Survey Shows that 51% of Americans Question the 'Big Bang Theory'

[FDRfan1985]

http://www.designntrend.com/articles/13016/20140421/survey-shows-that-51-of-americans-question-the-big-bang-theory.htm

[7,052,770]

What's sad is that only a few evangelical denominations are actually against the theory. Most of that 51% are people too ignorant to realize that evolution and the big bang are a-OK in their church...

[Likely Voter]

I don't know about that, but I do question "Mike and Molly"

[Frodo]

Here is a graphic from a more expansive version of that article:



Notice anything?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Considering there's very little confidence to be had that the term "big bang" accurately describes the origins of the universe, this is not so crazy.   You can't expect people to have overwhelming confidence in your theory if you make it sound like something out of Looney Tunes.

[Hatman 🍁]

LOL @ More belief in climate change than evolution.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Considering there's very little confidence to be had that the term "big bang" accurately describes the origins of the universe, this is not so crazy.   You can't expect people to have overwhelming confidence in your theory if you make it sound like something out of Looney Tunes.

Yes, it is.

People are small-minded morons.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The pollsters asked the question incorrectly; they made the statement, "The universe began 13.8 billion years ago with a big bang."  Well, that's (1) almost certainly not true, and (2) more importantly not what the big bang theory purports to explain.  The big bang theory is an explanation of the expansion of the development and expansion of the universe, not the creation of the universe.  According to the big bang theory, the universe existed as a singularity before the big bang actually happened, and the big bang theory does not address how it came into existence.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Here is a graphic from a more expansive version of that article:



Notice anything?

Yes.  That theories that have little direct impact upon people have a tough time being accepted.  Let's face it, very few people are directly affected by whether the big bang explains the origin of the universe or whether the diversity of life is solely explained by natural selection.

[H. Ross Peron]

Aren't there some scientists still advocating the theory that the universe has always existed?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

LOL @ More belief in climate change than evolution.

Climate change happens on a faster time scale and it more directly impacts people.  It's no wonder that it has an easier time gaining acceptance.

[Mr. Morden]

The pollsters asked the question incorrectly; they made the statement, "The universe began 13.8 billion years ago with a big bang."  Well, that's (1) almost certainly not true, and (2) more importantly not what the big bang theory purports to explain.  The big bang theory is an explanation of the expansion of the development and expansion of the universe, not the creation of the universe.  According to the big bang theory, the universe existed as a singularity before the big bang actually happened, and the big bang theory does not address how it came into existence.

Not exactly.  The instant of the Big Bang is the beginning of time.  There is no "before".  As I recently saw someone else describe it, talking about "before the Big Bang" is like talking about something being north of the North Pole.  The concept is incoherent.

In any case, I'm reasonably confident that there was a Big Bang, but to say that it was exactly 13.8 billion years ago simply because of the Planck results last year…..that's still a sketchy proposition.  Heck, if some of the more exotic theories about the inhomogeneity of large scale structure are correct, then the age of the universe could vary by as much as billions of years depending on whether you make the measurement in a supercluster or a void.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The pollsters asked the question incorrectly; they made the statement, "The universe began 13.8 billion years ago with a big bang."  Well, that's (1) almost certainly not true, and (2) more importantly not what the big bang theory purports to explain.  The big bang theory is an explanation of the expansion of the development and expansion of the universe, not the creation of the universe.  According to the big bang theory, the universe existed as a singularity before the big bang actually happened, and the big bang theory does not address how it came into existence.

Not exactly.  The instant of the Big Bang is the beginning of time.  There is no "before".  As I recently saw someone else describe it, talking about "before the Big Bang" is like talking about something being north of the North Pole.  The concept is incoherent.

In any case, I'm reasonably confident that there was a Big Bang, but to say that it was exactly 13.8 billion years ago simply because of the Planck results last year…..that's still a sketchy proposition.  Heck, if some of the more exotic theories about the inhomogeneity of large scale structure are correct, then the age of the universe could vary by as much as billions of years depending on whether you make the measurement in a supercluster or a void.

There would have been no time relevant to the universe, because at that point, time would be immeasurable pursuant to the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorem; however, there is nothing in current science that precludes the possibility of multiple universes or anything outside of the singularity.  And this begins to cross into a point of physics that I really don't understand, but the point is that the big bang theory does not explain when (or how) the universe began; it can only explain its development.

[Mr. Morden]

The pollsters asked the question incorrectly; they made the statement, "The universe began 13.8 billion years ago with a big bang."  Well, that's (1) almost certainly not true, and (2) more importantly not what the big bang theory purports to explain.  The big bang theory is an explanation of the expansion of the development and expansion of the universe, not the creation of the universe.  According to the big bang theory, the universe existed as a singularity before the big bang actually happened, and the big bang theory does not address how it came into existence.

Not exactly.  The instant of the Big Bang is the beginning of time.  There is no "before".  As I recently saw someone else describe it, talking about "before the Big Bang" is like talking about something being north of the North Pole.  The concept is incoherent.

In any case, I'm reasonably confident that there was a Big Bang, but to say that it was exactly 13.8 billion years ago simply because of the Planck results last year…..that's still a sketchy proposition.  Heck, if some of the more exotic theories about the inhomogeneity of large scale structure are correct, then the age of the universe could vary by as much as billions of years depending on whether you make the measurement in a supercluster or a void.

There would have been no time relevant to the universe, because at that point, time would be immeasurable pursuant to the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorem; however, there is nothing in current science that precludes the possibility of multiple universes or anything outside of the singularity.  And this begins to cross into a point of physics that I really don't understand, but the point is that the big bang theory does not explain when (or how) the universe began; it can only explain its development.

Fair enough that it doesn't explain "how" the universe began.  But technically, saying that "the universe began with a big bang" isn't saying anything about "how".  It's just saying that the big bang was coincident with the beginning of the universe.

(Though yes, there could be some kind of multiverse scenario, but whether you call those other universes part of our universe or not is a matter of semantics.)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Aren't there some scientists still advocating the theory that the universe has always existed?

Big oil doesn't benefit from that viewpoint, so no.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

If it says "confidence in science" and follows the general trend of results at the top being more pro-science, why is one of the questions basically "Do you believe in a god?"? Seems a bit out of place to me (not to disparage our forum's religiouses, but the relationship between religion and science ranges from diametrically opposed to fundamentally different).

[SWE]

Here is a graphic from a more expansive version of that article:



Notice anything?

My favorite part is the drug resistant bacteria thing. So, Americans believe that bacteria are evolving, but don't believe in evolution

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

47% of Americans should not be allowed to have children, it seems.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The Big Bang Theory is probably the best guess we have as to a scientific start of the universe, but there are so many questions behind it that even I would be tempted to answer "somewhat confident" or possibly even "not too confident." What happens if we Big Crunch to a singularity? Could another Big Bang happen? What if "our" Big Bang was just one of many Big Bangs?

It makes a lot of common sense to me that the existence of the universe is cyclical and not a one-and-done finite ride. The "universe" may have existed before our Big Bang and may continue after all life in the universe is extinguished. We'll probably never know for sure in our lifetimes.

[emailking]

While scientists are extremely confident about the 13.8 billion figure, I can see why the average person might be skeptical of that as the number used to vary a lot and used to be shorter than the oldest stars. It probably would have been better say billions of years instead of 13.8 billion years.

I doubt many people were nuanced about whether it was the literal beginning vs. whether or not it happened at all.

[Mr. Morden]

While scientists are extremely confident about the 13.8 billion figure...

I would dispute that.

EDIT: By which I mean, sure, 13.8 billion has got to be pretty close to being right if the Lambda-CDM model is correct, but Lambda-CDM being correct isn't something I would bet my life on.  There could be some complicating wrinkles.

[muon2]

I would guess that the lack of confidence in the big bang question may be due as much to the other part of the question involving a time scale of 13.8 billion years. Consider the statement that the universe was created in an instant out of nothing and the earth and life on it came later. That's consistent with both the big bang and most creationist views. But the time scale of 13.8 billion years for the age of the universe and 4.5 billion years for the age of the earth are unfathomably large for most people, and that's the point when I observe skepticism emerge.

[muon2]

While scientists are extremely confident about the 13.8 billion figure...

I would dispute that.

EDIT: By which I mean, sure, 13.8 billion has got to be pretty close to being right if the Lambda-CDM model is correct, but Lambda-CDM being correct isn't something I would bet my life on.  There could be some complicating wrinkles.

There is plenty of debate over the nature of the cold dark matter in the standard Lambda-CDM model. But most competing models that would result in a substantially different age of the universe (t₀) have failed to match all the known observational data, particularly data from gravitational lensing and colliding galaxies. Other extensions of Lambda-CDM typically involve parameters that leave t₀ largely untouched. So I would say that most scientists are extremely confident in the value of t₀ within a reasonable experimental and theoretical error.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My favorite part is the drug resistant bacteria thing. So, Americans believe that bacteria are evolving, but don't believe in evolution

Many creationists believe in microevolution, but deny that the diversity of species is due to macroevolution.  Indeed, if you believe that the world has only been around a few thousand years, that isn't enough time from macroevolution to have done its thing.  Whereas microevolution happens on an observable scale and you'd have to be a complete idiot to deny what can and has been observed.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

My favorite part is the drug resistant bacteria thing. So, Americans believe that bacteria are evolving, but don't believe in evolution

Many creationists believe in microevolution, but deny that the diversity of species is due to macroevolution.  Indeed, if you believe that the world has only been around a few thousand years, that isn't enough time from macroevolution to have done its thing.  Whereas microevolution happens on an observable scale and you'd have to be a complete idiot to deny what can and has been observed.

The divide between micro- and macro-evolution is completely arbitrary.