Author
|
Topic: Big bang, sting theory, and the Book of Genesis (Read 559 times) |
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.40
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
  
|
 |
Big bang, sting theory, and the Book of Genesis
« on: 2005-04-18 13:15:30 » |
 |
This started a lively thread in MIT Tech Review. It is a good account of state-of-the-art physics sprinkled with poetic quotes from the Books of Genesis and even by G.W.Bush himself, published on the American Dept of Education site.
http://archives.trblogs.com/2005/04/orbach_and_gene_3.trml
Orbach and Genesis
This is rather disconcerting: a talk on the beginning of time by Raymond Orbach, Director of DOE’s Office of Science that quotes liberally from the book of Genesis. Orbach apparently gave his talk on April 6th as part of a brown bag lunch discussion. The title— Genesis: Science and the Beginning of Time.
http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/speeches/speeches/genesis/genesis.pdf
Orbach takes science back to its limits, something like string theory and the first 10^-44 seconds, but in going back further then seems determined to inject religion into the discussion by quoting Genesis and by quoting others who invoke God as part of the process that explains the beginning of time. Not exactly what you would expect of a man of science—a science that has succeeded in going back further and further in time towards the Big Bang, and which shows no signs of suddenly stopping or of needing to invoke God at any point.
Is Orbach pandering to the religious right or devaluing science as is already underway in the Administration? In any case, I don’t think it’s appropriate for a man of his position.
[rhinoceros]
Take a look at the PDF file. The science account is fairly good and the biblical quotes are rather disconnected from it. There is not anyhing like an intelligent design therory there -- the connection is only implied by proximity.
Of course there is the question of the presence of religious quotes on a government site, which is a serious issue, but I would like to look beyond this here.
When trying to evaluate this work, a question arises related to Erik's suggestion to adopt a God word. The reader of this work gets science facts *and* an implied affirmation of their religious beliefs. The readers learn that the Universe is billion years old, and at the same time they are reassured that this is not against the Book of Genesis. How do you thing this trade-off works?
My first thoughts: Acquainting religious people with the world of science in this way won't do much good in the short run, because they will accept it only as far as it confirms their beliefs. However, it may make a difference in the long run, if people actually get to know and use the science framework. By seeing this framework working and getting confirmation in practice, they may shift slowly into a state where they require from their beliefs to conform to such a framework.
It is worth reading the PDF to see what I mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
