I owe you an apology. I misinterpreted what you were explaining.
This is where I went wrong. Astronomers have know since the 1920s that the universe was expanding, in fact Einstein had predicted it in 1916, and this is what I thought you meant data from the Hubble telescope had found. What you actually meant is that the expansion was found to be increasing.
This quote from Scientific American is a little misleading. Until this time discussion centred around whether the universe would continue to expand indefinitely, or whether it would eventually slow and contract into a Big Crunch. Many astronomer favoured the latter view but there have always been those who were less sure. I grew up following Fred Hoyle who postulated a Steady State universe that would not collapse (it was he who coined the term, Big Bang), and I submit that despite what you have tried to show the verdict is not yet in. Look to the end of the Scientific American article you linked to. It concludes by saying that more data is needed to reach any firm conclusions about whether the universe will continue to increase its expansion rate, whether it will slow and reverse its expansion, or whether something else will happen. It looks like the authors have not ruled out anything yet.
http://www.physics.uci.edu/~wolfj/AcceleratingUniverse.pdf (source)
The authors also say, “Cosmic acceleration was a surprise and a new puzzle to solve, but it is not so surprising as to make us rethink much of what we understood about the universe.” So it is not the big deal you are wanting to make it into. Look, everyone knew the universe was expanding, but the rate of the expansion was unknown. Then in comes data telling them that the expansion rate is increasing. True, it didn’t confirm what they expected to find, but that’s why they do science.
It looks like you are equating these scientists with atheists. I won’t take the time to look up the stats, but I think I saw that about 40% of astronomers believe in God. If so then your question is something of a non-issue. Although I will say the majority of these theistic astronomers reject the claims of Genesis. Why? – because they know the facts.
However, you were looking for the atheist perspective, and that’s a bit different. The main physical evidence for the expansion of the universe is the existence of red-shifted galaxies. Let’s say, for the sake of argument it is discovered that the distant galaxies are red-shifted for a totally different reason than what we think. How does that affect my view of God? Well, it doesn’t. The new finding is still based on observations, perhaps on a greater refinement of the same observations we were dealing with earlier. How does any of this impact on our understanding of God? It doesn’t. It is not related.
You want me to say, if scientific investigations sometimes cause us to reinterpret our understanding, then maybe we should recognize our ideas on God might be wrong as well?
I think I know what the issue is. You perceive science as attacking your belief in God. So if you can show that science sometimes gets things wrong and has to reconsider previous ideas, then maybe it should also consider the possibility that the ideas within science, that you perceive as attacking God, are also wrong. God, then, should be considered as a possibility.
Am I close? Is this your thinking?
This is where I went wrong. Astronomers have know since the 1920s that the universe was expanding, in fact Einstein had predicted it in 1916, and this is what I thought you meant data from the Hubble telescope had found. What you actually meant is that the expansion was found to be increasing.
This quote from Scientific American is a little misleading. Until this time discussion centred around whether the universe would continue to expand indefinitely, or whether it would eventually slow and contract into a Big Crunch. Many astronomer favoured the latter view but there have always been those who were less sure. I grew up following Fred Hoyle who postulated a Steady State universe that would not collapse (it was he who coined the term, Big Bang), and I submit that despite what you have tried to show the verdict is not yet in. Look to the end of the Scientific American article you linked to. It concludes by saying that more data is needed to reach any firm conclusions about whether the universe will continue to increase its expansion rate, whether it will slow and reverse its expansion, or whether something else will happen. It looks like the authors have not ruled out anything yet.
http://www.physics.uci.edu/~wolfj/AcceleratingUniverse.pdf (source)
The authors also say, “Cosmic acceleration was a surprise and a new puzzle to solve, but it is not so surprising as to make us rethink much of what we understood about the universe.” So it is not the big deal you are wanting to make it into. Look, everyone knew the universe was expanding, but the rate of the expansion was unknown. Then in comes data telling them that the expansion rate is increasing. True, it didn’t confirm what they expected to find, but that’s why they do science.
It looks like you are equating these scientists with atheists. I won’t take the time to look up the stats, but I think I saw that about 40% of astronomers believe in God. If so then your question is something of a non-issue. Although I will say the majority of these theistic astronomers reject the claims of Genesis. Why? – because they know the facts.
However, you were looking for the atheist perspective, and that’s a bit different. The main physical evidence for the expansion of the universe is the existence of red-shifted galaxies. Let’s say, for the sake of argument it is discovered that the distant galaxies are red-shifted for a totally different reason than what we think. How does that affect my view of God? Well, it doesn’t. The new finding is still based on observations, perhaps on a greater refinement of the same observations we were dealing with earlier. How does any of this impact on our understanding of God? It doesn’t. It is not related.
You want me to say, if scientific investigations sometimes cause us to reinterpret our understanding, then maybe we should recognize our ideas on God might be wrong as well?
I think I know what the issue is. You perceive science as attacking your belief in God. So if you can show that science sometimes gets things wrong and has to reconsider previous ideas, then maybe it should also consider the possibility that the ideas within science, that you perceive as attacking God, are also wrong. God, then, should be considered as a possibility.
Am I close? Is this your thinking?