Explain and illustrate the conflict between religion and the big bang theory.

---

Request for Question Clarification by kriswrite-ga on 20 May 2004 12:57 PDT

Which religion?

Kriswrite

---

Request for Question Clarification by digsalot-ga on 20 May 2004 13:06 PDT

As Kriswrite says, we need to know which religion or faith.  For many,
there is no conflict at all.  And for other religions, the conflict is
only seen within particular denominations or sects within it.  In
Christianity for example, some demoninations are quite comfortable
with it and others almost violently oppose it.

Some such as Buddhism embrace it wholeheartedly as it fits within the
Buddhist teachings about the cosmos from 2500 years ago.

So there is no overall dispute between religion and the Big Bang. 
There are denominational disputes and we need to narrow it to that in
order to provide a sensible answer.

Cheers
Digs

---

Clarification of Question by anniepannie-ga on 20 May 2004 13:39 PDT

I guess just between christianity in general, generis 1: divine
creation, etc.  I hope this helps.

Hi Anniepannie~

This is a massive topic that many volumes could (and have!) been
written about, but let?s cover the basics.




?CREATIONISM?

Christianity adheres to the Biblical account of creation, found in the
first chapters of the book of Genesis. (You can read the Biblical
account at Bible Gateway:
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=genesis&version=NIV
)

Briefly, the Bible states that God made the heavens and the earth on
the first day of creation. Then, during the remaining week of
creation, God fashioned the earth as a home for humans?-who were
specially made in the image of God.

Most Christians take the Biblical account literally; some Christians
believe the ?days? mentioned in the account are not days as we know
them. This theory, which has come under heavy fire in recent years,
claims that the six days of creation should be understood in the same
way the phrase "in that day" is in Isaiah 11:10-11...the ?days? may be
more than 24 hours, they say. In either case, Christians believe that
God created the universe, in a particular fashion, in particular
layers.




?THE BIG BANG?

Proponents of the Big Bang theory, however, find the Biblical account
ludicrous. They believe the universe is much older than the Bible
tells it to be (about 15 billion years old, as opposed to the Biblical
view of 6,000 to no more than 10,000 years), and that the universe
began not with a creator, but with an ?accident.? From that initial
?accident? (or ?big bang?) everything that exists today gradually
evolved. (To read more about the Big Bang theory, check out The
University of Michigan?s ?The Big Bang:?
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm )





CONFLICTS

The Big Bang theory teaches that humans?-all of creation, in fact?-are
"accidents." Christianity teaches that we are not accidents, but were
created very specifically and specially to be in the image of God.

The Big Bang theory teaches a slow and gradual evolution of things.
Christianity teaches that humans have not evolved, but were created in
the same image we exist today.

The Big Bang theory claims it took billions of years for the world to
come to it?s present state of ?evolution.? Christianity argues that a
literal six day creation is possible (see ?Physics Show That Six Day
Creation is Possible,? Creation Science Evangelism,
http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=PhysicsShowthatSixDayCreationisPossible.jsp
) and, more importantly, that the Bible is the word of God and
therefore infallible.

Big Bang theorists rely on carbon dating to help back up their theory.
Christian scientists point to evidence (also produced by non-Christian
scientists) that carbon dating is incorrect (see ?Doesn?t carbon
dating or Potassium Argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years
old?? Christian Science Evangelism:
http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=CarbonPotassiumargondating.jsp
)

Big bang theorists resist the idea that life began with any sort of
supernatural or Godly intervention. But this sort of ?creationism? is
at the heart of Christianity.



Regards,
Kriswrite


KEYWORDS USED:
creationism vs. big bang
://www.google.com/search?q=creationism+vs.+big+bang&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N

---

Clarification of Answer by kriswrite-ga on 20 May 2004 14:29 PDT

P.S. For some good websites giving explanations of The Big Bang
theory, and for additional websites that argue against it, you may
wish to check out this Google Answer, "Some web sites with info and
diagrams of Big Bang":
http://www.answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=345268

thiss was an excellent answer for me.  Thanks.  This was my first time
to ask a question and believe me it won't be the last.

What conflict?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100715

(May take a minute to load the article.)

There is no conflict. From the basis of a religion that uses the
Bible, and does not add to it to make IT fit their ideals, Genesis
1;16 says that God made or created the luminaries, sun and moon, ALSO
THE STARS. How He did it is really beyond our comprehension now and we
may never know. Isaiah 55;8,9...For as the heavens are higher than the
earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts than your
thoughts. If God made ONE star, then He made ALL stars. And we have
not yet seen all of them. As for the earth, Jeremiah 45;18..For this
is what Jehovah [ god`s name] has said, the creator of the heavens. He
the true God,the former of the earth and the MAKER of it, He the one
who firmly established it, WHO DID NOT CREATE IT SIMPLY FOR NOTHING,
who formed it EVEN TO BE INHABITED.

I would like to compliment Kriswrite-ga on the excellent research for
this answer.  However, there are a few errors in the links provided
that need to be addressed before somebody mistakenly accepts them as
fact.

The first is the website from which this statement is based. - "Big
Bang theorists rely on carbon dating to help back up their theory.
Christian scientists point to evidence (also produced by non-Christian
scientists) that carbon dating is incorrect (see ?Doesn?t carbon
dating or Potassium Argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years
old??

Now scientists are already aware of the errors in the carbon dating
method but the article does not mention at any point how those errors
are overcome and provides some information which is simply wrong.

Carbon dating is not used to date the Earth but only as a method of
dating fairly recent life on the Earth.  As an archaeologist, we do
still use carbon dating but we do not use it to establish dates from
remote history but only from the past few thousand years.  It does
state that in the article.  Where things go wrong is in their
assessment that carbon dating cannot be trusted is here: - "They are,
obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has
always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant.
Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable."..."Present
testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing
since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the
declining strength of the magnetic field."

Both of those statements are wrong and misleading.  I will attribute
that to simple error on their part when attempting to put together
their evidence.  It is very difficult for the most dedicated scientist
to know everything that is going on in every other field.

First, until the industrial revolution and the increased burning of
fossil fuels, the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere had remained
steady for eons.  The article maintains that this is unprovable, but
that is not the case.  It has already been proven.

It has been proven through the study of what is known as "fossil air."
 The steady state of carbon-14 till the last 50-100 years has been
validated by means of ice core studies.

Antarctica and Greenland have allowed us to sample and study the
Earth's atmospheric history to the extent we can provide an unbroken
300,000 year timeline of any changes made in its composition,
including those of the last 50-100 years.

The ice holds the atmospheric record.  The deepest part of the ice
fell as snow tens upon tens of thousands of years ago.  Such ice not
only contains chemicals and particles from our atmosphere such as
dust, pollen, volcanic ash, etc, but as it compressed under repeated
snow falls, the small air spaces between the individual snow flakes
also compressed into ever smaller air bubbles, thus trapping minute
samples of Earth's atmosphere for us to study today - "fossil air." 
The deeper the ice the tinier the bubbles but more than enough to give
us a continuous sample of the Earth's atmosphere as it was in the
past.  The oldest ice cores so far are from Vostoc Station,
Antarctica, at just over 300,000 years.  The carbon-14 measurements
have remained steady throughout that time.

Now what about the rise in carbon-14 during the last 50-100 years?

This carbon-14 increase has a name.  It is called the "Autobhan
effect," named because the first evidence of it was found in plant
samples taken from the regions immediately bordering that famous
German highway.  The increase in carbon-14 in our atmosphere is no
more than a form of industrial pollution, declining strength of the
magnetic field has little to do with it.  Earth's magnetic field has
strengthened and weakened many times in the past, yet the carbon-14
remained steady.

The effect has little or no bearing on organic samples coming from
earlier times, only on those things which have lived since the
industrial age began.  Once something dies, it can absorb no more
carbon.  The way archaeologists overcome the possibility of
atmospheric pollution ruining a sample which needs dating is quite
simple.  Carbon-14 which is a "metabolized" part of living tissue
provides a different signature than does carbon-14 which has been
added from the atmosphere or from other sources since the sample to be
dated died.  It has to do with the way the carbon is bonded or
not-bonded to the other molecules making up the chemistry of the
sample.  The amount of externally caused carbon-14 contaminant in a
sample to be dated can be discerned and an accurate reading made.

The website used as a link in the answer is in error.

As for dating the universe, other methodologies are employed such as
uranium dating:
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/5/2/5 - physics web
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2002/10/image/g
- Hubble Site News Center

The next thing I would like to address is a straight statement from the answer"

"Big bang theorists resist the idea that life began with any sort of
supernatural or Godly intervention. But this sort of ?creationism? is
at the heart of Christianity."

While such a statement may have a certain propaganda value to those in
the "creationist" community, it is very highly misleading at best.

Big Bang theorists resist the idea of a young earth and a six day
creation.  That does not mean they deny any supernatural or Godly
intervention.  While some do, most don't.  Those who are creationists
seem to think (or want others to think) that cosmologists,
astronomers, archaeologists and others who deal with the dating of
civilization, the Earth and the Universe are somehow all non-belivers
just because they won't buckle under to a six day, young earth
theology and base their science on such a premise.

Because of my archaeological training, the study of other aspects of
"dating" things, including the universe are all part of it.  I have
known many cosmologists.  All but one practice a faith and one of my
closest friends who is a professor of Cosmology and astrophysics is an
Episcopalian priest.

Now I'm sure Kriswrite did not mean any offense.  But the use of such
language by the creationist community is something we have put up with
for years and it has now reach the point that whenever we see it or
hear it, regardless of where that may be, we will challenge it and
correct it.

There is no overall conflict between Christianity and the scientific
community regarding either the Big Bang or evolution in general.  The
vast majority of Christianity, including Roman Catholic (which itself
'is' the majority of Christians)  Eastern Orthodoxy, the Anglican
Communion and most all mainline churches accept evolutionary principle
as part of their teachings.

The only conflict comes from the "conservative" Christian Community
(sometimes known under the umbrella heading as evangelicals).  So an
earlier statement that "most" Christians accept a literal
interpretation of the creation is in error and in fact those who do
accept such a literal view of things are a definite minority within
the world Christian community.

Digsalot

I found this excellent book.. its available in zip but should take
some time to download... makes an excellent reading

http://www.irf.net/book3.zip

Just one small comment on what "digsalot-ga" says:

digsalot-ga wrote:
> As for dating the universe, other methodologies are employed such as
> uranium dating:

Uranium dating is typically used for dating the Earth and other solar
system objects. Dating the Universe is much easier. Because the speed
of light is finite, it takes time for light to reach us, and the further
away an astronomical object is the longer the light has taken to reach
you (and so the further into the past you are looking). With big telescopes
we can see so far back that the light has taken billions of years to reach
us (corresponding to distances of billions of "light years"). At a distance
of about 14 billion "light years" a strange thing is seen -- you essentially
just see very hot gas. This is telling you that 14 billion years ago the
Universe was just a ball of hot gas (and much smaller than it is now). This
is called the big bang. In principle it's very simple -- you just have to
look through telescopes and you see the answers. In practice the theories
explaining the expansion of the universe are a little more complex, and the
observational techniques actually used are a little more subtle.

Further information can be found at:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=345268

Note that several of the websites have inaccuracies. I would recommend the
following, however:

For one view about why the Big Bang theory is wrong, check out
?Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God,? at Leadership University:
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html
The comments about angular momentum, clumping and "voids" are all
incorrect on this website. In all three areas the Big Bang theory
agrees well with observations of our Universe.

Here?s a pretty thorough explanation of the Big Bang theory, complete
with diagrams, from the University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

CCLRC Rutherford also has a good site on the Big Bang theory:
http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/pub/bigbang/part1.html

Here is a very interesting UCLA site, answering questions about the
theory: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

And a flash timeline of the Big Bang by School Science:
http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/flash/bang.htm

Finally, here?s NASA?s information on the theory:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

The other websites include misquotes, errors and misleading text,
so I won't recommend them here.

Check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/.