Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Gil Hardwick (
Wed, 26 Apr 1995 04:04:08 GMT

In article <>, ( writes:
>Hmmm. Just scanned 8 astronomy texts, all containing explanation of
>the big bang. None of them mention god, the need for a god, etc. In
>fact, to my knowledge, only those that need a crutch like astrology,
>god, etc., try to read "God" into the theory of the big bang model of
>the universe. Else, the theory, as most in the sciences makes no
>comment on the topic, as it falls outside the realm of science.

What is being said, Scott, in the absence of far more substantially
factual data being offered which any of us might be free to observe
freely and independently for ourselves, is merely that Big Bang is
being invoked by astronomers in place of God.

The actual written word "God" failing to appear in astronomy texts is
not at issue. As somebody else had mentioned in a different context,
anyone with a word processor handy can carry out a Find and Replace
operation without altering the sense of the text in any way at all.

It remains, when all is said and done, that while you may not need a
God you do need a Big Bang for the similar purpose of anchoring your
manifold prognostications within the one single construct.

So what IS the difference? Please don't persist in arguing in your
defence over what may or may not be "outside the realm of science".

We have been over that currently financially lucrative esoterica ad
nauseam here on sci.anthropology.

He who refuses to qualify data is doomed to rant.
+61 97 53 3270