RBH

DD asked if it might ber a hoax. If so, it's getting impetus from organized creationists. The Twin Cities Creation Science Association links to "Common Sense Science" which pushes that model of physics. Russ McGlenn is apparently associated with TCCSA.

RBH

Added in edit: OK, so U_U_1 beat me by two minutes. I type slow!

RufusAtticus

I think better responses will be had in S&S. If it doesn't fit it can be moved back.

Lohan

More interesting than the what is the why...

To attack evolution is logical for certain brands of theists, as it is a direct competitor with the Genesis account of creation, or whatever account they go by.

However, at least the physics most commonly known to the layman actually seem to support the idea of a God with the big bang. Now, of course I know there are explanations of the big bang that require no God, but you have to wonder why these people even care. For example, when the topic of science and faith came up in theology class at my school (and this is a Jesuit school, if you're wondering), most people took the big bang theory as good evidence that the universe had a creator. Why even get the pseudoscientists in there to get laughed at by the real physicists? Almost seems to me that they're shooting themselves in the foot.

MortalWombat

Yes, it's totally incosistent with a god who is three things in one and Jesus who is both man and god.

Nikolai

:notworthy

NumberTenOx

Umm, the magnetic force is the electric force; it can be explained by applying Special Relativity to moving charges. I guess they have to throw that out because they want to throw out all of Einstein's work?

So there is a new theory. The question should be, what predictions does it make that can be tested, that differentiate it from the current theory? Or can it explain everything the current theory can, but more simply? I guess I'd sure like to know how it explains gravity.

I remember one especially boring high school math class. Someone organized us so that at a specified trigger we would all drop our pencils on the ground at the same time (an act cleverly named the "pencil drop"). I recollect the math teacher being a bit bewildered but a good sport about it.

Godot

When valid scientific theories conflict with someone's presuppositions about how the world should be, it really is pathetic that it's the science that must change.

Celsus

Well I'd like to know how antirealists and social constructivist critics of science deal with nonsense like this "Grant unification theory". I suppose these versions are all variations of the truth.

Joel

Hugo Holbling

Rather than mischaracterising your opponents, you could actually do some study and hence answer your question for yourself.

Celsus

Social constructivists do say exactly that. It's not the slightest bit of a mischaracterisation when you have them extolling Native American creation legends as on a par with scientific discoveries and theories. Likewise, while they are loathe to side with creationists, it is implicit in their thought that they would have to accept that as well. But Hugo, I am currently reading about 20 different books on various topics, and don't have all the time in the world. Perhaps you could be of help and tell me how antirealists or even social constructivists deal with those questions?

Cheers,
Joel