Big Bang Critics

Big bang is a theory from cosmology. Evolution is a theory of biological diversity. These are two quite separate theories from two different sciences.If you want people to take your arguments seriously, it is best to start with some study. That way you won't make huge mistakes (such as treating two entirely different theories as if they are one theory).

I can't agree with your characterization as "backward" reasoning. I'm still a little skeptical of Big Bang, mainly because I don't think there is yet enough empirical evidence. By contrast, there is a great deal of supporting evidence for evolution. I don't know exactly what is being taught. I am aware that there are serious problems in the quality of science teaching, particularly at elementary schools. I guess that's what happens when you hire a teacher in one area, and then ask that teacher to handle classes outside the area of expertise. Many schools have not recruited teachers with adequate expertise in science.

As far as I know, there isn't anything that would preclude your version of the source of the singularity. But there isn't any empirical evidence in support of it either, so such an assertion would not be part of science. "Evolving" is correct there. That just means that it is changing. Note that the word "evolving", when used for the universe, is not in any way related to the biological theory of evolution. I sure hope that people are not being confused by two unrelated uses of the same word.As for "improving" -- that's a mistaken idea. Many scientists would be more likely to say that the universe is slowly running down. But there are regions with young stars, as well as regions with old and even some burnt out stars. The term "Big Bang" is a metaphor. As used, it does apply to a singularity. To use "Big Bang" as the outcome of expanding would confuse people, because that would be a change of meaning. Science should not say that it is, and science should not say that it isn't.

Not really. I'm not arguing that BB is wrong. I'm just seeing it as a little short on evidence at present.

Agreed. I expect that the evidence I would like to see is beyond our capabilities. I take scientific theories to be models that fit the data well. I do not take them to be metaphysical truth, and I am inclined to be skeptical on whether "metaphysical truth" is even meaningful. Thus I see GR as well confirmed by the data. But to assume an actual singularity requires extrapolation that goes beyond what the confirming data can support.

In a way, I am a theorist about cognitive science. And it is my investigation there that leads me to my current view on the role of scientific theory. I would like to see some actual evidence that the universe is expanding. This could be in the form of the velocities of distant galaxies. But this would have to be velocity in the sense of rate of change of distance -- not merely red shift.

That could be an indicator of curvature of space-time. And the cosmic redshift could also be a consequence of that curvature.I'm skeptical, in the sense that I am keeping my options open. Big Bang is a good theory in the sense that it accounts for much of the evidence. But it goes a bit too far in that it has consequences that go beyond what the currently available evidence can support.

It's not exactly an urgent problem. I can wait a few millenia By the way, I agree that our discussion has been on topic.

I'm just commenting on a few points in your post. The difference is that we have strong empirical evidence for our science, and we can make useful predictions with it. Possibly correct. But note that the Big Bang theory is not a theory of the origin of the universe. It is a theory about what happened in the early universe, shortly after its origin. The science really isn't circular, although it may appear that way. The distinction is that with electrical fields and charges, we can go out and measure them. They are defined by their physical behavior, which is what the measuring makes use of. They only look circular when you try to treat the definitions as abstractions disconnected from the physical behavior.The mistake you are making throughout your long post, is that you are not understanding the relevance of the empirical nature of science, and all of the careful testing that entails.

I'm glad to see your name change. Now if you could help us out with your quoting, that would be really nice.Here is what I do. I use
[qs]text to be quoted[/qs]That shows up as By the way, you can click on the "peek" button to see how I did this. Several of the scientists who regularly post here are christians, and believe in a creator. They also believe that the theory of evolution is an account of how the creator worked to create the diversity we see in biological systems.

The name comes from astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, and was originally intended as ridicule. Hoyle had an alternative theory (the steady state theory), but the evidence favored BB cosmology. Although intended as ridicule, the name stuck.