Ping!
“String theory “philosophy” challenged”
That’s a relief. Now, I can stop trying to understand it.
I am not a proponent of string theory but my cat is. We can play around with this topic for hours if I let him.
Funny; I thought it correctly defined Biblical creation.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ׃
The basic premise of the article seems to be that the Theory of Evolution and String Theory and Big Bang cosmology are based on the assumption that God does not exist, or that God had no hand in Creation.
Why would that be the case?
Personally, I am not a man of religious faith.
However, I have no problem accepting the idea that God might exist, and I have no problem accepting the idea that Evolution or String Theory might be the product of Intelligent Design.
Time will tell.
Very, very few biologists or physicists try to use Evolution or String Theory to “prove” that God does not exist.
Although it may be true that many scientists are not religious, my impression is that the most scientists are motivated by a simple passion...they want to understand the the incredibly complex and confusing facts of the natural world.
I’m all shocked the evo-cultist/science-purists weren’t challenging string theory. Just shocked!
String theory is quite objective. What atheists use to challenge the existence of God are oxidation-reduction reactions and the gas “laws”.
/sarcasm
String theory “philosophy” challengedDuh .. yeah, by Physicists, and has been for a few years now. Because, it didn't *work* as there were FIVE of THEM. And that's Four too many in physics. /s
The new thing is the Membrane Theory. Or 'M Theory', or just 'brane'. That *works* as they took the String Theory and 'added' another dimension. String theory has Ten Dimensions of spacetime, the Membrane Theory has Eleven Dimensions of spacetime.
It answers the Big Bang and *proves* time existed before the Big Bang and solves that singularity 'thingy' (technical term). It also *proves* that there are Alternate Universes - unlimited Alternate Universes.
And this does not mean there is No God. As 'someone' had to make the Membranes and Alternate Universes in the first place.
As to the Red Shift of Stars & Earth Centric stuff of Hubble. That's another matter (pun intended)
“Evolutionary ideas like string theory start from a worldview framework that there is no God.”
—That is one of the funniest things I have ever read!
“The big bang, and string theory which is being used to support it, are ideological attempts to explain away the appearance of design in the universe (no first cause etc.) and therefore explain the universe without God.”
—I’ve never seen anyone try to use string theory to support the Big Bang. Sure, string theorists attempt to EXPLAIN the Big Bang using their theory – just like they try to use the theory to explain particles, matter, energy, gravity, etc – but scientists often like to try to apply their theory to stuff – they’re funny that way. Applying a theory in this way is also how one comes up with tests for a theory (a common charge against string theory is how hard it is to test, and even that it’s untestable – and so they are keen to find ways to test the theory. Perhaps a collision of branes can cause a Big Bang; if so, what implications would that have on the WMAP pics? Might the theory be tested this way?)
How is it anti-God or anti-design to attempt to tie together quantum physics and general relativity into a single consistent mathematical theory/model? That’s all string theory is. That’s about as anti-God/anti-design as Newton explaining the moon’s orbit and falling apples into a single theory.
“But equally the evolutionist and indeed the string theory advocate would also say that it is unscientific to investigate the universe with the assumption that God is Creator.”
—Considering that so many do, that’s an odd comment. He should really do about 30 seconds of research before writing an article.
I sat and listened to a discussion of string theory for an hour and a half or thereabouts once and the BS meter was absolutely pegged the entire time.
I’d been swimming in a luxurious, long, deep pool in the San Fernando Valley at. 83° by a thermometer in the water while 100°+ in the air.
Sitting in the Sun, feet dangling in the water, I could see the light’s refracted patterns (Snell’s law) from it’s surface along the bottom of the pool.
I’d seen video documentary mock-ups to show how existence “looks” at or near the Planck Scale.
Yet here and now was an example even clearer.
Envisioning part of the pool bottom as a slice of “quantum space, filaments fleeted into - and out of - existence, each having been created by that gone before. And out of them bits of brightness, (again, reflections of the Sun along the surface, cast on the bottom and sides) would move along the length of each segment, intersecting with their ends...such “strings” quickly dissipating here, and reappearing there with each such interaction.
Moreover, there would enter waves of interference (by admittedly moving my legs) that would yield to the “strings” an even greater sense of overall excitation.
In a stretch, this might be seen as a representation of the “Uncertainty Principle” where at the quantum level, “virtual” entities come into and go out of existence, yet perhaps summing to an “actualization” of reality, which however even billions of years hence, may as likely decay and zap back into the void from whence they came.
And I’d bet too that this could all be worked out mathematically.
But, as I said, it’s merely a representation of such conditions, which is all that can ever be achieved at the Planck Scale anyway.
So, as this lazy day’s imaginings gave rise to other waxings, into the water I went, even in that second of submergence, to childhood again.