Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
David Thomas (firstname.lastname@example.org)
20 Apr 1995 13:59:51 -0400
In article <D7Bp5K.J1I@crash.cts.com>,
Robert Roosen <email@example.com> wrote:
: David Thomas (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
: : In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.950416110029.27051Demail@example.com>,
: : Robert Roosen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
: : > The big bang cosmologists seem to have a much lower opinion of
: : >God's capabilities :-)
: : >Robert
: : Or a higher opinion of nature's.
: OK, I'll bite. What's the difference between nature and God?
Bite? I hadn't realised I was dropping a hook! You wrote:
In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.950416110029.27051Demail@example.com>,
Robert Roosen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
: My best read on American scientists during that era is that they
: were most impressed by Bishop Paley's "Argument by Design".
: The idea was that the universe shows such ingenious design
: principles that there must be a creator behind it.
: Dr. Abbot's description is based on a traveler landing on a
: desert island and finding a watch lying on the ground keeping perfect
: time. That watch did not evolve there. It was put there by a higher
: The big bang cosmologists seem to have a much lower opinion of
: God's capabilities :-)
For a cosmologist to believe that the (presumably allegorical) watch evolved
might say something about his or her opinion of (the laws of) nature, but it
says nothing about his opinion of God.
David Thomas Ohio State University
email@example.com Department of Physics