Is big bang dogmatic? I don't know; it probably depends on the perspective of the individual. I think that any reputable scientist could not accept it solely on faith. It's actually an interesting paradox; it reminds me of the movie Contact.Originally Posted by HansMojoThis isn't really directed at you Miamian, but as a general statement. The hypothesis that the "Big Bang" was the beginning of both space and time and originated when a golf ball sized clump of infinitely compressed matter that was infinitely hot (that came out of nowhere???...where did the matter come from?) began expanding and coalesced into all the heavens is SPECULATIVE at best. It is no different than what Christians do when they say "look, their are suns and moons and planets and people and a complex life support system, and it must have all come from somewhere so there must have been a supreme being to set it all in motion." So they go about studying the planets, the moons, and the suns, and the complexity of the life support system and then call their findings proof of a Creator. It's not actually proof of a Creator. The big bang is the same exact thing. There is no proof that it is what kickstarted the Universe other than the fact that we are here now and had to come from somewhere and look at all the pretty stars and planets spinning around. Ok, it's more complicated that that, but it is no different than what creationists do. It's a hypothesis that started when Hubble observered that the Universe appeared to be expanding and since then more and more hypothesis and theory have been piled on in an attempt to explain this expansion, the origin of the universe, and the beginning of time and space from a naturalistic perspective. But all the top guys will admit that they really don't know and will never know how much validity there is to it since it is impossible to test the original event. No matter how much we learn about the Universe...what it is made up of, how it is moving, what we can observe today...we will not know how it began, where the matter came from, how it was infinitely compressed, etc since none of us where around at the time to observe it. It's a great hypothesis. Good stuff. I don't put my faith in it and neither should anyone that claims to only go on the data and the facts. The Big bang itself is not observable, testable, or repeatable (and to repeat it would be the end of the Universe and life as we know it - according the top proponents of the hypothesis anyway).
Operational science has a place in public schools including the study of evolution (IMHO) and is very different than origin "science". Origin science has no place in a public school science class for the very reason that people go away believing there is no difference between the two and because it has been presented as fact in a completely dogmatic manner. The problem is that it's all sold as a package and this is irresponsible and simply wrong. Origin science is the faith based materialistic religious aspect of evolution that informed creationists do not like and is the reason some of them are pushing for ID or other creationist philosophies to be taught in public school science classes along side the religious aspects of evolution. I hope it never happens...but that's because I know I wouldn't want an atheist being forced to teach my kids about God. Keep that in the churches and in the private schools.