Guy Threepwood wrote:It's was not Lemaitre's belief in God that permitted him to consider a creation event, but his skepticism of atheism. he was a shining example of scientific impartiality- going out of his way as you note, to disassociate his theory with his personal beliefs, even writing to the Pope telling him to quit gloating.. that's how scientists should operate.
Actually, scientists, being people, are generally biased and will often try to stick with some idea they like to champion. I agree that scientists should not allow their favorite ideas to blind them to evidence against those ideas, but it doesn't always work that way. "Scientific impartiality" like any ideal is rarely achieved.
So why did Lemaitre, a Catholic priest, come up with an idea that runs counter to the Biblical creation myths? I cannot read minds, but it appears to me that his scientific integrity took him down a road that led him to question the truth of his Christian beliefs. He may have experienced a lot of doubts as a result of his work in science.
In stark contrast atheists like Hoyle mocked and rejected the theory explicitly because it did not conform to their atheist beliefs- their arguments, not mine.
Lets take a look at the Wikipedia article,
Fred Hoyle. It states:
While having no argument with the Lematre theory (later confirmed by Edwin Hubble's observations) that the universe was expanding, Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation. He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"
So contrary to what you say, Hoyle disagreed with the Big Bang Theory not because it conflicted with his "atheistic beliefs" (whatever they might be) but because he did not feel that such a theory is truly scientific. Hoyle's concerns are not misplaced at all considering how many people have tried to use science to further their social, political, and religious agendas.
Now I'm an atheist, and I have no problem with the Big Bang Theory. I understand the evidence for this theory, and it looks convincing to me. I never considered the Book of Genesis when deciding scientifically whether or not the universe "began." I don't see any reason to conclude that any god "set off" the Big Bang. Gods came billions of years later when primitive humans made them up.
Likewise individuals like Dawkins can barely discuss how to make a cup of tea- far less biology, without relating it to their personal belief systems
Oh? You have a problem with people espousing their personal belief systems? I wonder who does that!
scientists should NOT protect old theories like steady state, classical physics, or Darwinism based on atheist beliefs, because they do not have to surrender them-
Personally, I don't care what motivates scientists as long as they are right. So if some scientist is protecting a theory as a result of "atheist beliefs," then that's fine with me as long as she has the evidence.
as bitterly as atheists originally complained about the BB...
Actually, many Christian apologists oppose the Big Bang Theory because they fear it conflicts with their beliefs. You may wish to see some of Kent Hovind's videos on YouTube for an example.
...let the science follow the evidence where it leads...
Well, like it or not, scientific discoveries are leading us away from religious myths. As astronomer Carl Sagan has said, the more we learn, the less there is for God to do.
Besides, people made up all the gods including yours. Made-up gods can't create universes.
no more than steady state, big crunch, or any other 'made up' theory-
You seriously think that scientists come up with theories the same way that primitive, superstitious people came up with their gods?
...but whichever conclusion the evidence supports, are you not ultimately most interested in that? either way?
Obviously I'm interested in scientific discoveries. But it is satisfying to realize that those discoveries are powerful evidence against religious myths. I guess I'm just lucky in that science supports my skepticism about religion.
