Coming to the Dark Side

I just read in today's Parade that basically what we know about the Universe and much of science is about to change. Have you heard this?? In addition to the "Big Bang" theory that scientists have pretty much shoved down our throats the past couple decades, the "Dark Energy" is becoming one of the most scientific breakthroughs of the last 50 years. In 1998, scientists started recognizing a change and saw the universe is expanding at a faster rate. We don't neccessarily see it and have no clue what is is, hence the name "Dark." Scientists have pretty much determined that Dark Energy makes up two-thirds of the universe...but we are pretty clueless on it. So basically, until we understand Dark Energy, we cannot understand our own universe. On top of that, Dark Energy was not at all predicted by standard theories of physics. Our textbooks and modern science could possibly be very wrong. The Dark Energy is also becoming the map of what could possibly happen to our universe. It could slow down and actually pull the universe together (the "Big Crunch"), if it gets stronger with time, it eventually may pull apart the galaxies (the "Big Rip") or the universe could have an intermediate fate, expanding gradually to a vast, cold empty place (the "Big Chill"). As this article states "Around the 20th century, physicists thought they understood nearly everything and the discovery of Dark Energy illustrates that science is not a set of beliefs that one constructs. Instead, scientists observe nature, then develop theories that describe THEIR observations. Science is driven by nature itself, and nature gives us no choice. It is what it is. As new facts emerge, scientific theories can be proved wrong or in need of modification, but scientists cannot ignore them. Eventually, the facts will lead to the right theory."

The article ends by saying "We are now at the beginning of a great new adventure to push forward the frontiers of understanding." Now I am not a science freak, I never took physics or calculus in my schooling but one thing is for sure...science will not always prove to be science. I just think back to Scott's post of the arguments regarding "Scientifically proving the existence of God." My thought on this is basically void because as much as an Atheist thinks my beliefs in books that were cultivated by years of documenting are no more "sillier" or "close minded" than your belief in books that were cultivated by years of documenting. As far as I am concerned, it is no more sillier than depending on the belief that "science" and the universe is merely a chance of things simultaneously coming together to form our existence...because we don't know JACK about the universe or even how our own world works. So basically, a bigger argument needs to be brought to the debate of religion (or more so God) than just science, because science does not prove to be science in many accepted theories. Science keeps disproving itself. In another article, I agree with the idea that today's atheists have the inability to distinguish between good religion and bad religion. Any and all religion, they say, is bad. And you are supposed to BE SCIENTISTS? or shall I say scientific believers? I love the quote that the "difference between good religion and bad religion is the difference between chicken salad and chicken sh-t." Evidence of God is experential, not empirical! Maybe your staunch belief is because of the view on supposed "God believers" and not God himself. You aren't supposed to follow the believers folks, just him. Your relationship is not through the child molesting priest or the racist Baptist. And maybe...just maybe...you can't argue with that. Don't depend on undependable human nature...just the human creator and I promise you that you will be able to see a much better view.