Home » Cosmology, News » Darwinism explains why the Big Bang didn’t need God

Darwinism explains why the Big Bang didn’t need God

In “The Big Bang Didn’t Need God to start Universe, Researchers Say” (Space.com, 24 June 2012), Mike Wall tells us,

Our universe could have popped into existence 13.7 billion years ago without any divine help whatsoever, researchers say.

That may run counter to our instincts, which recoil at the thought of something coming from nothing. But we shouldn’t necessarily trust our instincts, for they were honed to help us survive on the African savannah 150,000 years ago, not understand the inner workings of the universe.

Instead, scientists say, we should trust the laws of physics.

WHAT laws of physics? Aren’t we just back on the savannah with our instincts? It’s not instinct that recoils, it is reason.

Instinct was always prone to magic, reason to calculations.

By the way, who or what is the Big Bang that it “didn’t need God” to start the universe? We thought it was an event, not an entity.

These people are really reaching.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

7 Responses to Darwinism explains why the Big Bang didn’t need God

  1. Any respectable researcher would have asked God before coming to a conclusion.

  2. 2

    Our universe could have popped into existence 13.7 billion years ago without any divine help whatsoever, researchers say.

    Note to self: When atheists say “COULD” they mean “DID”…just have faith.

    As Dr Hunter says:

    Religion drives science, and it matters

  3. But we shouldn’t necessarily trust our [instincts] reson, for [they were] it was honed to help us survive on the African savannah 150,000 years ago, not understand the inner workings of the universe. As Plantinga pointed out.

  4. “Our universe could have popped into existence 13.7 billion years ago without any divine help whatsoever, researchers say.”

    Um… how?

  5. I found it interesting that even Darwin agreed that some subjects were beyond human comprehension. So, in other words, if we don’t understand it, it’s not worth understanding, right? But doesn’t that run counter to the entire realm of science and scientific discovery, which explicitly tries to answer deep questions?

    I also find it amusing to see the lengths to which some people will go to deny the divine.

  6. Scientismificists think God, a spoil-sport. “We should be left alone to show how clever we are. Our ‘promissory note’ is as good as gold,” is basically their mind-set.

    I once read this notion expressed by a physicist, although in terms with a less personal connotation than use of the word, ‘spoil-sport’ would convey. But the implication was clearly that. I believe it was Fred Hoyle.

    It’s not about knowledge and understanding with them. It’s about self-aggrandisement.

  7. The fool has said in his heart, there is no God. I didn’t make it up. It’s not original with me. :-)

Leave a Reply