Originally posted by Dasa
We have all heard it at school in the science class… In the begining there was nothing… and from that nothing came a big bang, caused by no one coming from nowhere… It created all the mass of the universe completely by chance [according to Einstein's Theory]…
The mass then contracted and automatically formed all the planets and set them into motion, all orbi ...[text shortened]... he Internet and I back it up 100%....and is there anyone else joining the clan of the truthful.
Just a few of the false premises in this argument.
Big Bang theory is not a problem for many Christians and does not prevent many scientists practising their Christian faith. It is only a problem for people within certain evangelical sects who demand the literal truth of the Bible, something that other Christians do not see as even important let alone valid.
From the outset, it is not the case that science was on a mission to destroy religion. Quite the reverse is true. For example, one of Galileo's complaints to the Vatican (which many cardinals supported at the time) was that, if the Church insists on making claims that are demonstrably nonsense, then it risks bringing the Church into ridicule among educated people across Europe. That is a lesson the Catholic Church certainly decided to learn, albeit slowly and selectively. I am perfectly aware that many Christians are not Catholic - this is an EXAMPLE to say science has not got a record of seeking to harm religion.
Scientist have not ignored the theory of "intelligent design." They have tested it to destruction. If for instance you read a decent biography of Charles Darwin, you will see that he hugely admired the theory of intelligent design and relinquished it only after obsessively testing and experimenting to try and show that mere random chance was insufficient to account for complexity in biology. The point is that his work proved that there is no need for any other explanation. This is not what he wanted to find and he was profoundly disturbed and upset by his own research findings. You may say what you will, but it is FALSE to say he did not consider intelligent design. The point is he had a bias IN FAVOUR of intelligent design and struggled for years before he was forced BY EVIDENCE to abandon it. That applies generally.