googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: The Big Bang Theory v. The Big Bang Theory: which is funnier?

Monday, December 10, 2012

The Big Bang Theory v. The Big Bang Theory: which is funnier?

OK. I'll admit it. I watch the TV show, The Big Bang Theory. If you can look past the gratuitous sex, the frequent jabs at religion, and the ubiquitous, dysfunctional parent/child relationships, it's really funny. It's a show written by nerds, about nerds, and for nerds. Recently, I was watching some short clips from the show on YouTube and came across this knee-slapper.

It's funny on so many levels. Of course, it's funny for the obvious reason – the intended punchline of the joke. However, I saw something else humorous in it that likely wasn't intended:

In the debate on origins, the question often comes down to the ultimate origin of matter. Where did everything come from? The Big Bang theory (the scientific theory – not the TV show) has no explanation for the origin of matter. It merely proposes that all matter once existed in a single point without explaining where the matter came from. Such an explanation can't quite satisfy the curious mind. Merely assuming the existing of matter is no more scientific than saying, “God did it.”

Consistent with their “natural-only” worldview, some people suggest a quantum origin of matter. They would have us believe that matter literally poofed into existence. It wasn't caused or created. It just became – without purpose or design.

I think the people who propose such an incredible “non-cause” for the origin of matter are seldom in earnest. They simply have nothing else to which they can resort. Could it be that naturalists hope people will be so intimidated by the weighty, scientific principles of quantum physics that they won't see the absurdity of believing the universe just poofed into existence?

Penny's joke was funny because the physicist believed the odds of a pretty girl poofing into existence in one quantum leap is more likely than a real girl being interested in him. In the real world, secular scientists believe that the universe poofing itself into existence sounds more credible and likely than the purposeful design of an omnipotent Creator.

I can't decide which is funnier, the show or the theory.  At least the show it trying to be funny.


Steven J. said...

After a couple of days of thinking it over, I can think of no better reply than that offered several times to Ray Comfort when he says similar things:

One would suppose that scientists are more expert on what is and is not scientific than are, say, preachers. And from heliocentrism to the two-slit experiment, science has been an ongoing rebuke to our naive sense of what is and is not absurd.

Todd Williams said...

I've listened to a few of Lawrence Krauss' lectures, and his idea of the universe spontaneously self-creating from the quantum vacuum (what he calls 'nothing,' which is not really nothing, by the way) requires an amount of faith I'll never be able to muster. But it's funny how easy it is for atheists to believe that something like this is plausible. Not to mention how they believe it's plausible that there are six unseen dimensions in addition to the known four (a la String Theory), which helps them postulate a multiverse. These ideas somehow are WAY more plausible than the prospect of Christ's resurrection. It's really dumbfounding.

For these people, there is nothing (as far as they are aware) invested in whether or not God exists, so it makes for enjoyable mental gymnastics to dream of these theories. For us, we're wanting them to know because it's imperative they get it right. These people are truly deceived.

RKBentley said...

Steven J,

I've noticed sometimes that scientific publications will use the term "exotic theory." I've learned that "exotic theory" is simply a code word for "I know it sounds crazy but... "

Your "I know it sounds crazy but we're scientists so it's true" response sounds as good as any other response, I suppose. You keep trying that one and I'll keep using my, "No, it's just crazy" argument. We'll let the public decide which is more persuasive.

God bless!!


RKBentley said...


See my reply to Steven J where I talk about the frequent use of the term "exotic theory." Scientists often come up with ideas that they know sound crazy but just can't bring themselves to say, "crazy sounding theory."

You've struck upon the reason that I blog: I'm here to change minds. Jesus told Nicodemus that if he didn't believe Him about earthly things, how would he believe Him about heavenly things. What people believe about our origins can have eternal consequences. If they don't believe the Bible about earthly things (like the creation) they tend to not believe the Bible about heavenly things (like salvation).

Thank you for your comments. They're always interesting.

BTW, I accidentally deleted your other comment. I'm very sorry. Feel free to post it again and I'll publish it directly.

God bless!!


Todd Williams said...

Steven J., I think there is a HUGE difference between wave–particle duality and the spontaneous materializing of entire universes. I think it's a crazy extrapolation of the concept of the unpredictability of particles to think that entire universes are behaving in the same way. That seems to be a big category mistake.

Robert, it's always interesting to me that people like Krauss and Hawking have no problem believing in certain things they cannot see, such as bosonic and superstring dimensions. But they will not even consider an unseen omnipotent mind. I guess you don't have to be accountable to a theory.