I have never quite figured out why secularists claim to be grounded in scientific fact, when they concede so much mystery. A good example is dark matter. From 
the Christian Science Monitor’s Dark Matter Revealed?
Dark matter, which scientists believe makes up 25 percent of the universe but whose existence has never been proven, could be detected by the giant particle collider at CERN, the research center’s head said Monday.
Rolf-Dieter Heuer told a news conference some evidence for the matter may emerge even in the shorter term from mega-power particle collisions aimed at recreating conditions at the “Big Bang” birth of the universe some 13.7 billion years ago.
“We don’t know what dark matter is,” said Heuer, Director-General of the European Organization for Nuclear Research on the Swiss-French border near Geneva.
“Our Large Hadron Collider (LHC) could be the first machine to give us insight into the dark universe,” he said. “We are opening the door to New Physics, to a discovery period.”
Astronomers and physicists say that only 5 percent of the universe is known currently, and that the invisible remainder consists of dark matter and dark energy, which make up some 25 percent and 70 percent, respectively.
“If we can detect and understand dark matter, our knowledge will expand to encompass 30 percent of the universe, a huge step forward,” Heuer said. (emphasis mine)
Did you get that? Dark matter is “invisible” and makes up between “25 percent and 70 percent” of the universe… and scientists aren’t sure what the hell it is or if it even exists.
Okay, so let me get this straight. Christians are simple-minded and naive for believing in something they can’t see, something with little or no scientific evidence. Nevertheless, “Astronomers and physicists say that only 5 percent of the universe is known currently” and are dumping vast amounts of money and research into something they can’t see, “whose existence has never been proven.”
Is this the equivalent of “blind faith”? Suddenly I don’t feel as stupid for believing in the Invisible.
To be fair, dark matter I think is like a variable. We know that there's SOMETHING there, we just don't know exactly what it is. It doesn't hurt to theorize about it, but until we get more data it kinda seems like the ridiculous parallel universe theories or big bang/big crunch cycles.
As far as I understand, the Big Bang Theory is the current working theory, all the rest having been tried and rejected. And we must remember that the BBT was developed by a devout Christian.
So what is the difference between a materialist's faith and a Christian's? Both of us know enough to conclude "that there's SOMETHING there," yet we still need to "get more data."
Dark matter, or an equivalent unknown force, has been proven to exist since the 1970s through a variety of methods. For a start, try reading about gravitational lensing(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing#Studying_the_foreground_lenses), rotational velocity curves (http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/rotcurve.html), or measurements of the cosmic microwave background (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html). These experiments have been conducted numerous times by a many different Physicists, Astronomers and Cosmologists. It is not just some wild theory, the effects of dark matter have been confirmed. The controversy lies in what is causing this effect. The theory is dark matter, and there are many experimentalists worldwide currently attempting to detect it directly (see: DAMA/NaI, CDMS, SNOLAB, XENON, and ZEPLIN, among a wide variety of others). Please get your knowledge of facts straight before calling this “blind faith”.
I thought this was spam for a second. I was quoting from the Christian Science Monitor, so any inaccuracy on the terms or stats should be taken up with them. But I’m wondering, what percentage of the universe do you think we “know”? And is the rest taken on… faith?
One more thing, you simply cannot compare the theory of dark matter to a belief in god. Until you can come up with an experiment that can prove or disprove the existence of god (like scientists are currently doing with dark matter), you cannot compare the methodology of science to your “methodology” in believing in god.
If the experimentalists do not directly detect dark matter in the quickly dwindling mass-energy range that it must have, scientists will accept the conclusion and move on to a new theory that they will again have to determine experimentally. Theory and experiment, not just theory.
‘God only Acts & Is, in existing beings or Men.’
These two classes of men are always upon earth, & they should be enemies; whoever tries to reconcile them seeks to destroy existence.
Religion is an endeavour to reconcile the two.
Note: Jesus Christ did not wish to unite but to seperate them, as in the Parable of sheep and goats! & he says I came not to send Peace but a Sword.
— William Blake
Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Science relies on empirically observable and repeatable experiments to confirm the physical. Christians rely on observable and repeatable results in the lives of people as confirmation of the spiritual. I personally have wittnessed this immediate change in certain people. So both are correct in how they perceive things. One is physical the other is spiritual. Religion does not apply? While it is true that scientific results are entirely independent from religious or moral considerations, those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were all of them imbued with the truly religious conviction that this universe of ours is something perfectly made no matter how it all started.
Well, employing that mindset and terminology, I suspect it’s accurate to say I believe in the Divine the same way I believe in quarks, string theory, quantum mechanics, or the size of the universe; I weigh evidence, testimony and personal experience/reason, then arrive the most viable conclusion. There is a God.
The following are the evidence to prove that Stephen Hawking has abused science to support his Big Bang theory in which gravity could exist prior to the formation of the universe to create something out of nothing since his theory has contradicted not only Isaac Newton’s principle, but also Eistein’s theory:
The following is the extract of the second paragraph under the sub-title of “Negative Pressure” for the main subject of the ‘Nature Of Dark Energy’ as shown in the website address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy:
According to General Relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the Stress-energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity.
As the phrase, the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is mentioned in the extracted paragraph, it gives the implication that physical quantity of matter has to exist prior to the generation of gravitational effects. Or in other words, it opposes the principality that gravitational effects could occur at the absence of matter. As it is described pertaining to Dark Energy, it implies that Dark Energy could only be derived from the existence of the physical quantity of matter. This certainly rejects Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy could exist prior to the formation of the universe as if that dark energy could exist the support or influence from the physical quantity of matter.
The following is the extract of the third paragraph under the sub-title of ‘Cosmological Constant’ for the main subject of the ‘Nature of Dark Energy’ that has been extracted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy:
The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the “cost of having space”: that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence Lambda-CDM model) after the Greek letter ?, the symbol used to mathematically represent this quantity. Since energy and mass are related by E = mc2, Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that it will have a gravitational effect..
E = mc2 has been used to be related to Dark Energy. As energy and mass are related in according to General Relativity and if m = 0, no matter how big the number that c could be, E (the dark energy) would turn up to be 0 since no matter how big the number c is E is always equal to 0 when 0 (that is the mass) is multiplied by c2. Or in other words, E (the dark energy) should be equal to 0 at the absence of substance (the mass). Stephen Hawking’s theory certainly contradicts Eistein’s theory in the sense that he supports that dark energy ( E > 0) could exist even though there could not be any matter (that is m = 0) existed prior to the formation of the universe.
Refer to the website address pertaining to Isaac Newton’s theory pertaining to The Unversal Law of Gravitation: ttp://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html
Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely separation between the two objects. Fg = G(m1 m2)/r2. (Fg is the gravitational force; m1 & m2 are the masses of the two objects; r is the separation between the objects and G is the universal gravitational constant. From the formula, we note that Fg (the gravitational force or in replacement of dark energy) has a direct influence from two masses (m1 & m2). If either of the m is equal to 0, Fg would turn up to be 0. Isaac Newton’s theory certainly opposes Stephen Hawking in which gravity or the so-called, dark energy, could exist at the absence of matter prior to the formation of this universe in this energy or gravity could create something out of nothing.
Stephen Hawking might comment that Eistein’s and Isaac Newton’s principles are wrong. However, Stephen Hawking was not born at the time prior to the formation of this universe to visualize how the universe could be formed initially. To jump into the conclusion that the gravity could be created from something out of nothing is simply out of his own imagination. Not only that, his theory contradicts both Eistein’s and Isaac Newton’s principles pertaining to gravity.
Big Bang theory has been used to support that this universe could be formed out of chaos.
Refer to the website address, http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html, regarding to the 1st law of Newton’s Principle. It is mentioned that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. If this concept has been applied to the formation of this universe, it implies that this universe would remain nothing as it was until external force that would cause it to change. Or in other words, if there could be no external force or substance that could cause the formation of this universe, everything would remain as it was and the universe, that would remain nothing, would continue to remain nothing.
If this universe could be created something out of nothing, there must be the external force that would cause something to be created out of nothing. Stephen Hawking might comment that it was gravity or quantum theory or etc. However, there must have external force that would cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work. If there would not be any external force to cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work in the formation of this universe, how could there be the formation of this universe since this world would remain nothing until eternity as supported by 1st law of Newton’s principle? Thus, the concept that this universe could be created something out of nothing is questionable from scientific point of view.
Newton’s principle even mentions that every object in this universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely separation between two objects. This theory gives the implication that there have to be some objects or masses in order to attract force, i.e. gravity. Thus, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory in which gravity could exist at the absence of objects or masses prior to the formation of this universe.
Even if one insists that this theory could be correct, how could quantum theory or gravity or etc., be so efficient to manage the universe well in such a way that it could create sophisticated earth which plants and animals could survive here? What made the earth to be created far from the sun and not just next to it? For instance, if this earth was created a short distance just next to the sun, all animals and plants would not survive. Thus, the creation of this universe could not be co-incidence and this certainly puts quantum theory to be in doubts pertaining to its creation from something out of nothing.
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity, pertaining to general relativity. It is mentioned in this website 6th line after the title of ‘’Introduction to general relativity’ that the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time. As the phrase, gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time, is mentioned for general relativity, it gives the implication that there have to be some kind of masses in order to create gravitational attraction through warping of space and time. Thus, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity or dark energy could exist prior to the formation of this universe at the absence of masses or objects in order to create something out of nothing. Or in other words, in order that gravitational force or dark energy would exist, there must be masses in this universe to interact in space and time in order to generate gravitational force.
Refer to the above website 17th line after the title of ‘Introduction to general relativity. It is mentioned that general relativity also predicts novel effects of gravity such as, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and an effect of gravity of time known as gravitational time dilation. Let’s examine all these factors, i.e. gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and gravitational time dilation below:
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave, pertaining to gravitational waves. It is mentioned in this website 10th line after the title of ‘Gravitational wave’ that the existence of gravitational waves is possibly a consequence of the Lorentz invariance of general relativity since it brings the concept of a limiting speed of propagation of the physical interactions with it. The phrase, Lorentz invariance of general relativity…brings… the physical interactions…, here gives the implication that gravitational waves have to be dealt with physical interactions or masses. As gravitational masses have to be dealt with masses, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory in which Hawking mentioned that gravitational wave could exist at the presence of substances or masses prior to the formation of this universe. As gravitational waves have to be dealt with substances or masses, it is irrational for Stephen Hawking to use it to support that gravity or dark energy could exist at the absence of masses so as to create something out of nothing.
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing, pertaining to the gravitational lens. It is mentioned that a gravitational lens refers to a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, that is capable of bending (lensing) the light from the source, as it travels towards the observer. The phrase, a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, gives a strong proof for a must to have matters or substances in order to activate a gravitational lens. Thus, gravitational lens in general relativity needs to rely on masses or substances in order to be generated and this opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity could exist at the absence of substance to create something out of nothing.
Refer to website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation, pertaining to gravitational time dilation. It is mentioned that gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the lower the gravitational potential, the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential, under the sub-title of ‘Potential energy’ pertaining to gravitational potential. The following is the extract of the formula of gravitational potential:
The gravitational potential (V) is the potential energy (U) per unit mass:
U = mV
where m is the mass of the object. The potential energy is the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving the body to its given position in space from infinity. If the body has a mass of 1 unit, then the potential energy to be assigned to that body is equal to the gravitational potential. So the potential can be interpreted as the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving a unit mass in from infinity
From the above formula above, it is obvious that U (the potential energy or dark energy or gravity) has a direct relationship with m (the mass of the object). If m = 0, U (the dark energy would turn up to be 0 since U (the potential energy) would turn up to 0 whatever the number that V has when V is multiplied by m that is equal to 0. Thus, the generation of potential energy in general relativity would certainly have found to have conflict with Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy or gravity could exist at the absence of masses or substances prior to the formation of this universe so as to create something out of nothing.
Nevertheless, Stephen Hawking has abused general relativity to support his quantum theory in which something could be created out of nothing since general relativity demands masses or substances in order to generate dark energy or gravity.
Refer to the website here: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=75 There are about 100 known galaxies that are in blue shifts. As there are so many blue shifts, it is irrational to use many red shifts that have been discovered through Hubble telescope to conclude that this universe would be expanding. The following are the reasons why it is irrational to conclude that the universe would be expanding to support Big Bang Theory:
a) This universe might have been extended up to infinity in the past and there would have no place currently for further expansion since the space would be in infinity without boundary currently. If that would be so, many red shifts than blue do not give the implication that this entire universe would be expanding.
b) Even if this entire universe might have a boundary, many red shifts than blue do not give the implication that this universe would be expanding due to these blue shifts might reflect there could be some galaxies that would have travelled pass the corner of the fixed boundary of universe for their return. As some of these 100 over galaxies could have travelled pass the corner of the fixed boundary of the universe for their return and yet many still struggling behind in advancing and would have not reached the corner of the universe yet due to the expanse of universe and it would take many and many years for galaxies to reach its corner of the universe for their return, these would have turned up to be more red shifts than blue.
As the universe might not be expanding as a result of the exceptional cases of above, it is irrational to use many red shifts than blue to conclude this universe would be expanding so as to support Big Bang Theory.
Old but interesting article and Comments, though some are too long for me to read.
In my view people who compare science and religion have it all wrong.
Christianity does not try to define the universe. God created it, defined the rules at play in this universe, and set it in motion. It is just accepted by the religious, it doesn’t have to be proven. If you don’t believe in God there isn’t a big change: The universe was created with certain rules and set into motion by some unknown force that you could never know or understand (sound familiar?)
Science on the other hand, exists in this world, and tries to define the universe we live in. It takes measurement and tries to understand the rules that exist. The laws of motion, etc. On things it knows are there it created theories to try to explain them. It test these theories until they can be proven or disproven.
To the religious they are trying to discover the laws God created. To the atheist, they are just explaining the things that exist in this universe and they can see/touch/measure.
They are not mutually exclusive studies. To the scientist, every question answered leads to many new questions – they will never know “everything” as we continually make new discoveries. To the religious, you will never be able to define God in this way, you will never understand “everything” only make new discoveries…