o***1
发帖数: 592 | 1 Is the Big Bang in the Bible?
By Karl W. Giberson March 23, 2014 12:00 AM The Daily Beast
The “Big Bang” theory of the origin of the universe got a big boost this
week when scientists reported the discovery of 14-billion-year-old echoes of
the universe’s first moments—the first proof of an expanding universe,
and the last piece of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.
Major discovery bolsters Big Bang theory of universe AFP
5 Reasons to Care About New Big Bang Inflation Theory Discovery SPACE.com
[$$] Discovery Bolsters Big-Bang Theory The Wall Street Journal
3-year theory: Big renewal deal for 'Big Bang' Associated Press
Freaky Physics: Why the Discovery of Gravitational Waves Should Blow Your
Mind SPACE.com
Creationists and other conservative religious believers have a curiously
ambivalent relationship with the Big Bang—unlike evolution, which is
universally condemned. Young-earth creationists mock the Big Bang as a wild
guess, an anti-biblical fantasy that only atheists determined to ignore
evidence of God’s creation could have invented. In contrast, creationists
who accept that the earth is old—by making the “days” of creation in
Genesis into long epochs—actually claim that the Big Bang is in the Bible.
Some of them are rejoicing in the recent discovery.
The leading evangelical anti-science organization is Answers in Genesis (AIG
), headed by Ken Ham, the guy who recentlydebated Bill Nye. AIG’s
dismissive response to the discovery is breathtaking in its hubris and lack
of insight into how science works. They call for Christians to reject the
discovery because the “announcement may be improperly understood and
reported.” This all-purpose response would also allow one to deny that
there is a missing Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777.
Secondly, Answers in Genesis complains that the predictions being confirmed
in the discovery are “model-dependent.” They fail to note that every
scientific prediction ever confirmed, from the discovery of Neptune, to DNA,
to the Ambulecetus transitional fossil is “model-dependent.” The whole
point of deriving predictions in science is to test models, hypotheses,
theories. Finally, AIG suggests that “other mechanisms could mimic the
signal,” implying that, although the startling prediction was derived from
Einstein’s theory of general relativity and the inflationary model of the
Big Bang, it could have come from “some other physical mechanism.” No
alternative mechanism is suggested.
The AIG response declares instead that “Biblical creationists know from
Scripture that the universe did not begin in a big bang … we know from
Genesis 1 that God made the earth before He made the stars, but the big bang
requires that many stars existed for billions of years before the earth did
.”
Not all biblical literalists take such a hard-line stance. Like Ham, the
popular Christian apologist Hugh Ross is a biblical literalist who rejects
all forms of evolution: Ross believes that the “days” of creation in
Genesis are vast epochs and thus the universe can be billions of years old.
Ross heads the organization Reasons to Believe, which is often ++attacked by
AIG++ and other young earth creationist groups for having a “liberal”
view of the Bible. http://creation.com/the-dubious-apologetics-of-hugh-ross
Ross, an astronomer by training, was delighted by the discovery of the
gravitational waves and told the Christian Post that “The Bible was the
first to predict big bang cosmology.” Ross, in fact, is convinced that many
ideas in modern science—including the inflationary model for the Big Bang
confirmed by the recent discovery—were actually predicted by the Bible. He
argues—to the dismay of Hebrew scholars—that the word “bara,” translated
“create” in Genesis 1:1, means “to bring into existence that which did
not exist before.” Ross has ingeniously located much of modern physics in
the Bible, including the laws of thermodynamics and the Big Bang.
The initial response from the Discovery Institute, the headquarters of the
Intelligent Design (ID) movement, maligned the motivations of the
cosmologists searching for the gravity wave, claiming they found more
theologically friendly models of the Big Bang “disturbing,” and wanted to
refute them. The recent discovery of the gravity waves—after years of
searching—is being trumpeted by the scientific community because it “saves
the jobs of a thousand people at two national labs who are having to
justify their expensive failure.
Despite his organization’s snarky cynicism, the Discovery Institute’s
director, bestselling ID author Stephen Meyer, was in the this-new-discovery
-proves-the-Bible camp. Meyer went on the John Ankerberg show to extol the
theological virtues of the Big Bang. Using the same arguments as Hugh Ross,
Meyer finds both the Big Bang and even the inflation model in the Bible: “
We find repeated in the Old Testament, both in the prophets and the Psalms,
” he told the Christian Post, “that God is stretching or has stretched out
the heavens.” Meyer says this “stretching” means that “Space expanded
very rapidly,” and the recent discovery provided “additional evidence
supporting that inflation.”
Meyer and Ross are right that English translations of the Bible do speak of
the heavens being “stretched out.” But to suggest that this is what has
been confirmed by the recent discovery is simply not possible. A typical
biblical passage supporting this claim is found in Isaiah 40:22 where we
read that God “stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them
out like a tent to live in.” Does this really sound like an event at the
beginning of time when the universe experienced a momentary burst of
expansion? And what do we make of the apocalyptic vision described in
Revelation 6:14 that, at the end of time, “the sky rolled back like a
scroll”?
The biblical authors—and most ancients—understood the sky over their heads
to be a solid dome—an inverted bowl resting on a flat earth for the
authors of Genesis, a crystalline sphere surrounding a round earth for
Aristotle and most Christians until the scientific revolution. The Hebrew
word used in Genesis for the sky is “raqia” which means “bowl” or “dome
.” It does not mean “space-time continuum” and it is not something that
could be “inflated.” It could, however, be “stretched out like a tent”
or “rolled back like a scroll.” These divergent responses are full of
hubris in both directions, making extravagant claims for or against
scientific discovery, embracing or rejecting science on the basis of
existing religious commitments. But these extremes aren’t the only ways for
religious believers to respond to major scientific breakthroughs. Not every
scientific idea has to have a theological interpretation, although the
tendency to fit new science into ancient religious frameworks is often
irresistible. And the Big Bang is certainly no exception.
The Big Bang theory, in fact, was developed in the 1920s by a Catholic
priest who was also an acclaimed physicist, the Monsignor Georges Lemaî
;tre. It was ridiculed and rejected by Lemaître’s atheist colleague,
Fred Hoyle. Hoyle applied the derisive term “Big Bang” to Lemaître’
s theory in a 1949 BBC interview—a nasty label that stuck.
Hoyle, who labored heroically to produce an alternative theory, didn’t like
the theological implications of the universe beginning suddenly in a moment
of “creation.” It sounded too much like the first verse in the Bible: “
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” And, as Hoyle and
others noted, Lemaître was a priest who might reasonably be suspected
of trying to smuggle Catholic theology into science.
Hoyle’s concern was amply illustrated in 1951 when Pope Pius XII declared
that, in discovering the Big Bang, science had indeed established the
Christian doctrine of the “contingency of the universe” and identified the
“epoch when the world came forth from the hands of the Creator.” “
Creation took place,” the pope said. “Therefore, there is a creator.
Therefore, God exists!”
Both Lemaître and the Vatican’s science advisor were horrified by the
Pope’s confident assertion that physics had proven God. They warned him
privately that he was shaky ground: the Big Bang was not a theory about the
ultimate origin of the universe and should not be enlisted in support of the
Christian belief in a Creator. The pope never mentioned it again.
Ironically, in this dispute, the atheist Hoyle was on the side of the pope
in seeing a linkage between the Big Bang and God. It was Lemaître and
the pope’s science advisors who saw clearly that scientific theories, no
matter how well-established, should not be enlisted in support of
theological notions. And, as the Catholic Church learned in the Galileo
affair, scientific theories should not be opposed on theological or biblical
grounds.
These lessons have been learned by Catholics, for the most part, as
evidenced by the relative scarcity of prominent Catholic science-deniers.
Unfortunately, we cannot say the same things for many evangelical
Protestants, many of whom belong to truncated religious traditions that
began after Galileo, or even after John F. Kennedy. They lack the
accumulated wisdom that restrains the pope from inspecting every new
scientific discovery and either rejecting it because it counters a
particular interpretation of Genesis or enthusiastically endorsing it
because it confirms this or that doctrine. And when the pope strays, his
advisors quickly get him back on track. Catholic thinking on science is
informed by the pontifical academy of science, an advisory group with no
counterpart in Protestantism.
Ken Ham and his colleagues at Answers in Genesis, Hugh Ross and his
colleagues at Reasons to Believe, and Stephen Meyer and his colleagues at
the Discovery Institute are too quick to embrace, reject, or gloss with
theological meaning the latest scientific discoveries. Rather than rushing
to the Bible to see whether its ancient pages can accommodate the latest
science, they would do well to heed this caution from Lemaître, as he
spoke of the theory that he discovered:
“We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation …
Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically,
everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The
question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something
started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by
physical or astronomical considerations.” | J*******g
发帖数: 8775 | 2 谢谢分享。很有意思。
其实基督徒徒也没必要担心这些事，上帝具体如何创世对大多数基督徒根本不重要，重
要的是上帝从无到有的创造了世界。
上帝似乎什么都不需要做，只要说话就行了。一件事他一旦说出口，这件事就会发生。
上帝也许根本不在乎宇宙是怎么来的，反正把宇宙给我变出来就行了，大自然就想神的
仆人一样，想个办法执行神的旨意。
of
【在 o***1 的大作中提到】
: Is the Big Bang in the Bible?
: By Karl W. Giberson March 23, 2014 12:00 AM The Daily Beast
: The “Big Bang” theory of the origin of the universe got a big boost this
: week when scientists reported the discovery of 14-billion-year-old echoes of
: the universe’s first moments—the first proof of an expanding universe,
: and the last piece of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.
: Major discovery bolsters Big Bang theory of universe AFP
: 5 Reasons to Care About New Big Bang Inflation Theory Discovery SPACE.com
: [$$] Discovery Bolsters Big-Bang Theory The Wall Street Journal
: 3-year theory: Big renewal deal for 'Big Bang' Associated Press
| o***1
发帖数: 592 | 3 你可以尽自己的所能把上帝想象的无所不能， 但那已经不是圣经中的神了， 那就是老
天， 就是大自然。
【在 J*******g 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢分享。很有意思。
: 其实基督徒徒也没必要担心这些事，上帝具体如何创世对大多数基督徒根本不重要，重
: 要的是上帝从无到有的创造了世界。
: 上帝似乎什么都不需要做，只要说话就行了。一件事他一旦说出口，这件事就会发生。
: 上帝也许根本不在乎宇宙是怎么来的，反正把宇宙给我变出来就行了，大自然就想神的
: 仆人一样，想个办法执行神的旨意。
:
: of
| J*******g
发帖数: 8775 | 4 圣经中的上帝不是自然，而是自然的创造者。自然规律是死的。神是活的。
【在 o***1 的大作中提到】
: 你可以尽自己的所能把上帝想象的无所不能， 但那已经不是圣经中的神了， 那就是老
: 天， 就是大自然。
| z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 5
哈哈哈！要不要脸啊？难道你认为“圣经”关于你家主子“六日创世”的描写是错误的
？如果是这样，请你明确一下。
【在 J*******g 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢分享。很有意思。
: 其实基督徒徒也没必要担心这些事，上帝具体如何创世对大多数基督徒根本不重要，重
: 要的是上帝从无到有的创造了世界。
: 上帝似乎什么都不需要做，只要说话就行了。一件事他一旦说出口，这件事就会发生。
: 上帝也许根本不在乎宇宙是怎么来的，反正把宇宙给我变出来就行了，大自然就想神的
: 仆人一样，想个办法执行神的旨意。
:
: of
| b********h
发帖数: 2451 | 6 用比喻就是错误？哈哈？
圣经又不是物理教科书，用比喻的手法描述神创世的过程，我不觉得有什么问题
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
:
: 哈哈哈！要不要脸啊？难道你认为“圣经”关于你家主子“六日创世”的描写是错误的
: ？如果是这样，请你明确一下。
| z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 7
请问：“圣经”关于“六日创世”的描写哪些地方是比喻？哪些地方不是？
【在 b********h 的大作中提到】
: 用比喻就是错误？哈哈？
: 圣经又不是物理教科书，用比喻的手法描述神创世的过程，我不觉得有什么问题
| b********h
发帖数: 2451 | 8 先回答我的问题嘛，用比喻算不算“错”？呵呵。
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
:
: 请问：“圣经”关于“六日创世”的描写哪些地方是比喻？哪些地方不是？
| z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 9
这个要看情况。有些事情本身就是胡编乱造的，再怎么比喻也是骗人的。有些事情或许
是真的，但是“比喻”不恰当严重扭曲事实的也有。
【在 b********h 的大作中提到】
: 先回答我的问题嘛，用比喻算不算“错”？呵呵。
| b********h
发帖数: 2451 | 10 说半天，就是比喻横竖都是错的？
你明确下嘛。
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
:
: 这个要看情况。有些事情本身就是胡编乱造的，再怎么比喻也是骗人的。有些事情或许
: 是真的，但是“比喻”不恰当严重扭曲事实的也有。
| | | z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 11
当然不是。有些比喻是好的，能够帮助人们更好地理解作者要表达的意思，自然不是错
误。
【在 b********h 的大作中提到】
: 说半天，就是比喻横竖都是错的？
: 你明确下嘛。
| r******i
发帖数: 1445 | 12 这样吧。假设你穿越回三千年前，请给犹太人讲解一下大爆炸理论，然后听一听你的讲
解经过三个人复述之后变成了什么样
【在 z********o 的大作中提到】
:
: 当然不是。有些比喻是好的，能够帮助人们更好地理解作者要表达的意思，自然不是错
: 误。
| a***a
发帖数: 1879 | 13 犹太人会把他用石头砸死, 这不异教徒么
【在 r******i 的大作中提到】
: 这样吧。假设你穿越回三千年前，请给犹太人讲解一下大爆炸理论，然后听一听你的讲
: 解经过三个人复述之后变成了什么样
| o***1
发帖数: 592 | 14 圣经中的上帝当然不是自然， 但你上贴描述的那位就是大自然。
【在 J*******g 的大作中提到】
: 圣经中的上帝不是自然，而是自然的创造者。自然规律是死的。神是活的。
| o***1
发帖数: 592 | 15 用比喻不算错， 但如果创世是比喻， 那钉十字架是不是， 凭什么不是？
【在 b********h 的大作中提到】
: 用比喻就是错误？哈哈？
: 圣经又不是物理教科书，用比喻的手法描述神创世的过程，我不觉得有什么问题
| z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 16
我又不是全知全能的，我讲不清楚有什么奇怪的？
再说了，讲不清楚也没必要胡说八道讲什么“六日创世”啊。讲不清楚也可以不讲。
【在 r******i 的大作中提到】
: 这样吧。假设你穿越回三千年前，请给犹太人讲解一下大爆炸理论，然后听一听你的讲
: 解经过三个人复述之后变成了什么样
| b********h
发帖数: 2451 | 17 呵呵，智商啊。
你说话用过比喻么？用过的话，你是不是也应该回答，你既然这句用了比喻，那句为什
么不是？凭什么不是？
也只有反基才发这种无厘头的问题。
【在 o***1 的大作中提到】
: 用比喻不算错， 但如果创世是比喻， 那钉十字架是不是， 凭什么不是？
| z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 18
是不是比喻，要从上下文分析。
你给大家分析一下“六日创世”怎么是比喻了，什么比喻了什么？
【在 b********h 的大作中提到】
: 呵呵，智商啊。
: 你说话用过比喻么？用过的话，你是不是也应该回答，你既然这句用了比喻，那句为什
: 么不是？凭什么不是？
: 也只有反基才发这种无厘头的问题。
| o***1
发帖数: 592 | 19 看来你还是嫩了点。 知道为什么基要派要唯独圣经吗？ 如果承认有比喻， 圣经就没
啦。
永生也是比喻·， 天堂地狱都是比喻。 你还信什么？
【在 b********h 的大作中提到】
: 呵呵，智商啊。
: 你说话用过比喻么？用过的话，你是不是也应该回答，你既然这句用了比喻，那句为什
: 么不是？凭什么不是？
: 也只有反基才发这种无厘头的问题。
|
|
