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

[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.

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.

I don't know, Muon.  Dark energy still feels something like a late 20th / early 21st century version of "the ether" to me.  I still feel like there's a decent chance that we'll learn something that will change our understanding of GR enough that it won't quite be vanilla Lambda-CDM.  Perhaps Lambda-CDM with some interesting wrinkles that mean that it's not quite 13.8 billion years old.

What do you think of folks like David Wiltshire, who claim that the conventional shortcuts that people take in averaging the spacetime metric in a way that kind of ignores large scale structure is leading them astray ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.4563.pdf )?  Wiltshire goes so far as to say that this can explain away dark energy, which puts him outside the mainstream consensus.  But I think there are others (though still a minority, I think, though I'm no GR specialist) who would support some milder version of this, which would still mean that you could have a universe without a single unique age, because of the differential in time dilation between an observer who's in the middle of a void and an observer who's in the middle of a huge galaxy cluster.

[DemPGH]

It's a shame because that the universe is expanding outward proportionally to where an object is and that galaxies are moving away is an old discovery (1920s, actually). The Big Bang is strongly inferred from that alone, plus from so much of the other work that's been done after the 1920s.

Still, it's interesting to see 25% not accept the existence of a supreme being who clandestinely and invisibly governs events in the physical world from someplace else.

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

Not really, no. That's the steady state theory, I think, and no one in the scientific field subscribes to that.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

In general, childhood vaccines are safe and effective, but there are enough exceptions for people to be legitimately only somewhat confident.  Efficacies for many vaccines are nowhere near 100%, and there are risks to all vaccines (some more than others).  Simply because only 53% of people are extremely/very confident that childhood vaccines are safe and effective doesn't mean that only 53% of people are having their kids vaccinated.  There's nothing wrong with being skeptical of claims made by doctors and pharmaceutical companies.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

There's a difference between microevolution and macroevolution, and the question that actually used the word "evolution" was implicitly asking about macroevolution.

[King]

I wish we had toplines so we could drop the 65+ sample since olds opinions don't matter.

[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.

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

The absolute distinction that some creationists try to make of it is, but the general concept isn't, and even if you don't divide the spectrum of the scale of what evolution can do into two broad temporal classes, it remains the case that if the world is but a few thousand years old, evolution could not have produced the broad array of species observed in the world today starting from a single species.

[AggregateDemand]

Ironically, as humans have acquired the ability to create man-made life and alter the physical world, we are increasingly resistant to the idea that sentient being/s could have created life on earth or some aspects of the universe.

This is the most perplexing cultural development in the world today.

[DemPGH]

Ironically, as humans have acquired the ability to create man-made life and alter the physical world, we are increasingly resistant to the idea that sentient being/s could not have created life on earth or some aspects of the universe.

This is the most perplexing cultural development in the world today.

The imagination can be an overwhelming thing!

I really think that for some the physical world does not contain enough mystery, or perhaps it's the wrong kind of mystery: It's not romantic enough (traditional definition of romantic applies).

People also want unalterable truth on a platter - they want to receive it, they don't want to make it and revise it. So that it's all contained in an ancient book is so much easier. Science doesn't work that way. Truth is built and unfolds.

[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.

I don't know, Muon.  Dark energy still feels something like a late 20th / early 21st century version of "the ether" to me.  I still feel like there's a decent chance that we'll learn something that will change our understanding of GR enough that it won't quite be vanilla Lambda-CDM.  Perhaps Lambda-CDM with some interesting wrinkles that mean that it's not quite 13.8 billion years old.

What do you think of folks like David Wiltshire, who claim that the conventional shortcuts that people take in averaging the spacetime metric in a way that kind of ignores large scale structure is leading them astray ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.4563.pdf )?  Wiltshire goes so far as to say that this can explain away dark energy, which puts him outside the mainstream consensus.  But I think there are others (though still a minority, I think, though I'm no GR specialist) who would support some milder version of this, which would still mean that you could have a universe without a single unique age, because of the differential in time dilation between an observer who's in the middle of a void and an observer who's in the middle of a huge galaxy cluster.

It seems Wiltshire would like to restore Einstein's greatest blunder (the cosmological constant and its attendant dark energy) back to blunder status. I guess I'm not bothered by the concept of dark energy, though I don't really like the name as it isn't really the energy equivalent of dark matter. We already deal with vacuum energy in quantum physics so having a term in general relativity to describe a pervasive energy throughout the universe doesn't seem out of place to me. In any case, there have been a lot of refined measurements of the Hubble constant and redshift parameters in recent years, and I don't know if they've had any impact on Wiltshire's model.

[AggregateDemand]

The imagination can be an overwhelming thing!

I really think that for some the physical world does not contain enough mystery, or perhaps it's the wrong kind of mystery: It's not romantic enough (traditional definition of romantic applies).

People also want unalterable truth on a platter - they want to receive it, they don't want to make it and revise it. So that it's all contained in an ancient book is so much easier. Science doesn't work that way. Truth is built and unfolds.

Your lack of skepticism is more "religious" than most religious people I know.

[MaxQue]

Ironically, as humans have acquired the ability to create man-made life and alter the physical world, we are increasingly resistant to the idea that sentient being/s could have created life on earth or some aspects of the universe.

This is the most perplexing cultural development in the world today.

So, God is an alien, according to you?

[MurrayBannerman]

I assumed that this was such a certainty that I thought this was about the TV show...

[AggregateDemand]

So, God is an alien, according to you?

You believe in God?

[MaxQue]

So, God is an alien, according to you?

You believe in God?

Yes, but I don't define him as a sapient being. God isn't a being, in fact.
The way you formulate things, we are engineered creatures created by God, another living being.

[ElectionsGuy]

It certainly is a questionable theory, nothing wrong with that. I would be more interested in who's actually against it.

[AggregateDemand]

Yes, but I don't define him as a sapient being. God isn't a being, in fact.
The way you formulate things, we are engineered creatures created by God, another living being.

I wasn't making any statement about the existence or nature of God. I was just making a remark about our strange proclivity to deny the empirical observations we make about humanity as a species. We can modify and synthesize life, but nothing before us or after us. Seems quite odd, and it leads people to believe that science is primarily concerned with undermining certain variations of existentialism. The culture of science is like another intolerant religion, imo. As soon as they learn something exists, nothing else may exist.

[DemPGH]

The imagination can be an overwhelming thing!

I really think that for some the physical world does not contain enough mystery, or perhaps it's the wrong kind of mystery: It's not romantic enough (traditional definition of romantic applies).

People also want unalterable truth on a platter - they want to receive it, they don't want to make it and revise it. So that it's all contained in an ancient book is so much easier. Science doesn't work that way. Truth is built and unfolds.

Your lack of skepticism is more "religious" than most religious people I know.

My lack of skepticism . . . about what?

[Person Man]

At least a solid majority are at least somewhat confident about global warming and evolution. It isn't too disheartening that people aren't that confident about the Big Bang theory. Its probably sort of right but modern physics can only explain the existence of 4% of the mass and energy in the universe. On the other hand, there just isn't really that much room left to disprove evolution or global warming. 30-40% skepticism makes sense with about a quarter of the population being fundies (that don't understand that knowledge has nothing to do with proving or disproving faith) and another 10-15% just being REALLY republican. 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

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



Notice anything?

No mention that the second of those is controversial. I probably would have been one of the 6% there (or more likely, say nothing at all). The third one too, is open to interpretation.

[pbrower2a]

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.

It is certainly untrue if the Biblical chronology is right, God creating everything roughly 6000 years ago and making it look much older as a snare for rationalists that He considers as damnable as rapists, killers, and robbers. But such suggests that God is Himself a forger with a mean streak. God as Deceiver is an entity that I could never worship -- the moral equivalent of a tyrant or gangster.

The 13.8 billion relates to the Hubble Constant, which recognizes the constant increase in the speed of distant galaxies to about 13.8 billion years, at which point acceleration of receding bodies is at the speed of light. 13.8 billion light year is the end of our observable Universe, and the speed of electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum is the absolute of physics.  Anything retreating from us at a speed greater than light either does not exist or is outside our Universe.