David Palmer, Suseonline,

Other David is right. Christianity is neither science nor pseudoscience; it is religion - and folk who treat their Bibles as a scientific textbook come unstuck very quickly.

There are pseudoscientific beliefs which attach themselves to Christianity, such as young earth creationism. But most Christians accept that the Bible is not always meant to be taken literally, and that it need not always reflect reality to be considered a profoundly important work of literature.

Hi David,

Actually, I would say that the Biblical account of creation and the current scientific understanding of a Big Bang at the beginning of the Universe have a lot in common.

The Judeo Christian understanding is of God creating out of nothing, "in the beginning, God created". Until recent time following Aristotle it was held that there was no beginning, the Universe was eternal. However, today most physicists seem to be able to live with the view that origin of the universe, i.e. space-time is a singularity (as I would also argue is the case for Christ's incarnation and resurrection). I'm not calling on you to accept what I say but I am only continuing my argument contra Matt that Christianity is evidence based and furthermore, since you raise the matter, Genesis chapter 1 (the Bible) and modern scientific understanding of the origin of the Universe demonstrate an uncanny resemblance.

My apologies but I'm travelling the next couple of days but if you and Susan wish to continue the discussion I'm back mid week.

Cheers

David

Like The Acolyte Rizla I too am extremely doubtful about young earth creationism, though I also think evolution has well documented problems of its own. I like to think of myself as an undogmatic old earth creationist who sees value in evolution, at least at the micro level.

I say "undogmatic" because when it comes to religion and science far too many people are far too dogmatic about matters they barely understand.

Cheers

David

Thanks for the great article Poirot, which bears out everything I said and so saves me the bother of responding to the gaggle of obstinate geese here.

Great article. And he wasn't struck down by a bolt from the Earth for saying it.

Confirmation bias is a very good explanation of why people are so willing to believe such ideas as Global Warming.

Onya Matt Ridley.

" the current scientific understanding of a Big Bang "
Posted by David Palmer, Sunday, 6 Nov 7:44:33pm

There does not seem to be such a "current scientific understanding of the Big Bang". It is a hypothesis: a fledgling theory; a proposition.

There are a number of possibilities, including the ability for universes to come and go around a nett energy & mass state of near zero. Multiverses are another possibility.