Is it possible they could both be correct?
Why can the Big Bang and Creationism theory not co-exist. Is it not possible that during the 7 days, that millions of years actually passed. Is it not possible that in all reality God is still on his 7th day of rest, and when he reaches the 8th day the book of Revelations will come true. I am not saying I lean toward one way or the other. I just don’t understand based on theory and evidence why both cannot be true
because complexity is the very thing that we are trying to explain, and to a great extent have. Positing a Supernatural diety(and therefore ultimately complex ) to be the starting point defeats the whole process, and makes the whole endevour redundant. The big bang theory was not made on an assumption, and we have a good understanding of the begging of the universe up till about 10*33 seconds after the big bang. Now just throwing in a HUGE assumption, such as a deity would be a silly thing to do. Its not science, a good theory involves parsimony, and god is the ultimate assumption. It explains nothing.
Now if we were to find evidence of a god, at the beggining of the universe this would be a very different thing, and very exciting!! But no evidence has ever been found of a god, so theres no reason to assume there was or is one.
Science doesn’t assume, so the greatest assumption of all ie; GOD is not compatable.
[edit] I did put yes to your question, because it is possible, but it is also possible that unicorns once existed, though highly improbable. Anything is possible… and therefore the starting point of science is not to make any assumptions, and use evidence as our guide.
no, god is the second greatest assumption of all…
the greatest assumption of all is that nature is uniform (that the future will resemble the past)
there is no logical reason to make this assumption
yet it is this very assumption upon which all science is based.
science requires a huge leap of faith… the introduction and production of god is simply a complication of the original error…
-Imp
Not even close.
Not even in the same ballpark.
We know so little it’s not even funny.
On the contrary, if it is the right sort of God it explains everything…
What would, to you, count as evidence for a God? You, the fervent atheist come scientist who reeks of Dawkins, must be able to falsify your theory otherwise it isn’t scientific…
Science assumes at every step of the way, belief in God assumes only at the first step…
I dunno, the feckless speculations of these cosmological types are amusing in some regards, especially when one compares the amount of money spent in researching this area to the amount spent on researching political philosophy, you know, something which might actually lead to the solution of a practical problem rather than a vague question that we haven’t even phrased clearly…
Yeah they can co-exist but only in the sense that they don’t rule each other out.
The creationism ideal is that God is magic and he just did whatever was required and we can’t disprove it so it must be right…
You can do it but it is a strange step to take.
Oh, and I don’t think past resembles future is a radical assumption, because you can show that the past is consistent or follows a consistent trend. The converse argument is bizarre, because it implies that the present is some magic moment where the rules change for no reason. There is only a logic there if we cannot trust our observations…
an assumption is an assumption. period. it is an error in reasoning.
you cannot trust your observations… and as far the error of induction is concerned, hume’s arguments stand unrefuted…
-Imp
Scientific theories are based on observable data and repeatable experiments.
Religion is based on faith, which is an absence of proof. Attempting to scientifically justify religious beliefs negates faith.
“repeatable”
and by what facility does one know that the future will occur exactly as predicted?
-Imp
But the real reason to keep them separate is that they are totally devoted to different things. Science with the physical, religion with the metaphysical. Science cannot prove or disprove the metaphysical. It is of necessity completely indifferent to it.
We don’t, obviously, or we could perform one experiment and be done with it. We need to repeat the experiment in order to determine probability, which is what scientific theory is based upon.
Jerry,
It depends on how one defines metaphysics, in the academic sense or the popular sense. Quantum physics, esp.string theory, is metaphysical. What if we discover that thought and belief changes the vibration of a “string” which changes our physical reality? We know that matter is energy and time is relative today, but when Einstein’s theories were first presented it was a major paradigm shift in how we interpret our world and our reality. Our reality today will be far different from our reality 50 years into the future.
Shy,
Well, meta meaning “beyond.” In this case, metaphysics is by definition not concerned with the physical world, but that which transcends it. Now, physics might point us at some juncture to the idea that everything is immanent and explainable and all right here, and this is interesting to contemplate. But even then, science can only help us so far in unraveling the mysteries of nature because in the end analysis, we ourselves our part of nature and therefore part of the mystery we are trying to solve. Always there will be room for religion.
Always there will be something “beyond.”
and here you have the dilemma…
repeated twice? ten times? one hundred?
there is still no guarantee after seventeen billion…
not to mention that the exact same experiment can never be repeated…
-Imp
The distinguishing factor here is precedent.
Sciences works apon precedent, where religious faith is bereft of it.
Imp,
I don’t know why I find this so freaking cool,but I do. Probability lies further away from possibility than the average person is willing to accept.
We chalk our cue, hit the cue ball…a butterfly flaps it’s wings in our face at the last second, the ball flies off the table and hits an angry biker in the head…uh-oh… Who saw that coming? 
Great thread.
Hum, am i hearing chaos theory along with the original claim?
Humans, plot, plan, and God laughs as we step in shit!
darwin on his death bed, “I look into the complexity of the eye, and wonder if there was intelligent design.” Or something to that effect.
Let me explain intelligent design like this… We actually use 100% of our brain to percieve our soul. That love is not a chemical in the brain that can only be turned on by the touch of another person,… and nothing can synthasize this touch but a person. That the human soul is neither male nor female,… and it takes love between the sexes to force us to look beyond estrogin and testosterone and into the soul.
Except for the thousands of years of recorded history during which none of the natural laws have changed and nearly every type of natural phenomenon has been consistant. If the assumption that the future would resemble the past wasn't empirically verified (to the greatest extent that it can be empirically verified,) you would have no reason to have faith that by pressing the submit button you would actually cause a chain of events that would lead to your statement being posted - all you would have is a high statistical coorelation.
I see the value in the recognition of this shortcoming of science, but in order to analyze anything (including the effects of pressing buttons on your PC, the development of life on earth, and the growth and development of the universe,) there are certain assumptions that need to be made. The assumption that natural laws are consistant is as verified as is possible. Without making this assumption, people would be stuck in a dead-end, absurdist, existential hell - while this is a fine phase for a student of philosophy to go through, it would do quite a number on us if the entire human species functioned this way.
What have you explained - that intelligent design (and the notion of the soul) are loosely defined and largely hocus-pocus? That's all I can pull from this.
I would agree that there will always be room for religion, unfortunately. The problem with religion is that it convinces people that there are answers to questions that there aren't really identifiable (or even observably probable) answers to, which too often leads them to stop questioning altogether (or never learn how to question and investigate systems that they function within.) Religion, by teaching that answers are true "just because," deprives people of their ability to investigate and better their environment and themselves.
Religion is metaphysical - that doesn't mean it is contructive.