| The Logical Presuppositions of the Big Bang/Evolutionary Model | ||||||||||||
| Much credability has been granted wholesale to the scientific nature of the evolutionary/big bang theory without proper inquiry of its presuppositional base. Since I am more aquainted with the realms of philosophy & logic, I will briefly examine the integrity of the philosophical/logical foundation of such theories. | ||||||||||||
| In order for the evolutionary/big bang model to be a viable hypothesis, the following presuppositions would have to be maintained. | ||||||||||||
| I am not a scientist by
either training or profession. That is more than what some people
who try to concoct a scientific background or attempt to baffle those
who are less informed, in order to advance their beliefs, will
admit. My training rather has been in the field of
philosophy. My key presumption in this article is that before a
concept can be considered as a theory or hypothesis, it must first pass
the test of being coherent (internally and externally), consistent and
correspond to reality. The first part will deal with the alleged
factual foundations of the popular 'Big Bang' theory. I will not
attempt to advance it by appealing to alleged facts that reside in
advanced scientific fields, unavailable to the 'common' person.
As one who was not trained in advanced scientific theories and also to
better relate to the reader, I will refrain from appealing to any
'science' that is beyond the 6th grade. I will rather be looking
at rather elementary things such as definitions, necessities and
prerequisites. The reason for this is not to be condescending in
anyway (I will leave that for the pro-big bang/evolutionary
proponents), but to safeguard against the epistemological imperialism
that is rampant in secular science today. Secondly, I will turn to the traditional early earth creationist theory of bishop James Ussher that God created the universe in 6 literal 24 hour days 6,000 years ago (Ussher even dated the moment of creation as being on October 23rd, 4004 B.C.). Here, I will change approaches when appropriate because the criticisms differ in type from those against the big bang/evolution. Thirdly, I want to examine the thought that we need to 'protect' our children from criticisms against certain theories. The argument from motion and existence. The existence of something requires an origin. That origin may be either natural or supernatural. This second statement is important because the automatic exclusion of a supernatural- even the notion of its mere existence- is indicative of how open-minded a person toward that which he/she doesn't already believe. In order to do this without being arrogant and imperialistic would require that such a person be omniscient in that he/she knows all in breadth, depth and scope. We are told that all reality comes from the big bang. That nothing which exists now, existed prior to the big bang. I am not including metaphysical entities here such as God, Satan, gremlins, fairies or Pegasus. I am only including those things which can be scientifically examined, probbed, and measured. This level of reality includes such physical entities such as solids, gaseous (such as the periodic table) and liquids. Thus, prior to this time, matter/energy did not exist. Our first question then would be that if that was the case, what entities existed (prior the the big bang) which gave rise to its occurance if it could not have been chemical, material or energy? We are stuck with two possibilities, either those entities were infinite or they were created (here I do not use created in the creationist sense, but simply in the sense that the resulting entity came from some pre-exxisting matter). Regarding the former possibility, science is mute since infinity cannot be observed (as the scientist is finite, he/she has a fixed amount of time for observaton). The concept of infinity escapes scientific verifiability because science can only test and verify finite objects and cannot deal with the perimeters of the finite (which are none as it is boundless). Science can only test/verify lengthy models and extrapolate (speculate) back infinite 'conclusions.' What science cannot do is speculate/advance the notion that pre-big bang entities were infinite, thus leaving only the conclusion that they were finite and created. Then we have to deal with the question of supernatural agency or natural means. We are often told that the initial event that caused the bang is infinitismally small, even said to be "1E-43 seconds." Whatever the size or boundary of our observations, the cause of the initial sigularity is speculative and is not a matter of science, but can only be 'accepted' by faith. Similarly, based on sicentific evidence, we cannot know about the nature of space and time either prior to the big bang. We cannot know if they even existed prior to the bang (which would lend credence to the notion of the infinity of matter/energy). The second problem for the big bang theorist is that of the perimeters of the sphere which eventually 'exploded' during that event. Any physical item- whether a solid mass or a hollow container, holds and occupies space (regardless of whether or not it is occupied itself) Such a container, such as the pre-bang sphere, contains entities- whether solid, liquid, or gaseous which eventually 'scattered') would have an outer 'skin' (what has an 'inside' also has an 'outside'), the skin functions as a barrier to prevent that which is inside from unexpectedly 'leaking' outside and anything (which may exist) outside, vice versa. This can be seen in the case of a baloon full of air or a the edging of a garden which prevents the grass and weeds from outside from invading and the plants with from 'leaking' outside. It is this barrier which would function to prevent unnaturally attractive chemical/gaseous combinations from repelling one another, thus diffusing the bang before it even happens. It is these antagonistic entities, forced into very close proximity- closer than they would chose on their own, that would generate the reactive action which would result in the big bang. Like a cornered animal, their only recourse would be to come out in 'attack' mode. Perimeters can be either solid (like the above garden's edging), liquid (try swimming against the wave of a tsunami) or gaseous (a heavier gas will prevail over that of a lighter one). All three t types of perimeter couldn't have existed as matter/energy didn't exist prior to the big bang (again, unless we want to postulate the unscientific presupposition of infinity of material/energy). Even though something would be prerequisite for a given action, that same entity cannot be presumed before it exists. However, one can often find proponents of certain theories making wild and absurd exceptions just so their theories can remain 'on the table.'. |
||||||||||||
| 2 | ||||||||||||
| 1 | ||||||||||||
