Part II C: Evolution and the Big Bang: Are both theories equal in status?

Scientists by and large have made significant advancements in the last century on just about every theory it has purposed.  Before I go any further down the evolutionary theory/ naturalistic origins of life theory, I want to address a couple of conceptual differences between the scientific community and the rest of us.  Scientists don’t believe anything can be proven absolutely including all the laws mentioned above.  The only thing science believes it can do absolutely is rule out possible hypothesis that prove to be false (earth being flat, steady state theory etc.).  Each law is constantly being tested and may only be a law for a few centuries, though most laws appear to have the ability to stand the test of time as they are tweaked.  Theories, as defined by science, are not what many lay people define them to be.  Lay people believe a theory to be something that is still left up to debate; where the scientific community views theory to mean something that is generally accepted to be true.

              When something such as evolution reaches theory status in the scientific community it has reached the point of the best possible answer bar none.  Evolution and naturalistic science is a difficult subject to address for both naturalistic atheists and those who hold different views.  Atheist, not scientists in general, have put evolution on the best answer path and have not put anything up against it as an alternative theory.   It is difficult to prove that evolution deserves such a high position.  To illustrate this point I am going to dig into the Big Bang Theory and then the Theory of Evolution; then compare the two theories.  

              The earliest possible dating for the framework of the Big Bang Theory dates to the first couple of decades of the twentieth century.  Scientists were just beginning to wrap their minds around the concepts of the universe not being a constant in space and size.  It was theorized that matter was either expanding or contracting.   Even up until mid-1960 the Big Bang was sharing just about equal footing with the Steady State Theory.  Over the next few decades the Big Bang Theory became the foundation point for other studies, such as the formation of galaxies and getting closer to the starting point of the Big Bang (Steady State Theory lost its footing and was no longer looked at as a viable option).  In the late twentieth century and the early twenty first century the technological advancement of satellites and telescopes have only helped to solidify the Big Bang Theory’s place in science.  Thus the new science of the Big Bang has gained actual legit, scientific solid footing.  Compared to Evolutionary theory and research the Big Bang research is an infant.

              The Big Bang Theory does not attempt to explain what preceded it.  Some scientist call the beginning point the “God particle” because no one knows how it got there or who put it there.  Science is not able to answer that question because of the framework science is supposed to work in.  Science is supposed to test the physical natural universe and all that is within it that is physical; that is all!  Science is not supposed to question what is outside of the universe because moving in that direction puts it in line with faith based communities, not intellectual practical communities.  Whenever science goes down the path of dull universe or pluralistic universe ideas or multiverse; anything that is not testable in the framework listed in a previous article, that particular type of science has become faith based and shares equal footing with religion (a discussion of faith in religion will be addressed later).  Let me state, that research that can yield actual physical results that can be testable is not faith based, but anything that can only be understood theoretically, instead of actually physically tested is just playing with math.  Math formulas are only as useful as the assumption that lead people to conceptualize the formula.  What this means is that people come up with formulas based off of their world views, theist and atheists both do this.  But this leads us to a rabbit trail.  In the next part of our series we will address evolution.

As just a rabbit trail, since science is not here to state truths we need other tools to find truths, such as metaphysics,  and philosophy.