existence, or non-existence, of a supreme being.

 

Sources for George Lemaitre as the originator of the Big Bang theory.

PBS: People and Discoveries : Big Bang Theory introduced 1927
Encyclopedia Britannica: Georges Lemaitre
About.com: Space/Astronomy: Georges-Henri Lemaitre Biography: Father of the Big Bang Theory
Answers in Genesis: A Brief History of Intolerance in Modern Cosmology (A creationist website)

Aaron, what types of sources to you have that support the idea that Gamow was the originator of the Big Bang theory and not Lemaitre?

 

I disagree! Evolution in its ultimate sense and by its nature is an atheistic philosophy.

 

I'm not saying his theory wasn't instrumental in it's development, but to be accepted as scientific it had to be morphed into a non-theistic, Naturalistic process. What Lemaitre proposed is not what is called the Big Bang.

The point being that it is a particular philosophy that governs the institution of science these days, and that philosophy is Naturalism. Darwinism is no more scientific that I.D., but it's called science because it's Naturalistic, and theistic explanations are rejected, not because they don't fit the evidence, but simply because they are theistic. As stated in one of your own citations: If the Big Bang cosmological scenario is abandoned, the question of what will replace it is a major issue because a more viable nontheistic contender does not now exist.

To require an explanation to be nontheistic is a philosophical demand, not a scientific one.

 

Not so. Evolution is silent about the existence of God. This is a matter not addressed at all by the theory of evolution. It is, if you will, agnostic about the existence of a god or gods.

 

I know what you are saying. But what you are saying has no basis in reality. It is a figment of your imagination.

1. What Lemaitre proposed is now called the Big Bang (granted this was a name given to it by critics). Links in post #45

2. The contributions of Gamow and others did not "naturalize" Lemaitre's theory but added components like explanations for elements besides hydrogen. Links in post #39

3. Darwin and advocates of evolution like talk.origins believe that a creator could be behind evolution. Quotes in post #33 and #40

4. Lemaitre and many early advocates of the Big Bang believed that a creator was behind the Big Bang. Quote in post #45


Like OldRegular, your repetition of false statements do not make them true.

 

The OP addresses ID, not natural selection. These threads usually denegrate from discussing the validity of ID to an anti-evolution debate. Usually in these arguments, anyone who says anything that disagrees with ID get villified, are called liberals, have their salvation question, are accused of not believing scripture, etc.

Frankly, I have no particular interest in discussing natural selection. Alas, I got baited into that by a pseudotroll.

On the topic of Intelligent Design, ID doesn't proport to make any assertion about the development of life forms. It only asserts that the structure of life forms suggests a designer. It does not discount natural selection, nor does it even address it. Further, ID does not assert that life was created by God, or for that matter, any supernatural force at all. The only problem with ID is that it isn't a science. It is a theological argument. It's one that I happen to agree with, btw.

 

Johnv:

Have I called you a liberal, questioned your salvation, accused you of not believing Scripture?

I guess I have been called worse and probably by one who can spell better. The word is pseudo-troll or pseudo troll. Troll! Is that one of those mythical creatures who hide under bridges? No! No! They live in caves! Now where does a pseudo, troll that is, live?

Now riddle me this. If ID does not assert that life was created by God, or for that matter, any supernatural force at all how can it be a theological argument? Just curious! Can pseudo-trolls be curious or do you have to be a real life troll? Or perhaps a Johnv?

 

You? Not to my knowlege.

That's a good question. ID as we know is was formulated and popularized by the Discovery Institute, who assert that the designer to be the God of Christianity. The ID argument is consistently used to assert a supernatural deity. The Dicscovery Institute acknowleges that they avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer, but that they use ID to foster a belief in the existence of the God of Scripture.

I myself use it as a theological argument frequently, and have found it to be a very effective theological argument.

 

You're attempting to present Darwinists and Big Bang adherents as open to theistic explanations. That is false.

 

I'll requote the things I posted before because you seem to be unable to read previous posts.

Darwin open to theistic explanations

Darwinists open to theistic explanations

George Lemaitre more than just open to theistic explanations.

Other Big Bang adherents open to theistic explanations

In his book "The Creation of the Universe" on p.681, George Gamow made reference to a "divine creation curve".

 

What they mean by "God" or "Creation" is really an undiscovered, naturalistic particle or abstract principle.

 

I have not made any false statements! I simply state that: Evolution in its ultimate sense and by its nature is an atheistic philosophy. Now if you want to call me a liar then prove the statement is false.

 

I gotta defend OR here. It's one thing to respectfully disagree with his statement. It's another thing to accuse him of a falsehood.

The problem in topics such as these is not that people often disagree. The problem is that little respect is shown those with whom one disagrees. It's not necessary to accuse someone who does not adhere to a 6x6k creation model as not believing the Bible. Likewise, it's not necessary to accuse someone who does adhere to a 6x6k creation model as being ignorant of science. Unfortunately, we often go down that road with the mentality of "I better accuse him before he accuses me". I'm no stranger to that mentality. I submit that discussions such as these can be better handled by dispensing more grace, respect, and civility.

 

I don't think you are a liar. You just believe in a statement that is false despite evidence to the contrary. And repetition of that statement does not make it true. I have repeatedly shown how the creator, proponents and supporters of evolution acknowledge the possibility of a creator behind evolution. If that isn't proof, tell me what is.

I asked you who defines this atheistic "ultimate sense" of evolution. Wouldn't that be its creator, proponents and adherents? Why is it that critics define this ultimate sense of evolution? Would you let political liberals define the "ultimate sense" of conservative policy?

 

Can anyone show me where the Bible speaks of the North American population of ten thousand years ago?

Cheers,

Jim

 

I have no doubt you believe what you stated ... but you are wrong IMHO. There are many Christians who believe God created using evolution.