The "big bang" theory is ridiculous, can not be proven, and should not be taught in schools.

== '''The "big bang" theory is ridiculous, can not be proven, and should not be taught in schools. - 11/4/2007 (https://www.debate.org/debates/The-big-bang-theory-is-ridiculous-can-not-be-proven-and-should-not-be-taught-in-schools/1/)''' ==

Round 1
mmadderom: "The whole "big bang" theory is ludicrous on it's face. It surmises that the entire universe is the result of nothing expanding into something through the force of density and temperature. If there was nothing, then where did the density come from, how do you gauge the temperature of nothingness?

The theory suggests that space itself is constantly expanding. Now, I'm no scientist, but if anyone can please explain how space is expandable I'd love to make my living room a tad larger. There is no real evidence that this theory is accurate so we should NOT be teaching it to our children in public schools."

Ivisman96: "Thank you for posting this worthwile and misunderstood topic.

Let's start off with a few definitions so we're all on the same page. Theory: 1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Science: 1. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. SOURCE: www.dictionary.com Just from the above definitions, we see that Theory is in fact, not necessarily a 'fact'. Secondly, the definition of science shows that it should INDEED be taught as everything systematically discovered up to this point has not DISPROVED the theory. The logical progression is that we show students where we are on this path to discovery, whereas some will then take it and either refute it, confirm it, or expand upon it with their own observations and experimentation. You're statement that you "(aren't a) scientist" deserves some scrutiny. I'm "no scientist" either, however, one should have a knowledge of something they are trying to refute. I would like to establish on what basis are you arguing that the science is in error ? I would like to know for the simple fact that my scientific explanation may be unintelligible to you and I would like to respond in the most appropriate (and understandable way) possible."

Round 2
mmadderom: "You're right. I should clarify my position. It is not my position to debate the merits of the theory itself, here. I have no problem with this theory being introduced, studied, and debated at the college level. It absolutely should be. That is where the research belongs.

A sixth grader, however, isn't in position to debate, study, or test the theory. It is introduced as fact in a larger discussion of Evolution in primary grades. As evolution in general, and the big bang in particular are in direct or indirect contrast to traditional and religious beliefs of the families of many of the children this is being taught to, and as it has not been proven with any sort of certainty, it's potentially detrimental to introduce this information to children of that age. I am not at all suggesting we should just dismiss the theory out of hand, I'm suggesting we keep the discussion where it belongs. The only Science we should be teaching in the primary grades is that which we have, at least, reasonable certainty. In 6th grade children are dissecting frogs, not contemplating the origin of the universe. A parents ability to raise their children should not be undermined by scientific theories that are far from conclusive being introduced as factual to their children."

Ivisman96: "Thanks Mmardderom for following up on your argument. Since your clarification, I believe I have won the first two points in your Topic statement. It is not "ridiculous" as demonstrated by your statement "I am not at all suggesting we should just dismiss the theory out of hand". The fact that it cannot be proven was dismissed by the definition of Theory in my first argument. As such, I will concentrate on the last topic statement; namely, that "(it) should not be taught in schools"--which you were kind enough to clarify as primary schools, 6th grade specifically (although I know some school districts now view 6th grade as middle school).

Why do we send our children to school in the first place ? To teach them skills to make them more productive in society is one reason. To compete on a global level is another (with the advent of the internet we are more a global society than ever-one can only imagine what the future will be). Methinks this topic is a veiled attempt at imposing religion in the schools (and should probably have been stated as such) however I will postulate on the religious aspect in later rounds if need be. Instead, in getting rid of the first two points, let's get into the meat of the matter. You state, "A sixth grader, however, isn't in position to debate, study, or test the theory. " On what basis do you come to that conclusion ? And how do you know that is being debated or tested ? A sixth grader dissecting a frog is certainly not debating the ethics of such experimentation or testing hypotheses. They are simply learning anatomy. Same thing with math. You have to learn to add before you can move to complex formulas. Children, as growing beings are on a timeline of sorts with which they can get the information in a progressive fashion. They learn better earlier. According to a recent Newsweek Cover story, "Circuits in different regions of the brain mature at different times. Give your children the stimulation they need when they need it, and anything's possible. Stumble, and all bets are off" If the child can understand the concepts, then why should it be put off until college ? Something this complex needs to be introduced as soon as is practical. There is nothing to be gained by delaying current scientific teaching. In fact, it will be DETRIMENTAL to not teach it. And because learnig is a lifelong process, you have to initiate the conversation somewhere. You offer no reason as to why sixth graders don't have the mental capacity to understand the theory as it is taught to them. You DO share some fears that it will 'undermine' parents' ability to teach children as they wish."

Round 3
mmadderom: "Ivisman96,

I said the theory was ridiculous "on it's face" in my opening argument, and it is. We don't comprehend the universe itself as it is, let alone how it formed. Just yesterday Science daily reported that we have once again "lost" a big chunk of the universe we thought was found 5 years ago. The greater the technology we acquire the more we learn just how little we actually know about the universe. This topic has nothing to do with religion in schools, which is an entirely different debate. Nothing is being debated or tested at that grade level, it is instead being presented to children as factual information. That is the problem. Most children of that age are not capable of distinguishing between theory and fact. Frankly, many of the teachers aren't, either. It is taught in text book fashion as a factual version of the creation of the universe. And how I know is having had two children go through it. "2+2=4, the first letter of a proper noun is always capitalized, oh...and by the way, the universe was created by an explosion which led to evolution, and your ancestors were monkeys." Some things don't have any place being taught in public schools. This is one of them.'

Ivisman96: "Science is CONSTANTLY striving to be more correct. Just because we don't know everything, does that mean we should stop trying ? Science is science until it is disproven. And currently, the big bang theory has stood up to scrutiny…otherwise, the myriad number of studies per year would come up with something else. Just because you can't understand it (as evidenced by your simplistic "oh...and by the way, the universe was created by an explosion which led to evolution, and your ancestors were monkeys.") I will put it in terms you can understand, because I am beginning to form a theory (as demonstrated by our interactions) that you don't have even a fundamental knowledge of how science works or the theories involved. Lest you think I am attacking you, I am not. I am simply clarifying that you are in no position to debate scientific principles because you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Case in point…our ancestors were not ‘monkeys' as you state. Monkeys are a whole different species and they are NOT our ancestors. However, we share a common ancestor (which was not a monkey). Chimpanzees (technically not a ‘monkey') share 98% of our DNA. Just so you don't make the assumption that ANY currently living ape, monkey, gibbon, etc. was our ancestors, they were not. We had a common ancestor that was neither monkey, human, or ape. It was something different. We branched off from them. But I digress.

I'm curious. What would you have taught in it's place ? You state that this is not about religion, yet you talk about religion, evolution (which has nothing to do with big bang theories and is a separate discipline in and of itself—the only thing they have in common is that they are both scientific explanations of how ‘we' came to be and the fact that organized religion doesn't adhere to either theory) both in this debate and in your comments. As far as the Science Daily report, did you understand it? For those that did not read it, in essence it states that there is ‘dark matter' that is theorized to make up most of the universe (which should have more mass than it appears to have through direct observation). In 2002, scientists surmised through testing that they had found some of this ‘dark matter'. Then just now they realized that is was something else. And that is science's strength. WHICH BRINGS ME BACK TO MY FIRST LINE IN THIS ROUND. They test and retest and then retest again. Contrary to what you believe, it is not a bunch of scientists sitting around making stuff up. They had loads and loads of data and test, test, test, test, ad infinitum. If something doesn't measure up it's out. The example you give only serves to strengthen my position that science is self-policing and will re-evaluate itself in the search for truth. You have now flipped no less than 3 times.. In your opening statement you said "There is no real evidence that this theory is accurate so we should NOT be teaching it to our children in public schools." You then changed it to: "I have no problem with this theory being introduced, studied, and debated at the college level. It absolutely should be. That is where the research belongs. A sixth grader, however, isn't in position to debate, study, or test the theory" in Round 1. You went further in Round 1 with "I am not at all suggesting we should just dismiss the theory out of hand, I'm suggesting we keep the discussion where it belongs." Then you changed again when you stated "I said the theory was ridiculous "on it's face" (which you actually said ludicrous, but no matter) in my opening argument, and it is." Which was then followed by : "Nothing is being debated or tested at that grade level, it is instead being presented to children as factual information. " Which is it sir ? Do you even know where you stand ? We did away with what Theory means in my opening statement. We saw that it is indeed not a ‘fact'. So when a theory is taught it is not the same as teaching facts. You have not given any reason as to why this should not be taught to our children. Is it because it is a ludicrous theory ? You say that it is not and then say it is. Is it because 6th grade children cannot debate it ? YOu then say they don't debate at that age. Is it because it is taught as fact ? We saw that theory is not the same as fact. What is your hidden motive here ? Please try to form a cohesive argument here. I'm getting seasick from all this round and round and up and down stuff."

Round 4
mmadderom: "I had and have no interest in debating the theory itself here, nor do I care to continue a debate with someone who tosses ad ad hominem arguments around as a strategy. Thanks for your time."

Ivisman96: "You're welcome. It was and is not my intent to toss 'ad hominem' arguments. I was simply trying to ascertain your position and come up with your reasons for your stance which seemed to 'flip' a number of times. If your answers were clearer as to why you were advocating that stance, I wouldn't have had to clarify them so much. If you care to reply, why exactly are you against teaching the big bang theory to children ? Exactly."