Now that the big Ken Ham / Bill Nye debate over Creation Science is over, I thought it an appropriate time to share an analogy that might be helpful. First, it bears defining some terms: Facts (such as Redshift) are observations; that is, they have happened, and have been witnessed/recorded/verified. Facts alone are of no practical value. Laws provide generalized descriptions of specific circumstances, based on the consistency of observations. Thus, laws can provide confident predictions of what will happen, but no explanation as to why. Thats what Theories provide. They explain the mechanisms responsible for observed phenomena, and provide predictions of other phenomena and future observation. So, despite what some folks (like Ken Ham) would have us believe, the phrase just a theory hardly does justice to this, the pinnacle of understanding for a given scientific topic. The Big Bang is a scientific theory. Like all scientific theories, it provides explanatory value and testable predictions. Unlike every competing theory, this does so with extraordinary accuracy and precision, and (most importantly) has never failed to so so. It is, to date, the best explanation for the existence and present state of everything. What isnt fully understood are the conditions that preceded the BB. There are compelling theories (esp: Vacuum Genesis/Zero-Energy), but no matter how one slices it, there is a challenge in describing the nature of things prior to, well, nature. This, and the apparent elegance of the Universe has led some to throw up their arms and declare that the Universe was created. Creationism is full of problems though, since it makes the a priori assumption that some non-temporal, non-spacial (i.e., non-existent) infinitely powerful being exists, which used nothing as a media for creation. But this post isnt meant to be a semantic argument, but rather to offer an alternate way of thinking about things. Ok, maybe a little semantic... When discussing this stuff, intentional wording is important, because certain words contain implied assertions. For example, the question who created the Big Bang? is too loaded, since it assumes that it both was created and had a creator. Even the question what preceded the BB? assumes that space and time were preceded (in time) by something (in space), which is self-contradictory. So I suggest framing the thought as what conditions gave rise to the Big Bang? (This is compatible with the deistic view, wherein one condition may be the existence of a conscious being; it also fits the Vacuum Genesis theory wherein nothingness itself is unstable.) Framed this way, I think the question evokes different (and better) analogues. Conditions brings to mind weather patterns, traffic, health, etc. - nuanced concepts which describe the nature of things. Bearing this in mind, consider as an analogy to the Big Bang, an avalanche. An avalanche is itself a chaotic event, but the result is stable; ordered. One could imagine an observer utterly unfamiliar with the phenomenon, surveying the aftermath landscape. An avid snow-shoveler might wonder how such a volume of snow could have been moved so quickly. A woodcutter might wonder what tool could uproot and invert so many trees. It would not be unreasonable or illogical for such folk to infer (based on their limited experience) the intercession of some powerful shovel-toting, axe-swinging Überman. And that model (that theory) might rightly remain the best explanation... until experience shows otherwise. One could imagine a primitive society venerating such a god of the avalanche, until the great yodeler of the mountain and yelling goat of thundering snow are found to have the same ability. Ultimately though, experience would show (and has shown) that Avalanches only happen under certain conditions, and always happen under others. That is, certain conditions give rise to avalanches. (Moreover, considering the effect of plate tectonics on landscape, any part of the earths crust could conceivably become conditionally favorable to avalanches over geologic time scales. And this without any intervention.) When one considers this example, the apparent need for a powerful/intelligent/loving creator dissolves entirely. Or at least, the act which set the Big Bang into motion need not have been difficult or even intentional, if conditions were already met. The act of creation could have been the high-C in a cosmic yodeling rehearsal, or the sneeze of Douglas Adams Great Green Arkleseizure, or indeed a mousefart at the right time and place of pre-universal existence. Or, rather than inventing untestable explanations, we could take the intellectual high road and simply admit that we dont yet know. And, rather than doggedly asserting as fact theories which cannot be tested or verified, we could doggedly seek evidence which explains that which we do not understand. We could observe that Matter and Anti-matter combine to form... nothing; and hypothesize that the inverse is true (confirmed by Sokolov, et al, in Physical Review Letters, 2010). When further observations confirm that nothingness itself is an apparently volatile environment, other theories emerge. Theories befitting the enlightened understanding of modern society. The Creation Ex-Nihilo (CEN) Theory is, like all other theories, a model which explains observations and which makes predictions. This theory is the subject of research by thousands of the worlds most highly qualified scientists, and relies upon the findings of countless generations of them. The predictions of this theory are tested on the largest, most technologically advanced machine ever built by mankind. As does the Big Bang, this theory predicts observation with greater precision and accuracy than any to date, and has not been dis-proven or contra-indicated. Can the same be said of any creation science theory? Anyway - something to consider when watching the debate.... youtube/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI
Posted on: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 21:49:20 +0000