

Friday, November 15, 2019

Underdetermination and Cosmology

People tend to use cosmology when they are really discussing cosmogony, but that is not surprising because the fields tend to overlap. Scientists riding for the cosmic evolution brand tend to get a mite pretentious and make proclamations about how the universe formed and operates, then get surprised when their beliefs turn out wrong.

Secularists often indicate that the evidence requires naturalistic explanations for the origin and development of the universe. Actually, it has a fatal flaw.
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Secularists reject recent creation, and do not even consider the evidence for it. There are several materialistic models for the origin and development of the universe, but they are continually changing. The Big Bang is the best of the bad ideas, so secularists cling to it and continually patch it up.  Atheists and anti-creationists show their lack of knowledge regarding science and fields related to astronomy by insisting that the evidence requires certain conclusions. Not hardly! This is where underdetermination comes in.
. . . 
To read the entire article, be determined and click on "Cosmology’s fatal weakness—underdetermination". 

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!