In fact, and in addition to my disbelief in the theory of evolution is even moreso that of the Big Bang as posited as if there is no God, or better yet, doesn't need a god to cause the emergence of the universe.
Excuse me, YoursTrue, all classical sciences that are still relevant today and all modern sciences don’t posit God in their respective theories.
It is not just Evolution, nor the Big Bang don’t posit God or any miracles and creation stories.
Anatomy, physiology, zoology, botany, molecular biology, medicine, etc, none of these fields make claims of the existent or nonexistent deity of any sorts. Not even genetics without straying to Evolution don’t say one thing about your God.
Likewise, in all the fields of chemistry, of physics, of Earth sciences and of astronomy.
None of these branches and fields of Natural Sciences speak of the existence of any deity.
You are singling out the Big Bang and Evolution, but you’ve ignore all other scientific fields, which make you both ignorant and biased.
Do you know why all Natural Sciences don’t mention God at all?
Because gods and the supernatural miracles and creation stories (if they have any), are not testable, and there are no evidence whatsoever to show that any god exist or don’t exist - and UNTESTABLE concepts of gods, means the concepts of gods are UNFALSIFIABLE.
All “unfalsifiable” and “untestable” concepts (not just about god, I am talking about any unfalsifiable concepts or ideas, eg astrology, psychic powers, etc) won’t even qualify as being “hypothesis”.
A hypothesis isn’t just pure conjectures or speculations, and it is not something that you would make up.
Before you even write up a hypothesis, the evidence of natural phenomena should already be there. What scientists should be doing, is to discover it, and then find out -
- WHAT the phenomena is?
- HOW does the phenomena work?
So the purpose of the hypothesis is to understanding the natural phenomena, analyzed what they can, and then try to explain the phenomena.
When scientists have come up with explanations, they would try to set up ways to test the hypothesis’ explanations, predictions & any equations, with evidence or experiments, or both.
Charles Darwin didn’t just fabricate Natural Selection from thin air. He spends his early years on voyage of HMS Beagle (1831-1836), studying, analysing and taking extensive notes species (and subspecies) of plants, animals (remains and fossils), from South America, the Pacific and South Africa.
Alfred Russel Wallace, Darwin’s contemporary, also did similar things in the Amazon and the Malay Archipelago.
Magnets were known since ancient times, and exist naturally as lodestones, so that wasn’t news in Michael Faraday’s days. What Faraday did discover that magnetic fields can induce (DC current) electricity on conductors, so he discover the relations between electricity and magnetism, and his hypothesis including his equations on electromagnetic fields, became a scientific theory that are still relevant today.
The planetary motion of the Solar System worked naturally and astronomically on the heliocentric system, and Aristarchus of Samos, a 3rd century BCE Hellenistic Greek astronomer and mathematician was the first to postulate the heliocentric model of planetary motion that planets (including the Earth) orbiting around the sun.
But it was unpopular because since the 2nd millennium BCE Babylonian astronomy advocated the geocentric model that influenced Egyptian astronomers and Greek astronomers, where the Earth was fixed and stationary, while they believed that the Sun and planets orbited around the Earth. A 2nd century CE, Egyptian-Greek astronomer Claudius Ptolemy wrote a very influential treatise on geocentric model, which Christians (including Western and Eastern churches) have supported for over a thousand years. Very few astronomers support the heliocentric model.
It wasn’t until Nicklaus Copernicus revived the heliocentric model, mathematically, and Galileo Galilei shown it to be true with an early telescope.
The phenomena was always there, but very few understood the phenomena of heliocentric model, between Aristarchus and Galileo.
Of course, the heliocentric model of Copernicus and Galileo wasn’t completely correct: Johannes Kepler correctly postulated and tested the orbits were elliptical, not circular orbits. The evidence was there, way before Aristarchus, but understanding the observations and the evidence don’t always come.
As to the Big Bang theory. The evidence were there, it was just no one understood them until the 1920s (Friedmann, Robertson & Lemaître, eg Friedmann equations, Hubble’s Law and the Cosmological Redshift) and then the 1948 (Gamow, Alpher & Herman, eg the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and the Hot Big Bang model),
The Redshift was predicated independently by the American Howard Percy Robertson (1924) and Belgian Georges Lemaître (1927), but it was discovered in 1929 by Edwin Hubble.
George Gamow and Ralph Alpher predicted the BB Nucleosynthesis, and Alpher co-wrote and predicted CMBR with Robert Herman, wrote joint papers. The CMBR was accidentally discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who were setting up radio antenna as radio telescope, in 1964.
These two evidence (Redshift & CMBR) of the Big Bang “hypothesis” was elevated to “scientific theory” status in 1964, and debunked the competing Steady State model.
Some people don’t understand that hypotheses have to be at the very least, be testable.
When the actual testing happened, the evidence and experiments will either refute the hypothesis or verified the hypothesis.
No hypotheses are true by-default; all hypotheses must be tested, before they are accepted as true, and that involve correct observations and understanding of the evidence.
Frankly my dear, since it's beyond my comprehension, I will turn it over to God because there are some things beyond *our* comprehension, as exemplified by the new posits made by those looking through the new type of telescope. When I was in high school I pondered over atoms and what holds them together to make things like wood and desks, etc., despite the "space" between them. The intellectual ability is interesting but nothing gained in terms of pondering beyond having a good time trying to figure things out.
