Liquidrage

The big bang shows that the universe had a starting point.
Even if it turns out that it's a repeating process as of now the big-bang is more pro-creationist then would be a universe that has always been there.

Hawkings in his updated version (10th) of a Brief History of Time is going against the big bang.
He also points on in that book that the big bang was a blow to atheistic scientists.
Though my whole life it seems as if the big bang was a blow to creationism.

*had to pick a forum. if it's wrong pick one*

CodeMason

Creationists are generally biblical literalists, and the bible doesn't say anything about the big bang, so naturally they hate it.

Apikorus

Many creationists like the Big Bang a great deal. The reason is that a Universe which had no beginning would have no need for an initial cause, and they identify the "cause" of the Universe as God. Hence Christian philospher-apologists like William Lane Craig are quite attached to the idea of the Big Bang - so much so that they attack any other scenarios (such as Hartle-Hawking) which don't involve an initial singularity.

Eudaemon

I would think those would have to be Old Earth Creationists (OEC). The YECs I have run into simply can't stand the idea of the BB, even though it presents what could be seen as a perfect "creation event". They tend to lump it and the rest of cosmology and astronomy together with biological evolution as all parts of the "evolutionist worldview". The only reason I can think of is that it is too far in the past and therefore allows time for evolution to occur and also contradicts the time scale of a literalist interpretation of Genesis.

Being something that science actually has evidence of probably makes it automatically suspect to a lot of YECs as well.

-JP

Apikorus

YECs are pathetic ignoramuses who are hardly worth the time spent arguing.

crocodile deathroll

Agreed!!

Eudaemon

Well, no argument there!

Cogito

Really? Can you give us the quote where he says that?

I am currently reading the original edition.

crocodile deathroll

If you really want to confront some of these ignoramus creationists head on, here is a good website. Here, we are only preaching to the converted. <a href="http://www.scientificcreationism.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi" target="_blank">http://www.scientificcreationism.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi</a>

Ernest Sparks

Big Bang discussions usually take place under "Science and Skepticism", but "Evolution/Creation" ought to be just fine.

"Hate Big Bang" isn't quite the right idea, but CSEs (Creation Science Evangelists) like to attack the idea as a scientistic falsity that they think is easy to dispose of. They state it in terms of "something coming from nothing", and we all know (don't we?) you can't get something from nothing. Others like Craig like to use the observational evidence in combination with cosmological/kalam arguments to establish the necessity for a creator to start the shebang going. They accept the time scale of billions of years.

However, Big Bang theory does not necessarily mean that some starting point (singularity) blew up. Strictly speaking, Big Bang means a small and extreme early history. The earliest phase is called Planck Time era and is around time

.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second. The whole universe would be smaller than one atomic nucleus and hotter than hot. Nothing can be measured at this scale and all of the observational evidences, like microwave radiation and maybe gravitational waves, originate at times later than this. Quantum/TOE cosmologists think there is something before and during a Big Bang to explain the happening. Maybe this is what Hawking is driving at now. I have his new book "The Universe in a Nutshell" and he seems to be interested in the Supersymmetric String Theory/M-Theory.

This brings up a second reason why Big Bang theory is attacked by CSEs. They think that evolution (except, maybe, micro-evolution-- different beetles having different body proportions and color patterns) is a wicked atheistic replacement for a God Creator. So they consider it to be one part of a multipart Evolution religion that needs to be defeated: Matter origin; development of heavy atomic nuclei; evolution of stars, galaxies, planets; uniformitarian geology; macro-evolution of life; descent of Man from primates; materialistic development of society and morals. They think Evolution and rejection of God is why people are so bad.

[ December 29, 2001: Message edited by: Ernest Sparks ]</p>