Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Phil A. Willems (
27 Apr 1995 22:16:38 GMT

In article <>,
<> wrote:
>In article <>, (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>> 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.

Gil, you seem to the think that cosmologists are rabid
warriors intent on forcing a new religion upon the masses, and you
take as one of your central points the "lack of free and independent
evidence" in favor of the theory.

I would point out to you that people have been killing each
other more or less continuously for the past 2 millenia over their
differing interpretations of Christ. I would like to freely and
independently hear for myself what Christ had to say, or even see that
he really existed. I can't. On the other hand, you or I could, and
many researchers do, perform new experiments to test big bang
cosmology. It is intellectually lazy to claim that you cannot check
an observation when in fact you simply don't want to.

>> 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.

I agree with you that the urge to explain the universe in a
single construct is compelling. It has been at least since the
ancient Greeks.

>> 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".

The difference between current scientific cosmology and, say,
metaphysics is definitely one of methods, to be sure. Scientific
cosmology is far more quantitative. And many other cosmologies did
try to fit the theory to available facts, as Ptolemy did. I would
not hastily separate Ptolemy from modern science, as he worked with
the evidence at hand. We have new evidence at hand. Please
consider it.