# Evolution and Theology (An open letter to the creationists) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 30, 2002, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500 "2002-10-30T05:39:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500/81 "2002-11-08T13:53:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by whuckfistle \* > \*\*Cynic ?, Does this defense work? > > Science doesn`t prove things right, it proves things wrong. We thought we have been right many times about many things only to be proven wrong later. Same goes with religion, I can`t prove I`m right and you haven`t proven me wrong. And vice- versa. So until any views are proven wrong they are right by default. I think I make sense here. > Are all views right until proven wrong? And how can we prove any wrong without direct input from God? > Maybe we are both right, which goes with my earlier post that a sincere heart may get judged on that basis. > > If you are trying to get LOGIC out of any religious discussion, good stinkin` luck!! > > MANGETOUT - how does this sound to you? \*\* First you were attempting to use logic to try to show that it was “safer” to believe your way than to not. The arguement you forwarded was a much weaker (less rigorous) logical construct than one that we recognize as Pascal’s wager, but was closely related. It looks good on paper at first glance but falls apart pretty quickly when it is realized that it is based on a false premise. That premise being that there are only two possible solutions when in fact there are a (near) infinite variety of solutions. The concept that “views are right until proven wrong” is a completely bogus. I say that “there is an advanced earth ant based society living on a specific planet”. You can’t prove it wrong. I say that “I have an invisible, discorporate, fire breathing dragon living in my garage.” You can’t prove that I don’t. But yet, clearly these ideas are worthless as I don’t have any evidence that the are true, just assertions and untestable ideas. And lastly, evolution is not religion. It is an idea of science. Leaving the mechanisms (of evolution) on the side line for the moment, the fact that life has been on this planet for a loooonnnnnnggggggg time, and that in general the pattern holds perfectly that more advanced types of life appear in the fossil record with clear lineage to simpler forms. Creationist are trying to use logic to prove religion. (Didn’t someone just try to warn us that apply logic to religion wasn’t a good plan?) If a person draws from the bible that the earth is young and/or that the earth was started with the full complement of animals (and humans) that we have today, we have something called a “testable hypothesis”. Suddenly, you have something that is not/can not be an issue of faith. Now, lets look at the data. The known data clearly, completely, and utterly rules out the creationist ideas. The evolution hypothosis is left standing as it is compatible with all the known data. The quantity of this data is so staggering, that it leaves evolutions on pretty solid ground. To make things perfectly clear about the data. It is a fact, not a theory, that the fossil record, genetic similarities between organisms, and a mountain of other items indicate that gradual change and speciation of organisms happened over time. Evolution is a theory that pulls all these facts together in a framework with a mechanism. The facts all look just like what you would expect to see if our proposed evolution mechanism is correct. Even if it is off (slightly or completely), you are left with the fact that the earth is old and organisms gradually increased in completity over time. Those facts completely rule out creationism. The current crop of liars (uhm… I meant creationists) have been delivering a campaign of misdirection, misinterpretations, fabrication, and outright lies about the data. They try to claim again and again that the data supports their ideas, and disproves evolution. They are wrong of course. When an arguement or data they present has been demonstrated to them as false, they are seen shoveling out the same claim a couple days later. (Probably their most annoying and discouraging tactic in my mind). ---
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500/82 "2002-11-08T14:02:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > \*\*I’ve wondered about that too **Latro** - the average Christian creationist innocently believes it’s true pretty much on the authority of the arguments presented with a sort of hand-waving dismissal (I can provide examples from here in GD if called), but the guys at the top who are creating the arguments - I don’t think there’s any way they can be unaware that they are playing a game of deceit. \*\* Actually, sometimes I waffle between deliberate deceit or dillusional. I think there are some of each with probably the largest portion dillusional. ---
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500/83 "2002-11-08T15:06:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ben \* > **Once there was this guy, and a flood was coming to his town. The neighbors offered to let him use their truck to pack up his stuff and get out of town, but he said, “No, I have faith, God will provide.”…** This post reminded me of an article recently published in the [ntskeptics.org](http://ntskeptics.org) newsletter recently. I thought I would share it. This is the entire article. It **is** posted with the **express written consent** of the original author, John Blanton. > [@](#): > > **One less elephant** > by John Blanton > > The story is an old one, so I will try to keep it short. > The young son asks his father, “What holds up the Earth?” > > The father explains, “The Earth rests on the back of a huge elephant.” > > “But, father, what holds up the elephant?” the child asks. > > “The elephant is standing on the back of a very large turtle” the father explains, proud to pass on the wisdom of the best minds of the day. > > “But what holds up the turtle?” the child persists. > > “Why, son. From there on down it’s turtles all the way.” > > More recently Dayle Shockley has written in The Dallas Morning News "Humans aren’t accidents."1 Shockley is a writer and motivational speaker. A review of her writing indicates she is politically conservative and strongly religious. Her writings tend to reflect an otherwise level-headed approach. But, like many deeply religious people, she rejects totally natural explanations. It is unacceptable for her to believe that humans and this wonderful universe just evolved. So she posits an elephant, instead. Only she uses the word “creator.” “Believing that human beings and all of the wonders of this magnificent world just evolved—or are the result of some cosmic explosion—seems much more unlikely and requires much more faith than does believing in a Creator,” she says in her News column. > > Now I must say a creator is a great and wonderful thing. A creator is all powerful. With a creator everything is possible. The creator explains all that is otherwise impossible to understand. When the mysteries of the universe become too deep, or when the chain of reasoning becomes overwhelmingly complex, it’s only necessary to invoke a creator, and you’re done. Home by five o’clock even. > > That’s because the creator does everything you want it to do, and the creator does not need to be explained. The creator is the final explanation. And the best part about the creator is that one must not attempt to explain the creator. I have this on good authority from people who have told me about the creator. Besides, anybody who attempts to explain the creator will quickly find himself up to his neck in turtles. > > It’s fortunate for many of us that our jobs do not require a lot of deep thinking. Most routine tasks can be accomplished by following established policy and social norms. Even otherwise very intelligent people routinely slough off the heavy lifting and go for the easy answer. Shockley is fortunate in being able to do this. She has not followed her chain of reasoning to its logical conclusion. If she had she would have realized that invoking the creator does not explain anything. She has invented an explanation that in turn needs to be explained. Something that by definition “explains everything” actually explains nothing. It is the ultimate excuse—the intellectual equivalent of “The dog ate my homework.” > > Where would we be today if our men of science invoked the creator whenever faced with a difficult problem? For one thing we would probably be a few hundred years back, back to the time when demons and black magic were the explanation for human afflictions, and doctors did not desire to search any deeper. > > In the less distant past people traveled west to search the gold fields of California. Some, learning there was gold near Pikes Peak in Colorado, decided to stop there and go no farther. They never made it to California. From this, according to a popular legend, we get the word “piker” for someone who strives by half measures. In science we call these people “creationists.” > > Which gets us to the main story. There is a movement under way by creationists to introduce a concept called intelligent design into the science curricula in public schools. Having failed more primitive approaches, they now want to dress creationism up in a "cheap tuxedo"2 and pass it off as legitimate science. They have even renamed the creator. It is now a designer. > > For example, biochemist Michael Behe believes biochemical processes are too complex to have evolved by natural selection. He wants us to stop searching for the ultimate answer and just accept the designer.3 > > Mathematician and philosopher William Dembski asserts the information required to construct a complex living organism (such as himself) is too much to have come by natural means. He wants us to accept the designer.4 > > For these creationists there’s no need to drive all the way to California. It’s easier to just stop at Pike’s Peak and declare an elephant. Fortunately, real scientists are not fond of elephants of the allegorical kind. They like to keep on driving in search of the real thing. > > An example: Twelve years ago I was attending a creationist meeting when the theme went something like this: “We know the sun is not powered by nuclear fusion, because a fusion reaction would produce a lot of neutrinos, and scientists are measuring only a fraction of the neutrino flux that would be expected from a fusion source. Without a nuclear power source the sun would have run out of gas a long time ago if it really were billions of years old. Therefore the sun is not billions of year old, and there has not been enough time for evolution. So Darwin was wrong, and Genesis is correct.” > > Some people call me skeptical, but I know you can’t beat an argument like that. Since I was a little vague on the nature of neutrinos at that time I decided to do something about it. Later that year I went back to college, and after four years I had a masters degree in physics. In the mean time scientists had learned more about neutrinos, as well. > > This year Dr. Raymond Davis, Jr. and Dr. Masatoshi Koshiba won the Nobel prize in physics "in recognition of their ground-breaking research into the emission of neutrinos produced by nuclear fusion reactions in the center of the sun. The observation of these neutrinos demonstrated conclusively that the sun is powered by the fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium nuclei."5 > > My guess is the creationists are now off looking for another gap in current scientific research for their creator to hide in. > > In the mean time, real science continues to advance, despite the efforts of the creationists to beg for “alternative explanations.” Real scientists have learned to not accept the easy answers, the answers that are not answers at all. They have learned to ask “why?” with relentless persistence. They have also learned, when they don’t understand something, to just say “I don’t know.” Before they get to the first elephant. > > References > 1 “Viewpoints” column in The Dallas Morning News, 5 October 2002. > 2 A phrase coined by Leonard Krishtalka, who directs the Natural History Museum at the University of Kansas. > 3 Behe’s irreducible complexity is explained in his book Darwin’s Black Box. > 4 Dembski discusses his concept of specified complexity in his book No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence. > 5 “Nobel Prize in Physics: Raymond Davis, Jr. for Contributions to Neutrino Research and Our Understanding of the Sun,” [http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/v49/n08/nobel\_davis.html](http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/v49/n08/nobel_davis.html) ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500/84 "2002-11-08T15:07:31Z")
this is fun… I`ll throw out some more, if you care to respond..... What line of logicall thinking can we use for a striclty religious discussion? Forget the creation arguement ( i`m on board with evolution as I stated upsrtream), how can each and every individual person that wants to bellieve in a Diety be assured that their beliefs are correct? I`ll try to clarify my thought on the subject here. Since we cannot prove that any religion is right or wrong(we just can`t!, agree?). Would divine intervention be proof? It is for most people who believe that Christ was that divine intervention. Right at that very point most people will stop the arguement. Those who believe in Christ that is. What logical arguement can be used on those who truely believe? Since they can`t be proven wrong (with what evidence?) they assume they are right…they believe the evidence of Christ is overwhelming. Same parallels can be drawn in any other societies with different religious structures. About your reticulated invisible dragon analogy - If your garage door was inexplicably burned every morning then I could see you coming to that conclusion. There has to be some basis for a claim to hold water even for the shortest time. The goose analogy - the people who first made this assumption probably thought they were right(for five minutes). The elves analogy - twelve hundred years ago this may also have been thought true until, at some point, a different theory came around(a better one - how many have there been?) 65 years ago - If you told me you could land men on the moon or that you had a nuclear reactor in your basement I would not have believed you either. MANGETOUT – They are not dillusional, they are merely playing to the largest audience. Those with the fattest wallets. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500/85 "2002-11-08T15:33:50Z")
Let’s back up a bit; natural science isn’t about disproving the existence of supernatural phenomena including God(/s) - natural science simply isn’t interested in supernatural explanations. The argument that “science moves on and everything we currently accept will be overturned, as has been demonstrated by history” is only sustainable by ignoring the facts (another favourite anti-science trick) - people believed that Goose Barnacles turned into Barnacle Geese not because it was an observed phenomenon, the theory only held water because, having made the most cursory of examinations of the two organisms, the observers sat back and considered the matter settled. Modern science isn’t like that. Let me say that again: **Modern science isn’t like that**. The scientific method consists of: [ol][li]Observe a phenomenon[/li][li]Hypothesise a cause consistent with ALL aspects of observation[/li][li]Make predictions based on the hypothesis[/li][li]Test predictions by further observation, if they invalidate the hypothesis, either (scrap it completely and form a new one that is consistent with ALL observations, inlcuding the new ones) or (modify the hypothesis to incorporate an explanation of ALL observations, inlcuding the new ones)[/li][li]Repeat 3 and 4 indefinitely; at such a point as there are no discrepancies between hypothesis and observable, repeatable phenomena - at this point the hypothesis becomes a _theory_[/li][/ol] The whole principle is based on _attempting to falsify_ hypotheses. Do I need to describe how differently the Creationist camp applies methods? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500/86 "2002-11-08T15:47:19Z")
It simply isn’t reasonable to assume that since we once thought three plus three was five, we cannot ever safely say it is six. Would anyone other than a madman care to argue that our current theory of how geese come into existence? is it even remotely possible that we’re wrong about the whole sexual reproduction thing? - I’d say definitely not. Sure, there are scientific theories that are less complete or (in their current form) less certain than others, but is it likely that some single observation is going to come along and overturn the whole lot? - it would be wrong to say that it’s impossible, but it is incredibly unlikely - anyone building their faith on this slim hope would really do better to look elsewhere, quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500/87 "2002-11-08T16:00:46Z")
Let me help you … Creatonist “scientists” use the doors left open by the scientific method to scoot their "beliefs " through to the willing masses. The more we know, the more questions we ask and the more “doors” there are. In the scuffle to answer questions more questions are asked. Is it safe to say that the creationists will never give up because they will always find an open door? and seperately…How does modern science explain the existence of matter to begin with? Is this not given to the supernatural? Or should we start new threads with these questions? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500/88 "2002-11-08T16:15:37Z")
The open door (or God-Of-the-Gaps) only one of their tricks; others include (but are not limited to): Word games - twisting the meaning of ‘theory’ so that people think it means ‘vague notion’ - deliberately taking words like ‘probability’ and ‘uncertainty’ out of context. Ignoring 99% of the research/evidence in a given field, concentrating on the 1% that can be interpreted as favouring their views. Invoking “Well, God must have miracled it” when faced with irreparable inconsistencies in their own assertions (like the ridiculous ‘water canopy’ thing). The Creationist methodology is one of uninformed critique, not research. It really can only be mental delusion or deliberate deceit. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500/89 "2002-11-08T16:25:40Z")
Mr. Hovind, I believe, is one such example of someone taking the 1% and running with it. You are 100% (not 99%) correct on the “critique verses research” comment. …I notice you didn`t respond to the “matter” question. ---
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500/90 "2002-11-08T16:29:50Z")
Mods, if you are watching this one… If you wish to see a copy of the express written permission, just send me an email. Also, have you see this done often/ever where permission was sought and recieved to post articles in their whole? ---
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500/91 "2002-11-08T16:35:10Z")
Mods, if you are watching this one… If you wish to see a copy of the express written permission, just send me an email. Also, have you see this done often/ever where permission was sought and recieved to post articles in their whole? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500/92 "2002-11-08T16:53:14Z")
I’m not quite sure what you mean about ‘given to the supernatural’ (I’m not a physicist either, so my understanding of the nature of matter could be described as sketchy at best) - please expand on your question (by all means another thread, maybe in GQ: perhaps “What exactly is matter” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500/93 "2002-11-08T17:25:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Since we cannot prove that any religion is right or wrong(we just can`t!, agree?). Would divine intervention be proof? It is for most people who believe that Christ was that divine intervention. Sure, divine intervention would be proof…if you could prove it. > [@](#): > > they assume they are right…they believe the evidence of Christ is overwhelming What evidence is this exactly? You’re attempting to bolster a “safe” choice between hypothetical beliefs by pointing to yet another hypothetical belief. This does not make you any “safer.” > [@](#): > > What line of logicall thinking can we use for a striclty religious discussion? > [@](#): > > Reason in man is rather like God in the world. – Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 11, 1 de Regno, 12 > [@](#): > > Knowledge is the conformity of the object and the intellect. – Averroes, Destructio Destructionum > [@](#): > > Mark 12 > 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with **all your mind** and with all your strength. I don’t want to think something is true, or hope it’s true. I want to KNOW it’s true. ---
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500/94 "2002-11-08T17:28:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by whuckfistle \* > \*\*How does modern science explain the existence of matter to begin with? Is this not given to the supernatural? \*\* It doesn’t completely. Some disingenious people would claim that the Big Bang Theory covers it, but really it doesn’t. What you want, is what started/caused the big bang. Or, what came before? We have a number of interesting ideas that are facinating to contemplate, but nothing conclusive at all. We know very well how to create/destroy matter (more specifically, how to covert it to and from an equivilent amount of energy). We really have no idea what got the whole process started. We can safely calculate back to what conditions would have been like just moments after everything started, but time zero (and before) are currently (and maybe forever) beyond our probings. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500/95 "2002-11-08T17:54:48Z")
I understand that the universe expansion and contraction could be cyclical. There may have been 10,987 big bangs in the past. It would seem that each seperate episode may produce different physical laws. Since we can`t get to "the very beginning", that is before there was more than one particle, where time and gravity were not functions of each other, I don`t see how we could ever figure out what initiated the whole thing. This will always remain fuzzy.(\ **Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500/96 "2002-11-08T18:23:41Z") > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by whuckfistle \* > \*\*I understand that the universe expansion and contraction could be cyclical. There may have been 10,987 big bangs in the past. It would seem that each seperate episode may produce different physical laws. Since we can`t get to "the very beginning", that is before there was more than one particle, where time and gravity were not functions of each other, I don`t see how we could ever figure out what initiated the whole thing. This will always remain fuzzy.(\ > Cynic - you caught me. We can`t prove Christ was God`s son. \*\* Pretty accurate. The only problem with the insert creater here part falls back to the elephant and turtle arguement. If the exisitance of a universe implies a creator, the existance of a creator implies a creator-creator. Giant stack of turtles. If you care to argue that it is simpler to consider that the creator always existed, you can use the same arguement (just as effectively) and skip a step by saying that universe always existed using the repeated expansion/contraction scenario. The probability of any of these actually being the correct answer I don’t even try to address for myself as the evidence is pretty much nil for any of the answers. However, in the same vein, I would not deride anyone’s personal answer that they are comfortable with so long as: 1. They don’t try to jam that idea down anyone else throat (especially considering the complete lack of evidence for any of the positions). 2. As new evidence becomes available, suitably examine and modify their beliefs as needed to not contradict what is reasonable considered factual. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500/97 "2002-11-08T18:33:10Z")
Scotth, hasn’t there been some talk lately about quantum fluxuations in relation to the big bang? I don’t understand it completely but maybe you can help explain it to us physics dolts. Whuck: I give you a lot of credit for hanging in there on this thread, for not getting offended, and for actually listening to the responses. You’re a good sport and a stand-up guy. ---
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500/98 "2002-11-08T18:44:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*Scotth, hasn’t there been some talk lately about quantum fluxuations in relation to the big bang? I don’t understand it completely but maybe you can help explain it to us physics dolts. > > Whuck: I give you a lot of credit for hanging in there on this thread, for not getting offended, and for actually listening to the responses. You’re a good sport and a stand-up guy. \*\* I am pretty solid in physics, but your faith in me far exceeds what would be necessary for me to be of much help in this one. Chronos would be alot better choice, but realistically, there are probably on a handful of people on the planet who know enough about physics to critically assess these ideas. To get to the point where you are considering quantum effects applied to the earlies moments of cosmology you are WAY out there. (I mean that in a positive sense). These guys are among the smartest on the planet and have spent a major portion of lives doing almost nothing besides preparing themselves to consider such ideas. ---
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500/99 "2002-11-08T18:51:59Z")
In other words, I could go look up what you speak of and parrot it here, but the fact remains that I don’t even know the (scientific) language necessary to fully (or even partially) grasp it. And generally, when the really advanced ideas are put in the popular media, all the technical stuff required to actually evaluate it are stripped out making it appear to the lay reader that it is much simpler than it really is. Have no doubt, if you get your hands on the papers (with all the _stuff_ still in it) that the people in the field are passing back and forth, you and I would probably not follow much past the salutation (if any). Without the education in the theoretical foundation that they are working in, you cannot _really_ understand the guts of their arguement. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500/100 "2002-11-08T18:53:13Z")
SCOTTH - understand perfectly. CYNIC - Hey, I`m learning here. It would have cost me thousands in tuition and books to get an equivalent experience. As for you gentlemen, Thanks as well for taking the time to respond, even tho I could hear your eyes rolling everytime I posted. See ya around the SD. Do these type of debates always come full circle like this one? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-theology-an-open-letter-to-the-creationists/134500.md?page=6)