a slight refinement'it is not any more valid than an early creation that can also produce the cosmic microwave background, the observed anisotropies on the cosmic microwave background and the length-scale of the baryon acoustic oscillations in the large-scale structure of galaxies, ideally without waving a hand and saying 'God did it that way'.'
Is the 'big bang' correct? Of course it's not. It relies on the universe being homogeneous and isotropic and the very fact we're here disproves that. Is it a predictive model that has passed every test so far? Well, no, but it's passed far more than any other cosmology ever has. Where it breaks down is on small scales around galaxies (it generally predicts cuspy dark matter haloes and too many satellites compared to observations), which is no great shock since the model itself cannot and can never have been trusted on small scales.
This is what annoys me about this kind of argument -- we're comparing a model that produces quantitative numbers and testable predictions, with the half-assed rambling of lunatic Bronze-Age goatherders which will never produce numbers. That's all science is about, ultimately -- numbers and predictions. Got a model that predicts what's observed? Good, it's a valid model. Is it truth? Who cares? Leave that to the philosophers. Got a religion that doesn't predict any numbers? Good, it's a religion. But don't try and pretend that it's got a viable cosmology unless you can get numbers out of it.
Very irritating.
(Is the 'big bang' correct? Of course it's not. It relies on the universe being homogeneous and isotropic and the very fact we're here disproves that. Is it a predictive model that has passed every test so far? Well, no, but it's passed far more than any other cosmology ever has. Where it breaks down is on small scales around galaxies (it generally predicts cuspy dark matter haloes and too many satellites compared to observations), which is no great shock since the model itself cannot and can never have been trusted on small scales.
This is what annoys me about this kind of argument -- we're comparing a model that produces quantitative numbers and testable predictions, with the half-assed rambling of lunatic Bronze-Age goatherders which will never produce numbers. That's all science is about, ultimately -- numbers and predictions. Got a model that predicts what's observed? Good, it's a valid model. Is it truth? Who cares? Leave that to the philosophers. Got a religion that doesn't predict any numbers? Good, it's a religion. But don't try and pretend that it's got a viable cosmology unless you can get numbers out of it.
Very irritating.
boris the spider,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 15:44,
archived)
You see, the problem is that you are saying 'Religion is not science, therefore it is wrong'.It is not wrong, it is just different.
Well, it might be wrong, but we do not know yet.
(Well, it might be wrong, but we do not know yet.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 18:58,
archived)
No no noI doubt you'll read this reply, alas, but overall I more or less agree with your position. It's true that I'm saying "Religion is not science", but I'm not then following it up with "therefore it is wrong". What I was trying to drive at is that drawing *scientific* conclusions out of religion is wrong -- unless it can produce testable numbers. Just the same as drawing religious conclusions out of science is straining what are, after all, sophisticated algorithms rather too far.
What science can tell is is how nature behaves. That doesn't mean that that's what nature *is*, just that that's how it behaves. Drawing conclusions beyond that is certainly a matter of faith.
Sorry for the antagonistic tone -- I study cosmology for a living, so I'm a bit more sensitive to claims that it's only as valid as a creationist theory than the usual nerd is.
(What science can tell is is how nature behaves. That doesn't mean that that's what nature *is*, just that that's how it behaves. Drawing conclusions beyond that is certainly a matter of faith.
Sorry for the antagonistic tone -- I study cosmology for a living, so I'm a bit more sensitive to claims that it's only as valid as a creationist theory than the usual nerd is.
boris the spider,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 21:49,
archived)