quote:

---

what I can't understand is why some Christians believe that the earth's age must agree with science

---

Here are my thoughts on this subject. God is not dishonest, and His Creation does not bear witness against Him. Ideally, science is based on nothing more than physical evidence. Since this evidence is also part of God' Creation, it will not bear witness against Him.

To clarify, the same God that gave Moses the Genesis story also gave inspiration to people like Einstein and others. The result of this is various forms of radioactive and geological dating, which all seem to make the Earth very, very old.

I don't buy the "God decieves us to test our faith" argument. God is not deceptive. If He didn't want the Earth to appear billions of years old, then it wouldn't.

Ultimately, though, my faith is in Him and not science. So if it turned out next year that the Earth was only thousands of years old (don't hold your breath), then it wouldn't bother me at all.

MusterAg -- I will give you a dead bird. Everything on the bird is perfectly functional -- nothing is wrong with the bird at all. All of its chemical make up -- everything is still fine. It just doesn't have life.

Take whereever you want do what you want with it, and make it alive...

^
|
|
And cloning the bird is NOT an option. You must take that bird and do whatever you want with it but you must make THAT bird come alive again. Since it is really just a chemical reaction it really shouldn't be too hard for you right? I remember being able to reproduce chemical reactions in basic chemistry and I suck at chemistry, so this shouldn't be too tough for you smart science gurus.

[This message has been edited by TAMU@EDS (edited 2/22/2006 8:01a).]

quote:

---

MusterAg -- I will give you a dead bird. Everything on the bird is perfectly functional -- nothing is wrong with the bird at all. All of its chemical make up -- everything is still fine. It just doesn't have life.

Take whereever you want do what you want with it, and make it alive...

---

Some straw men are bigger than others.



http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/strawman.html

Hilarious! When I went to that website to copy the picture, guess the topic they used to illustrate a stawman?

quote:

---

A Straw Man Argument is a statement a person makes if they want to more easily attack an opposing position.

Let's take the following position: "Evolution has been the main engine of speciation throughout natural history."

A person using a Straw Man against that position will intentionally make a ridiculous caricature of evolution, one that only the most ignorant might believe. These are the steps they might use to try to "disprove evolution".

Steps used in creating and using a straw man argument:
Step 1: Build the Straw Man: "Evolution is false! How could a mouse evolve into an elephant!?"
Step 2: Knock down the Straw Man by any means necessary: "How could a mouse evolve into an elephant? There would have to be billions of changes for that to occur, and nobody has ever seen speciation anyway!"

Step 3: Connect the original position to the Straw Man:"So it's silly...who has ever seen a mouse evolve into an elephant? Nobody!!"

Step 4: Claim to negate the opposing position by the connection in 3. "Therefore, evolution must be false!"

---

quote:

---

Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.

The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure where I'd make the cutoff, but I'd say that 99% qualifies.

---

You think there are 51,400 doctoral scientists in the above listed fields in the world? And do you think all of them except the 500 here accept Darwinism as a theory that explains human existence?

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/databrf/sdb99340.htm

Apparently, there are nearly exactly that number in the US, so maybe 3 million worldwide? That's a guess.

Still, the 500 is representative.

[This message has been edited by letters at random (edited 2/22/2006 11:54a).]

LAR,

From your link:

quote:

---

In 1997, there were approximately 582,000 U.S.-educated doctoral S&Es[2] residing in the United States.

---

500 of those 582,000 is 0.09%. How the hell is 0.09% representative? And that number only includes people in science and engineering. According to the Census there are over 2.4 million people with a Doctorate degree.

I am Straw Man -- I will strike you down with great and unmerciful vengance.

You are smarter than me Windy. You knew I was trying to disprove evolution by that one example. YES!!!

I am not smarter than you, but I can recognize the patently absurd nature of disproving a link between Chemical Reactions and DNA by asking a guy to give CPR to a dead bird.

Like I said -- you are smarter than me because you think I'm trying to disprove the theory of evolution by this example.

doctoral degree does not equal doctoral scientist.


If you think those are the only 500 Scientists on the world who think that, then you are truly ignorant. In fact, I bet nearly all of them were in America, which would mean that 500 would be right at 1%, and that would be in they found everybody, which they clearly did not.

Can you find a document signed by 495,500 scientists that said they support Darwinism?

You have moved from Straw Men to putting words in my mouth? You were clearly addressing the argument about DNA and Chemical-based science. Your example about the dead bird CPR had no logical bearing on the argument.

Again, I don't know you and have no idea of your intellect.

quote:

---

Can you find a document signed by 495,500 scientists that said they support Darwinism?

---

Can you find 500,000 that sign a document that says the Earth isn't flat?

The reason you can't is that the position is so commonly accepted in the scientific realm it's only noteable when someone takes the contrary side.

This Discovery Institute's list of "over 500 scientists" who doubt evolution is not very convincing, especially when you consider the amount of scientists out there. In fact, the National Center for Science Education has compiled its own list--a sort of parody of the Discovery Institute. This list is comprised only of scientists named Steve who support evolution. And there are over 700 scientists on this list! Check it out for yourselves...

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

Now THAT'S funny.

quote:

---

and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry.

---

I promise you that there are thousands and thousands of scientists who would reject this part of the claim.

Micro evolution is a fact.
Macro evolution is a fraud.

There may very well be thousands. But the fact remains that they are a small minority.

Evolution is the new heliocentrism. It's almost universally accepted in the scientific community, but many religious people won't accept it because it doesn't fit nicely with their view of the Bible. In 200 years, people who don't believe in evolution will be viewed the same way as those who once held onto the idea of the sun spinning around the Earth.

I am getting the feeling that some of you think that this is some kind of democratic epistomology. In other words, whichever side can get the most scientist to sign a petition(the side matters little) then the one with the most signatures is the correct one.

Most of us know that that argument is false.

Let's stick to the arguments.

Strawman would be a cool name for a super hero.

quote:

---

Evolution is the new heliocentrism. It's almost universally accepted in the scientific community, but many religious people won't accept it because it doesn't fit nicely with their view of the Bible. In 200 years, people who don't believe in evolution will be viewed the same way as those who once held onto the idea of the sun spinning around the Earth.

---

Or, it will be viewed like so many of the other "scientifically accepted" theories that turned out to be ridiculous in hindsight.

Wendy -- well you sure think you are. I mean you are smart enough to realize I was trying to disprove the theory of evolution by that example.

quote:

---

Or, it will be viewed like so many of the other "scientifically accepted" theories that turned out to be ridiculous in hindsight.

---

Couldn't that be said for anything?

Some scientists used to believe that mountains were formed by the expanding or contracting of the earth. But just because science used to be wrong shouldn't invalidate plate tectonics.

quote:

---

Wendy -- well you sure think you are. I mean you are smart enough to realize I was trying to disprove the theory of evolution by that example.

---

And now you are calling me by a girl's name? I now do feel that I am smarter than you. Are you happy? You have the debate skills of a five year old. Are you going to now introduce the rubber and glue theory? How everything I say bounces off you and then sticks to me?

Yeesh, I am going to try to get back to the discussion now.

[This message has been edited by Windy City Ag (edited 2/23/2006 9:09a).]

lech

quote:

---

Or, it will be viewed like so many of the other "scientifically accepted" theories that turned out to be ridiculous in hindsight.

---

Yes - this is a possibility. And if this occurs it will be through careful evaluation of material scientific evidence and the testing and refinement of alternative scientific theories that would lead to the overturn of evolutionary theory - not appeals to intelligent agency that cannot be falsified and religiously motivated PR campaigns that blantantly twist and outright lie about the current state of the science

schizmann:

quote:

---

not appeals to intelligent agency that cannot be falsified and religiously motivated PR campaigns that blantantly twist and outright lie about the current state of the science

---

I'm so SICK of this hypocritical argument I could puke.

You only require Intelligent Design to be falsiable, but you don't require your own alternative anti-Intelligent Design theories to ALSO be falsiable. Until you can provide a falsiable explanation yourself, then both theories are equally valid.

quote:

---

but you don't require your own alternative anti-Intelligent Design theories to ALSO be falsiable. Until you can provide a falsiable explanation yourself, then both theories are equally valid.

---

What scientist or scientific body says this? Thousands of scientists the world over are analyzing and attempting to falsify the theories that are making you so mad. How many people are attempting to confirm that an intelligent designer jumped in his lab and created life?

The much referenced talkorigins website addresses your claim specifically:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

quote:

---

Claim CA211:
Any fact can be fit into the theory of evolution. Therefore, evolution is not falsifiable and is not a proper scientific theory.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 6-7.
Response:
There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:
a static fossil record;
true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs);
a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
observations of organisms being created.


This claim, coming from creationists, is absurd, since almost all creationism is nothing more than (unsubstantiated) claims that evolution has been falsified.
Further Reading:
Bowler, Peter J. 1983. The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian evolution theories in the decades around 1900. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ.

---

[This message has been edited by Windy City Ag (edited 2/23/2006 10:00a).]

quote:

---

What scientist or scientific body says this? Thousands of scientists the world over are analyzing and attempting to falsify the theories that are making you so mad. How many people are attempting to confirm that an intelligent designer jumped in his lab and created life?

---

I'm referring to Intelligent Design, which encompasses a great many other areas of science than just Evolution, such as the Theory of Origins. Anti-Intelligent Design advocates cannot present a falsiable theory of how the universe came into being, but that doesn't prevent them from presenting such bone-headed theories as these into the textbooks:

“The Birth and Death of the Universe: How was the universe born and how will it end? Most astronomers believe that about 18 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded. This explosion is called “The Big Bang.”
- Prentice Hall General Science, 1992, page 61.

“After many billions of years, all of the matter and energy will once again be packed into a small area. This area may be no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. Then another big bag will occur.”
- Prentice Hall Earth Science, 1991, pp. 36-37.

“If the universe is expanding, then it must have once been much smaller. If you could run the life of the universe in reverse, like a film, you would see the universe contracting until it disappeared in a flash of light, leaving nothing. In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.6 billion years ago. This theory of the origin of the universe is called “The Big Bang Theory.” The Big Bang theory does not explain how the universe began. The theory only explains how the existing universe could have developed.”
- HBJ General Science, 1989, p. 362.

“As the nebula shrank, it spun faster and faster. Gradually, the spinning nebula flattened into a huge disk almost 10 billion kilometers across. At the center of the disk a growing protosun, or new sun, began to take shape. “
- Prentice Hall General Science, 1992, page 69.

“The observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It’s then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.”
- Alan Gurth, P. Stelnhardt Scientific American, May 1984. page 128.

You have to admit that the big bang has been looked into a good bit more than the Intelligent Design Theory. I will admit that it is rather outlandish sounding to my semi-uneducated mind.

Bracy

quote:

---

You only require Intelligent Design to be falsiable, but you don't require your own alternative anti-Intelligent Design theories to ALSO be falsiable. Until you can provide a falsiable explanation yourself, then both theories are equally valid.

---

You need to eduacte yourself as to what science is and is not. ID is not science as there is no way to falsify it. Evolution is falsifiable. There are many patterns in nature or results of excperiments that we would expect to observe if Evolutionary theory was incorrect - no results of this nature have been found.

[This message has been edited by schizmann (edited 2/23/2006 10:20a).]

Anyway, here is a counterpoint

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00147.htm

quote:

---

Is the Big Bang theory falsifiable? You bet your last dollar it is! EVERY
SCIENTIFIC THEORY MUST BE FALSIFIABLE, OR IT IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
Every scientific theory must be able to be modified or even discarded in
light of experimental data. EXPERIMENTAL DATA is the sole judge of the
validity of any theory. Any set of principles that does not allow
falsifiability becomes an act of FAITH, not SCIENCE. This is the conundrum
that adversaries of Darwin's Theory of Evolution get trapped, because the
tenets of creationism are not falsifiable. The Bible is the absolute source
of all truth -- END OF DISCUSSION. But the evolutionists show with pride how
Darwin's theory has been modified in the light of generations of new
increasingly sophisticated experimental findings and still remains basically
sound.

But don't say "just a theory". A scientific theory is the pinnacle of
scientific knowledge because from a few principles a good theory, like the
theory of relativity, not only explains a vast amount experimental data
already measured, but it also correctly predicts the results of experiments
that have not even been measured yet! Now that is a powerful theory!

---

Here is another example

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1794.html

quote:

---

Can you list 10 or more observational facts supporting Big Bang Theory?
Sure!

1.... The universe is expanding.

2.... There exists a cosmic background radiation field detectable at microwave frequencies.

3.... The cosmic microwave background field is measurably isotropic to better than a few parts in 100,000 after compensation is made for the relativistic Doppler effect caused by Earth/Sun/Milky Way motion.

4.... The cosmic microwave background radiation field is precisely that of a black body.

5.... The cosmic microwave background radiation field has a temperature of 2.7 K.

6.... There does exist a universal abundance ratio of helium to hydrogen consistent with the current expansion rate and cosmic background temperature.

7.... The cosmological abundance of deuterium relative to hydrogen and helium is consistent with the levels expected given the current expansion rate and density.

8.... There are only three families of neutrinos.

9.... The night sky is not as bright as the surface of the Sun.

10... The cosmic background radiation field is slightly lumpy at a level of one part in 100,000 to 1,000,000.

11... There are no objects that have ages indisputably greater than the expansion age of the universe.

12... There are about 10,000,000,000 photons in the cosmic background radiation field for every proton and neutron of matter.

13... The degree of galaxy clustering observed is consistent with an expanding universe with a finite age less than 20 billion years.

14... There are no elements heavier than lithium which have a universal abundance ratio.

15... The universe was once opaque to its own radiation.

16... The universe is now dominated exclusively by matter and not a mixture of matter and anti-matter.


I should point out that, although some rival theories have proposed alternate explanations to a few of these observations, there are no rivals that provide a simple explanation for all of these remarkable observations. What could be simpler than a universe expanding from a hot, dense state to the present cool, rarified one with all of the above features emerging! No new physics is required, no mysterious forces, just gravity and hot matter doing their thing over billions of years!

---

Windy City Ag:

I have no idea why you bothered to include your first quote. All it shows is some guy claiming that the Big Bang Theory is falsiable, but doesn't provide any evidence to back it up. It's a worthless quote.

The second quote provides a list of observable phenomena that it uses to support the Big Bang Theory. If that is all you require to "prove" that the Big Bang Theory is falsiable, then Intelligent Design is equally falsiable. For instance:

1. All planetary rings still exhibit intricacies which Should Have long ago disappeared.

2. All known comets burn up their material with each pass around the sun and should have a maximum life expectancy of 100,000 years.

3. The outer solar system planets should have long ago cooled off.

4. The spiral galaxies should have long ago unspiraled, and the uneven dispersion of matter in the universe should have long ago dispersed.

5. It has been demonstrated both mathematically and experimentally that time is not a constant, but is dependent on the gravitational pull at the location where time is being measured. This concept was first proposed by Albert Einstein and is called gravitational time dilation.

6. A recent worldwide catastrophe would have caused an enormous change in the total amount of carbon on earth's biosphere. This event would completely invalidate one of the basic assumptions of the carbon-14 dating method (a known carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio throughout the measurement period) and lead to excessively old dates for organisms alive shortly after this flood.

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 2/23/2006 10:58a).]

I included it to remind you what constitutes a scientific theory.

Also, explain to me why your observations support the loose and shifting claim known as ID?

The Big Bang theory clearly lays out what it thinks happened and goes out to gather specific evidence to either support or refute the claim.

What does the the constant nature of time or the rings of certain planets have to do with ID? Do we even have parameters to determine what God's handiwork should like like (or whichever ID creator you fancy?) This is why I have a hard time endorsing the theory. No one has bothered to come up with a really specific argument. It all revolves around some theoretical cosmic engineer that can't be defined or described.

In the end, all you have is weak and often misplaced complaints regarding the validity of much more though out theories.

Windy City Ag:

quote:

---

Also, explain to me why your observations support the loose and shifting claim known as ID?

---

Explain to me why your observations support the loose and shifting claim known as the Big Bang Theory. I shouldn't be required to explain any more than you are willing to explain. The playing field should be level.

OK, lets start from the beginning. The Big Bang is not loose and shifting as far as I can tell. According to Wikipedia, it was first proposed in 1927 by a Cathlic Priest of all people and has since spawned a number of important scientific breakthroughs including Hubble's Law. It works closely with Einstien's theory of relativity. According to the writeup

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

quote:

---

For a number of years the support for these theories was evenly divided. However, the observational evidence began to support the idea that the universe evolved from a hot dense state. Since the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 it has been regarded as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos. Virtually all theoretical work in cosmology now involves extensions and refinements to the basic Big Bang theory. Much of the current work in cosmology includes understanding how galaxies form in the context of the Big Bang, understanding what happened at the Big Bang, and reconciling observations with the basic theory.

Huge advances in Big Bang cosmology were made in the late 1990s and the early 21st century as a result of major advances in telescope technology in combination with large amounts of satellite data such as that from COBE, the Hubble Space Telescope and WMAP. Such data has allowed cosmologists to calculate many of the parameters of the Big Bang to a new level of precision and led to the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the Universe appears to be accelerating.

---

So by measure, this theory has been in existence for nearly 80 years and has been tested, re-tested, examined, poked, prodded, and even adopted by a large number of religious institutions.

quote:

---

A number of Christian churches, the Roman Catholic Church in particular, have accepted the Big Bang as a possible description of the origin of the Universe, interpreting it to allow for a philosophical first cause. Pope Pius XII was an enthusiastic proponent of the Big Bang even before the theory was scientifically well established.
Some students of Kabbalah, deism and other non-anthropomorphic faiths concord with the Big Bang theory, for example connecting it with the theory of "divine retraction" (tzimtzum) as explained by the Jewish scholar Moses Maimonides.
Some modern Islamic scholars believe that the Qur'an parallels the Big Bang in its account of creation, described as follows: "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit of creation, before We clove them asunder?" (Ch:21,Ver:30). The claim has also been made that the Qur'an describes an expanding Universe: "The heaven, We have built it with power. And verily, We are expanding it." (Ch:51,Ver:47). Parallels with the Big Crunch and an oscillating Universe have also been suggested: "On the day when We will roll up the heavens like the rolling up of the scroll for writings, as We originated the first creation, (so) We shall reproduce it; a promise (binding on Us); surely We will bring it about." (Ch:21,Ver:104).
Certain theistic branches of Hinduism, such as in Vaishnavism, conceive of a theory of creation with similarities to the theory of the Big Bang. The Hindu mythos, narrated for example in the third book of the Bhagavata Purana (primarily, chapters 10 and 26), describes a primordial state which bursts forth as the Great Vishnu glances over it, transforming into the active state of the sum-total of matter ("prakriti". Other forms of Hinduism assert a Universe without beginning or end.
Buddhism has a concept of a Universe that has no creation event. The Big Bang, however, is not seen to be in conflict with this since there are ways to conceive an eternal universe within the paradigm. A number of popular Zen philosophers were intrigued, in particular, by the concept of the oscillating Universe.

---

ID, on the other hand, is a rather recent creation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

quote:

---

Stephen C. Meyer, cofounder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture, reports that the term came up in 1988 at a conference he attended in Tacoma, Washington, called Sources of Information Content in DNA. He attributes the phrase to Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People. In drafts of the book Of Pandas and People, the word 'creationism' was subsequently changed, almost without exception to intelligent design. The book was published in 1989 and is considered to be the first intelligent design book.

---

It intentionally avoids trying to delve further into this "agent of creation"

quote:

---

Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation – it merely states that one (or more) must exist. While intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the personal view of many proponents is that the designer is the Christian god. Whether this was a genuine feature of the concept or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from science-teaching has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case.

---

Moreso, it only highlights facts that are convenient to its cause while never attempting to disprove contradictory claims

quote:

---

Critics argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely. For example, Jerry Coyne, of the University of Chicago, asks why a designer would "give us a pathway for making vitamin C, but then destroy it by disabling one of its enzymes" and why he or she wouldn't "stock oceanic islands with reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and freshwater fish, despite the suitability of such islands for these species." Evolutionists point to the fact that "the flora and fauna on those islands resemble that of the nearest mainland, even when the environments are very different" as evidence that species were not placed there by a designer.

---

Who is out trying to rationalize or disprove these thorny issues? Is anyone other than the Discovery Institute taking this concept down the road of scientific inquiry? The answer is no, because most folks don't know what the message is to begin with. When you don't define anything, how can you falsify a definition?

Until even a modicum of attention is put to this theory and it is advanced beyond thinly veiled religious propoganda, it will remain on the lunatic fringe.

OK, lets start from the beginning. The Big Bang is not loose and shifting as far as I can tell. According to Wikipedia, it was first proposed in 1927 by a Cathlic Priest of all people and has since spawned a number of important scientific breakthroughs including Hubble's Law. It works closely with Einstien's theory of relativity. According to the writeup

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

quote:

---

For a number of years the support for these theories was evenly divided. However, the observational evidence began to support the idea that the universe evolved from a hot dense state. Since the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 it has been regarded as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos. Virtually all theoretical work in cosmology now involves extensions and refinements to the basic Big Bang theory. Much of the current work in cosmology includes understanding how galaxies form in the context of the Big Bang, understanding what happened at the Big Bang, and reconciling observations with the basic theory.

Huge advances in Big Bang cosmology were made in the late 1990s and the early 21st century as a result of major advances in telescope technology in combination with large amounts of satellite data such as that from COBE, the Hubble Space Telescope and WMAP. Such data has allowed cosmologists to calculate many of the parameters of the Big Bang to a new level of precision and led to the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the Universe appears to be accelerating.

---

So by measure, this theory has been in existence for nearly 80 years and has been tested, re-tested, examined, poked, prodded, and even adopted by a large number of religious institutions.

quote:

---

A number of Christian churches, the Roman Catholic Church in particular, have accepted the Big Bang as a possible description of the origin of the Universe, interpreting it to allow for a philosophical first cause. Pope Pius XII was an enthusiastic proponent of the Big Bang even before the theory was scientifically well established.
Some students of Kabbalah, deism and other non-anthropomorphic faiths concord with the Big Bang theory, for example connecting it with the theory of "divine retraction" (tzimtzum) as explained by the Jewish scholar Moses Maimonides.
Some modern Islamic scholars believe that the Qur'an parallels the Big Bang in its account of creation, described as follows: "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit of creation, before We clove them asunder?" (Ch:21,Ver:30). The claim has also been made that the Qur'an describes an expanding Universe: "The heaven, We have built it with power. And verily, We are expanding it." (Ch:51,Ver:47). Parallels with the Big Crunch and an oscillating Universe have also been suggested: "On the day when We will roll up the heavens like the rolling up of the scroll for writings, as We originated the first creation, (so) We shall reproduce it; a promise (binding on Us); surely We will bring it about." (Ch:21,Ver:104).
Certain theistic branches of Hinduism, such as in Vaishnavism, conceive of a theory of creation with similarities to the theory of the Big Bang. The Hindu mythos, narrated for example in the third book of the Bhagavata Purana (primarily, chapters 10 and 26), describes a primordial state which bursts forth as the Great Vishnu glances over it, transforming into the active state of the sum-total of matter ("prakriti". Other forms of Hinduism assert a Universe without beginning or end.
Buddhism has a concept of a Universe that has no creation event. The Big Bang, however, is not seen to be in conflict with this since there are ways to conceive an eternal universe within the paradigm. A number of popular Zen philosophers were intrigued, in particular, by the concept of the oscillating Universe.

---

ID, on the other hand, is a rather recent creation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

quote:

---

Stephen C. Meyer, cofounder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture, reports that the term came up in 1988 at a conference he attended in Tacoma, Washington, called Sources of Information Content in DNA. He attributes the phrase to Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People. In drafts of the book Of Pandas and People, the word 'creationism' was subsequently changed, almost without exception to intelligent design. The book was published in 1989 and is considered to be the first intelligent design book.

---

It intentionally avoids trying to delve further into this "agent of creation"

quote:

---

Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation – it merely states that one (or more) must exist. While intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the personal view of many proponents is that the designer is the Christian god. Whether this was a genuine feature of the concept or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from science-teaching has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case.

---

Moreso, it only highlights facts that are convenient to its cause while never attempting to disprove contradictory claims

quote:

---

Critics argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely. For example, Jerry Coyne, of the University of Chicago, asks why a designer would "give us a pathway for making vitamin C, but then destroy it by disabling one of its enzymes" and why he or she wouldn't "stock oceanic islands with reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and freshwater fish, despite the suitability of such islands for these species." Evolutionists point to the fact that "the flora and fauna on those islands resemble that of the nearest mainland, even when the environments are very different" as evidence that species were not placed there by a designer.

---

Who is out trying to rationalize or disprove these thorny issues? Is anyone other than the Discovery Institute taking this concept down the road of scientific inquiry? The answer is no, because most folks don't know what the message is to begin with. When you don't define anything, how can you falsify a definition?

Until even a modicum of attention is put to this theory and it is advanced beyond thinly veiled religious propoganda, it will remain on the lunatic fringe.

Entropy or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics goes against the Evolutionary Theory.