Interfaith Group

*Interfaith post

One scientific claim by itself (allegedly), let alone an estimate, does not disprove an entire body of cosmological theory. That man died before scientists precisely mapped the Cosmic Microwave Background, proving the inflation theory component of the Big Bang, which Fred Hoyle (the source of that alleged 10/40th power estimate) flatly rejected.

Hoyle was wrong, solidly proven about 13 years after his death, so the foundation of Mooney's premise resides in quicksand. That's how science works.

I would also call into question the claim of 'perfect functioning glory'. By what standard? Something like 99.9% of the observable universe is utterly inhospitable to life as we know it. I am completely unable to grok what this author means by 'perfectly functioning glory'.



This is an insidious rhetorical shell game, that holds ignorance of libraries full of evidence on equal footing to non-evidenced faith. We can, today, observe evidence, right down to gravitational echoes that confirm theories about how the universe ignited into reality. We can map it. We can measure the velocity, the distribution of matter, etc.

To make that claim, that faith, absent evidence (which the author acknowledges is his position, and fully embraces the irrationality thereof) is equal to the body of evidence physicists/cosmologists have compiled on the nature of the cosmos and its origins, is either deceptive, or ignorant. There is nothing irrational about combining a plethora of observable evidence that shows the universe is expanding, and cooling, to conclude the big bang was a real thing, whatever your opinion of how it came about.


*Keep in mind, this is a critique of his grasp/analysis of what he thinks is secular/scientific knowledge about the universe, not a critique of his faith, which I am not quibbling with at this time. I accept his claims of his faith on face value. It is his attempt to paint science as being somehow on the same non-evidenced faith-based level with which I am arguing.

Correct me if I am wrong, but while it would be unacceptable to ream that author for believing in a god, it should not be unacceptable in this venue to point out what he thinks he knows about what science reveals about the nature of the universe, is highly flawed.