Is not it funny that Einstein had to admit he was wrong and a Catholic, was right?
As you know the origin of the Big Bang the universe was first proposed by a Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître in his "hypothesis of primitive atom'http: / / en.wikipedia.org / wiki / Georges_Lem …
Albert Einstein had his own theory of the universe that had always been here and was called the "steady state universe. His was static and not unlike Lemaître expanding universe.
Einstein said the following in the Lemaître Solvay Conference;
"Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable"
In 1927, Einstein's rejection, meant rejection by the scientific community
But on 3 February 1931, Einstein made an announcement to journalists at Mount Wilson Library. He publicly renounced his own static cosmology and endorsed the Big Bang model of expanding universe and admitted Lemaître had been right.
Einstein later said, "It was the biggest mistake of my life."
What lessons can be drawn from that fact that the greatest scientific mind of all time (many believe this to be Einstein) admitts he was wrong and a Catholic priest was right?
Big Bang by Simon Singhhttp: / / www.simonsingh.net / Big_Bang.html
- The "father of the Big Bang Theory" believed in God (being a Catholic priest and all) So Why Can not I?
- Why can not the Catholic Church a little cleaner admit that the Inquisition and the torture of people was wrong?
- Who's who in "Hamlet" by Shakespeare? Who is Catholic, Protestant in connection with the Spirit?
- Explain to me the Catholic Church is right or wrong?
- Funny but short?
It is a perfect example of how scientists change their mind to reflect what is known - something that religions are generally incapable of doing. There was no doubt thought more and the conclusion that Lemaître was right. The fact that a Catholic priest, proposed the theory is neither here nor there. Einstein never changed her religious belief in accordance with Lemaître though - he was a pantheist, believing that God is everything and everything is God.
New theories often take time to be accepted by the scientific establishment. That is human and reluctant to change. As J B S Haldane put it:
"Theories have four stages of acceptance:
i) it is meaningless without value;
ii) it is an interesting but perverse point of view;
iii) this is true, but very low;
iv) I always said so. "
The lesson that seems lost in all the fundies in this forum, is that the scientific mind, those who think, understand that they have all the knowledge of the universe and are willing to admit. I have yet to find a cast who think they have all the knowledge of the universe. Even when proven otherwise remain adamant that they have all this knowledge.
He did not admit anything, but that's the difference between education and the brazen squirrel managed uneducated enough knowledge of the textbooks to get a degree.
Admission Einsteins theories of good points, obviously not the end of his infallibility as a witness by many other theories it has spawned. Simon's review of Big Bang is not a thorough study of the absurd theories that have been discovered.
Was there a Big Bang? That is certainly possible, but if the Big Bang, meaning an eruption uncontrolled just happened to design a universe that needs to read with respect and an inquisitive mind some of the research to date. That certainly is not what happened
Yes, when I read this, my respect for Einstein and LeMaitre rose.
And I still believe it or not, was flawed. Two physicists addressed the problem of the plain (I think it was in the 80s) and called the expansion theory
Nobody seems to know about it.
Unfortunately for discussion later in the life of Einstein assumed that all things must have been created by a higher intelligence. Do not necessarily believe in the Christian God, but at least in a creator God …..>
Even Darwin said that looking at the complexity of the human eye and think that might have occurred by random chance is completely absurd …..>
demonstrating that science is a process of self-correction
is falsifiable and contrary evidence, when presented science change
unlike faith which is absolute and unfalsifiable (like ID)
Oh, and Einstein was wrong to admit that no physical Lemaitre Lemaitre and the priest was not a theological debate, but rather a scientific theory
Einstein's theory helped to get everyone what they did. What difference does it was not selfish. He was part of this great unity of life. You laugh cause you do not get it and it is a sad person.
I think Einstein was crazy. I think he had to do to be with someone to make money.
We now know that both were wrong.
Oh God, the Apostle, using the same old mine Darwin budget - what a surprise.
Two lessons, a) The Big Bang is not incompatible with religion, and b) scientists, unlike some religious, can learn, adapt and recognize when they are wrong on the face of new data and evidence. Science is correct, and although "the appeals to authority fallacies tend to slip in the final analysis, is evidence that matters, rather than pronouncments anyone.
Edit: @ The Apostle, not only is the Christian God, but not a "creator god" as you are using the term. Do not separate the creator of the continuous act of creation through natural laws. http://pantheism.net
And if you read the chapter in the Origin of Species, Darwin discovered is that although it seems absurd to believe that it can evolve, however, their observations lead him to the conclusion that it did. Please do not quote mine. There are enough valid reasons for their beliefs so that you can raise, without resort to be honest.
Charles Darwin recognized the inadequacy of evolution when he wrote,
Assume that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible level. (Darwin, 1872)
Source:
Huse, Scott. 1996. The collapse of evolution. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, p. 73.
Answer:
1.The quotation is taken out of context. Darwin said the problem seems that he introduced. The paragraph continues,
Yet reason tells me that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist, and if the eye also varies very slightly, the changes be inherited, which is certainly the case, and whether any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve becomes sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life first originated, but I note that several facts make me suspect that a nerve can become sensitive to light, and also the vibrations bulk of the air which produce sound. (Darwin, 1872, 143-144)
Darwin continues over three pages that describes a sequence of plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes, giving examples of existing bodies to show that intermediaries are viable. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA …
Lemaitre speaking from a scientific point of view … not religious. Their religion does not matter in this case. Especially since Einstein's religion seems to be vacant here. It's pretty silly to put it in the way we have here … "a priest was correct, but Einstein was not "…. there was nothing religious about the point in hand to start.
Lemaitre was a teacher … He received degrees in astrophysics. Their religion is not even part of it.
As to admit he was wrong … Scientists from all this ….. If it proves them wrong, they admit a mistake. (Steven Hawking did something very concerning Black Holes).
Now show me a religious person who admits they are wrong …… and maybe I'll be impressed.
You are being deliberately misleading. The fact that the man who was right was a Catholic priest adds nothing to his argument.
And if nothing else, his story demonstrates the dynamic nature of science and beautiful, and the way in which even our greatest practitioners are able to change what they know on the basis of new information.
History shows the elegance of science, not the value of religion.
It is precisely religion has nothing to do with the story.
EDIT @ The Apostle: This lie makes me cry: "Even Darwin said that looking at the complexity of the human eye and think that might have occurred by random chance is completely absurd"
Please read the book you are quoting.
He said the complexity of the human eye is so amazing that it is prima facie absurd to think that might have evolved (not "chance"). Then, Darwin goes on to show how it did evolve.
This lie is absurd, and that only goes to show that is allowing their prejudices to decide on what we try to understand in this world.
is still only a theory.