| |
| The Church and Science |  But to achieve this difficult task, we must accept we will cause a row between both the church and science. This is a natural by-product of any contentious debate or argument. So I would make it clear, it's not our intention here to cause friction between rival factions or groups, merely a secondary process of a quarrelsome topic which logically emerges in any passionate area.
However, we might ask both sides to view the paper impartially before automatically leaping to a conclusion. They may just find something they both search for in the one work. Although, if we do blur the picture somewhat, we might have to re-evaluate both cosmology and theology in a new conceptual thinking, which allows both a bi-partisan reflection of each other. And the prospect of bringing these two opposing armies to the table to establish a mutual understanding of each other will be an interesting challenge!
One of the real difficulties is both the church and science hate the sight of one another, and each will, given the opportunity, put the other to the sword; speaking metaphorically of course.
But again, and to reiterate, we shouldn't allow this to stand in our way, for in this work we neither support the church or science. We merely seek the truth, and intend to convey the belief to a wider, more generous audience.
If we were to actually affiliate ourselves to either faction, we may find our work prohibited by preconceived notions. And that we must never permit, for if we do, inevitably we will only end-up chasing our tails like some mad dog on a hot summer's day. And that wouldn't serve anyone any good; not the church, those of a Christian faith, or the more secular world of science.
Yet some may contest this, and suggest, if we attempt to be all things to all peoples, we actually become nothing to no one. So let me just state, the idea is a very practical one, and one I've already identified. And so I would stipulate, we do not endeavour to be all things to all peoples; we just hope to provide a few solutions in problematic areas and advance their comprehension from that point. We only wish to start them off, not undertake the journey for them. And I sincerely hope an ex gratia system might be recognised.
So where do we begin? Well, the logical assumption would be at the beginning. Only if a nothingness is to be truly endorsed we may need to travel much farther back than that. But before we do, let's evoke some semblance of reality into this debate, and analyse, honestly where necessary the belief science holds.
We have already stated, we believe science endorses its postulates for one evident reason; to provide a progressional plan to move its own belief forwards with some indefatigable haste.
But what evidence does it possess to allow this march to commence? Well, one of the most convincing facts in big bang belief, is a low audible hiss detected with large radio telescopes, and large arrays of telescopes at individual sites around the globe.
The big bang theory was first detected by members of Bell Laboratories in the US, by accident. They were working on another project when this strange phenomenon occurred, and instantly a solution was sought. Pretty soon a paradigm was constructed, and science in its own inimitable way had discovered more what it wanted to hear, rather than that, that perhaps it was hearing.
Singularity Singularity 1 Singularity 3 Singularity 4 Singularity 5 Singularity 6 Singularity 7
|
|
| |
|
» 
