Belief in Evolution No Longer a Metric for Science Literacy at NSB-NSF. YAY!

Sal, Save for the inflation part of the big bang model, a part which I find insufficient evidence for, In fact I believe that part of the model may in fact be a "materialistic" post hoc explanation and is brought into severe question here: Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete – Borde-Guth-Vilenkin – 2003 Excerpt: inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012 ,,,I do find the evidence for the creation event itself ( the Big Bang - which is a total misnomer to the highly order event it actually was) to be compelling in its integrity: In fact, The narrowing of what was perceived to be a great divide, between "science" and religion, started with astronomer Edwin Hubble's (1889-1953) discovery, in 1929, of galaxies speeding away from each other, thus indicating a beginning for the universe. This, as well as many other discoveries confirming the Big Bang, has firmly established the universe actually had a beginning just as theologians have always claimed. The Scientific Evidence For The Big Bang - Michael Strauss PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323668 Evidence Supporting the Big Bang http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s7.htm As well there are other lines of argumentation that require a transcendent origin for our material reality: The Creation Of The Universe (Kalam Cosmological Argument)- Lee Strobel - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3993987/ Hugh Ross PhD. - Evidence For The Transcendent Origin Of The Universe - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347185 Formal Proof For The Transcendent Origin Of the Universe - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4170233 As well, I agree with the evidence for Dark Energy and Dark Matter and find they inter-mesh extremely well with the Theistic perspective of the Big Bang being caused by God. In fact the models to be most extremely troubled by the evidence for Dark Energy and Matter is the "materialistic models" that require it to be a "random event". This is because these "transcendent, invisible, Entities" of Dark Energy are some of the most finely tuned parameters to arise out of the Anthropic Principle.: Hugh Ross PhD. - Scientific Evidence For Dark Energy - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347218 The Mathematical Anomaly Of Dark Matter - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4133609 Further note: Reflection on the quantum teleportation experiment: That a photon would actually be destroyed upon the teleportation (separation) of its "infinite" information to another photon is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics. (i.e. the entire information content of a photon was "transcendently displaced" from the material universe, in the experiment, when photon "c" transcendently became the transmitted photon "a"). Thus, this is direct empirical validation for the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information (i.e. information cannot be created or destroyed). This conclusion is warranted because information exercises direct dominion of energy, which cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means, yet a photon of energy is destroyed by this transcendent means. Thus, this experiment provides a direct line of logic that transcendent information cannot be created or destroyed. Clearly anything that exercises dominion of the fundamental entity of this physical universe, energy, must of necessity possess the same, as well as greater, qualities. i.e. All information that can exist, for all past, present and future events of energy, already must exist. Another line of evidence, corroborating the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information, is the required mathematical definition for infinite information needed to correctly specify the reality of a photon qubit (Armond Duwell). The fact that quantum teleportation shows an exact "location dominion", of a photon of energy by "a specified truth of infinite information", satisfies a major requirement for the entity needed to explain the missing Dark Matter. The needed transcendent explanation would have to dominate energy in a very similar "specified location" fashion, as is demonstrated by the infinite information of quantum teleportation, to satisfy what is needed to explain the missing dark matter. Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. Moreover, the fact that simple quantum entanglement shows "coordinated universal control" of entangled photons of energy, by transcendent information, satisfies a major requirement for the entity which must explain the missing Dark Energy. i.e. The transcendent entity, needed to explain Dark Energy, must explain why the entire space of the universe is expanding in such a finely-tuned, coordinated, degree, and would have to employ a mechanism of control very similar to what we witness in the quantum entanglement experiment. Job 9:8 He stretches out the heavens by Himself and walks on the waves of the sea. Thus "infinite transcendent information" provides a coherent picture of universal control, and specificity, that could possibly unify all of physics upon further elucidation. It very well may be possible to elucidate, mathematically, the overall pattern God has chosen to implement infinite information in this universe. This following article powerfully backs up my assertion: Is Unknown Force In Universe Acting On Dark Matter? Excerpt: It is possible that a non-gravitational fifth force is ruling the dark matter with an invisible hand, leaving the same fingerprints on all galaxies, irrespective of their ages, shapes and sizes." ,,Such a force might solve an even bigger mystery, known as 'dark energy', which is ruling the accelerated expansion of the Universe. A more radical solution is a revision of the laws of gravity first developed by Isaac Newton in 1687 and refined by Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity in 1916. Einstein never fully decided whether his equation should add an omnipresent constant source, now called dark energy. ,,Dr Famaey added, "If we account for our observations with a modified law of gravity, it makes perfect sense to replace the effective action of hypothetical dark matter with a force closely related to the distribution of visible matter." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022154644.htm "I discovered that nature was constructed in a wonderful way, and our task is to find out its mathematical structure" Albert Einstein etc.. etc..bornagain77

April 13, 2010

April

04

Apr

13

13

2010

09:40 AM

9

09

40

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

There are many biologists and philosophers of science who are highly scientifically literate who question certain aspects of the theory of evolution ...but there are so very many more biologists and philosophers of science who consider evolution to be a well-established and heuristically powerful theory. The majority of them think this, not because they are required to in order to participate in their academic endeavors nor because they have atheistic beliefs that leave them no options, but because they are convinced by the concordance between the mass of data and the theory advanced to explain it (along with being the view of a biologist on the ground, this would also be the charitable view for a non-biologist to take as a starting point for real argument). When the majority of biologists and philosophers of science share conviction about the strength of a particular theory, this is a strong indication of the merits of the theory. When it is claimed that most scientists think that evolutionary theory provides the best explanation for the origin of biological diversity this is not a consensus argument, as if the scientists just went into a voting booth and pulled a handle with little or no knowledge of the alternative candidates. It is also not a simple argument from numbers (How could millions of consumers be wrong?). This is an argument that relies on the cumulative strength of individual judgements by a large number of highly trained and intelligent professionals. Evolution is an example of just such a well-formed conviction shared by a majority of the scientific and philosophical community. What else besides the well-formed convictions of the scientific community could be used as a standard for scientific literacy? So, it is fine for there to be a vocal minority that disagrees with evolutionary theory, but it doesn't signify much (except that they bear a heavy burden to prove their position).spot48

April 13, 2010

April

04

Apr

13

13

2010

09:18 AM

9

09

18

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The issue with the Big Bang is that even in secular quarters (not just creationist circles) there is a growing and determined dissent. At my alma mater, 3 scientists dissented, and there are professors at many universities who are dissenting. The prestigious society Sigma Xi recently released an article expressing a lot of closet dissent:

In its original form, an expanding Einstein model had an attractive, economic elegance. Alas, it has since run into serious difficulties, which have been cured only by sticking on some ugly bandages: inflation to cover horizon and flatness problems; overwhelming amounts of dark matter to provide internal structure; and dark energy, whatever that might be, to explain the seemingly recent acceleration. A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations. Modern Cosmology Myth or Folktale

The general statement of dissent is here: http://www.CosmologyStatement.org

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy. What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles. Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do. Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding. Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry. Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory. Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology. Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

there is a moderate list of signatories like Menas Kafatos at George Mason, Halton Arp (one of Hubbles associates), etc. It reminds me of the Darwin debate, the Global Warming debate, etc. Even one of my professors of freshman level physics, James Trefil wrote a book which though favorable to the Big Bang had reservations. The issue is the Galaxy formation seemed inconsistent with the Big Bang. In his book, The Dark Side of the Universe

The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists. Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe, p. 55.

Van Flandern has longer list of Big Bang issues: Big Bang Top 30 Problems. Any one of these is potentially fatal: I list just a few, interested readers can see more at Van Flandern's website:

1) Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models. Static universe models match most observations with no adjustable parameters. The Big Bang can match each of the critical observations, but only with adjustable parameters, one of which (the cosmic deceleration parameter) requires mutually exclusive values to match different tests. [[2],[3]] Without ad hoc theorizing, this point alone falsifies the Big Bang. Even if the discrepancy could be explained, Occam’s razor favors the model with fewer adjustable parameters – the static universe model. (2) The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball. The expression “the temperature of space” is the title of chapter 13 of Sir Arthur Eddington’s famous 1926 work, [[4]] Eddington calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given that it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained 3°K (later refined to 2.8°K [[5]]), essentially the same as the observed, so-called “background”, temperature. A similar calculation, although with less certain accuracy, applies to the limiting temperature of intergalactic space because of the radiation of galaxy light. [[6]] So the intergalactic matter is like a “fog”, and would therefore provide a simpler explanation for the microwave radiation, including its blackbody-shaped spectrum. Such a fog also explains the otherwise troublesome ratio of infrared to radio intensities of radio galaxies. [[7]] The amount of radiation emitted by distant galaxies falls with increasing wavelengths, as expected if the longer wavelengths are scattered by the intergalactic medium. For example, the brightness ratio of radio galaxies at infrared and radio wavelengths changes with distance in a way which implies absorption. Basically, this means that the longer wavelengths are more easily absorbed by material between the galaxies. But then the microwave radiation (between the two wavelengths) should be absorbed by that medium too, and has no chance to reach us from such great distances, or to remain perfectly uniform while doing so. It must instead result from the radiation of microwaves from the intergalactic medium. This argument alone implies that the microwaves could not be coming directly to us from a distance beyond all the galaxies, and therefore that the Big Bang theory cannot be correct. None of the predictions of the background temperature based on the Big Bang were close enough to qualify as successes, the worst being Gamow’s upward-revised estimate of 50°K made in 1961, just two years before the actual discovery. Clearly, without a realistic quantitative prediction, the Big Bang’s hypothetical “fireball” becomes indistinguishable from the natural minimum temperature of all cold matter in space. But none of the predictions, which ranged between 5°K and 50°K, matched observations. [[8]] And the Big Bang offers no explanation for the kind of intensity variations with wavelength seen in radio galaxies. (3) Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work. The universal abundances of most elements were predicted correctly by Hoyle in the context of the original Steady State cosmological model. This worked for all elements heavier than lithium. The Big Bang co-opted those results and concentrated on predicting the abundances of the light elements. Each such prediction requires at least one adjustable parameter unique to that element prediction. Often, it’s a question of figuring out why the element was either created or destroyed or both to some degree following the Big Bang. When you take away these degrees of freedom, no genuine prediction remains. The best the Big Bang can claim is consistency with observations using the various ad hoc models to explain the data for each light element. Examples: [[9],[10]] for helium-3; [[11]] for lithium-7; [[12]] for deuterium; [[13]] for beryllium; and [[14],[15]] for overviews. For a full discussion of an alternative origin of the light elements, see [[16]]. (4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed “walls” and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years. The average speed of galaxies through space is a well-measured quantity. At those speeds, galaxies would require roughly the age of the universe to assemble into the largest structures (superclusters and walls) we see in space [[17]], and to clear all the voids between galaxy walls. But this assumes that the initial directions of motion are special, e.g., directed away from the centers of voids. To get around this problem, one must propose that galaxy speeds were initially much higher and have slowed due to some sort of “viscosity” of space. To form these structures by building up the needed motions through gravitational acceleration alone would take in excess of 100 billion years. [[18]] (5) The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely. According to the Big Bang theory, a quasar at a redshift of 1 is roughly ten times as far away as one at a redshift of 0.1. (The redshift-distance relation is not quite linear, but this is a fair approximation.) If the two quasars were intrinsically similar, the high redshift one would be about 100 times fainter because of the inverse square law. But it is, on average, of comparable apparent brightness. This must be explained as quasars “evolving” their intrinsic properties so that they get smaller and fainter as the universe evolves. That way, the quasar at redshift 1 can be intrinsically 100 times brighter than the one at 0.1, explaining why they appear (on average) to be comparably bright. It isn’t as if the Big Bang has a reason why quasars should evolve in just this magical way. But that is required to explain the observations using the Big Bang interpretation of the redshift of quasars as a measure of cosmological distance. See [[19],[20]]. By contrast, the relation between apparent magnitude and distance for quasars is a simple, inverse-square law in alternative cosmologies. In [20], Arp shows great quantities of evidence that large quasar redshifts are a combination of a cosmological factor and an intrinsic factor, with the latter dominant in most cases. Most large quasar redshifts (e.g., z > 1) therefore have little correlation with distance. A grouping of 11 quasars close to NGC 1068, having nominal ejection patterns correlated with galaxy rotation, provides further strong evidence that quasar redshifts are intrinsic. [[21]] (6) The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe. Even though the data have been stretched in the direction toward resolving this since the “top ten” list first appeared, the error bars on the Hubble age of the universe (12±2 Gyr) still do not quite overlap the error bars on the oldest globular clusters (16±2 Gyr). Astronomers have studied this for the past decade, but resist the “observational error” explanation because that would almost certainly push the Hubble age older (as Sandage has been arguing for years), which creates several new problems for the Big Bang. In other words, the cure is worse than the illness for the theory. In fact, a new, relatively bias-free observational technique has gone the opposite way, lowering the Hubble age estimate to 10 Gyr, making the discrepancy worse again. [[22],[23]] (7) The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform. In the early 1990s, we learned that the average redshift for galaxies of a given brightness differs on opposite sides of the sky. The Big Bang interprets this as the existence of a puzzling group flow of galaxies relative to the microwave radiation on scales of at least 130 Mpc. Earlier, the existence of this flow led to the hypothesis of a "Great Attractor" pulling all these galaxies in its direction. But in newer studies, no backside infall was found on the other side of the hypothetical feature. Instead, there is streaming on both sides of us out to 60-70 Mpc in a consistent direction relative to the microwave "background". The only Big Bang alternative to the apparent result of large-scale streaming of galaxies is that the microwave radiation is in motion relative to us. Either way, this result is trouble for the Big Bang. [[24],[25],[26],[27],[28]] (8) Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe. The Big Bang requires sprinkling galaxies, clusters, superclusters, and the universe with ever-increasing amounts of this invisible, not-yet-detected “dark matter” to keep the theory viable. Overall, over 90% of the universe must be made of something we have never detected. By contrast, Milgrom’s model (the alternative to “dark matter”) provides a one-parameter explanation that works at all scales and requires no “dark matter” to exist at any scale. (I exclude the additional 50%-100% of invisible ordinary matter inferred to exist by, e.g., MACHO studies.) Some physicists don’t like modifying the law of gravity in this way, but a finite range for natural forces is a logical necessity (not just theory) spoken of since the 17th century. [[29],[30]] Milgrom’s model requires nothing more than that. Milgrom’s is an operational model rather than one based on fundamentals. But it is consistent with more complete models invoking a finite range for gravity. So Milgrom’s model provides a basis to eliminate the need for “dark matter” in the universe at any scale. This represents one more Big Bang “fudge factor” no longer needed. (9) The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars. The Big Bang requires that stars, quasars and galaxies in the early universe be “primitive”, meaning mostly metal-free, because it requires many generations of supernovae to build up metal content in stars. But the latest evidence suggests lots of metal in the “earliest” quasars and galaxies. [[31],[32],[33]] Moreover, we now have evidence for numerous ordinary galaxies in what the Big Bang expected to be the “dark age” of evolution of the universe, when the light of the few primitive galaxies in existence would be blocked from view by hydrogen clouds. [[34]] (10) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated. Inflation failed to achieve its goal when many observations went against it. To maintain consistency and salvage inflation, the Big Bang has now introduced two new adjustable parameters: (1) the cosmological constant, which has a major fine-tuning problem of its own because theory suggests it ought to be of order 10120, and observations suggest a value less than 1; and (2) “quintessence” or “dark energy”. [[35],[36]] This latter theoretical substance solves the fine-tuning problem by introducing invisible, undetectable energy sprinkled at will as needed throughout the universe to keep consistency between theory and observations. It can therefore be accurately described as “the ultimate fudge factor”. Anyone doubting the Big Bang in its present form (which includes most astronomy-interested people outside the field of astronomy, according to one recent survey) would have good cause for that opinion and could easily defend such a position. This is a fundamentally different matter than proving the Big Bang did not happen, which would be proving a negative – something that is normally impossible. (E.g., we cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist.) The Big Bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget or were never taught that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered. Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with at most an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory. Of course, the literature also contains the occasional review paper in support of the Big Bang. [[37]] But these generally don’t count any of the prediction failures or surprises as theory failures as long as some ad hoc theory might explain them. And the “prediction successes” in almost every case do not distinguish the Big Bang from any of the four leading competitor models: Quasi-Steady-State [16,[38]], Plasma Cosmology [18], Meta Model [3], and Variable-Mass Cosmology [20].

scordova

April 13, 2010

April

04

Apr

13

13

2010

07:27 AM

7

07

27

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

GilDodgen @28,

As far as polling goes: Any pollster who asks a question like, “Do you believe in evolution?” should be immediately fired for scientific ignorance and incompetence. Such questions are sub-meaningless, and the responses are less than worthless.

I think both the questioner and respondent know that the actual question asked is this, "Do you believe in a literal bible/holy book?" The responses to me, to a board of education, or to a politician are very significant. In the case of ID, it may be an indicator of how well your message is being accepted.Toronto

April 13, 2010

April

04

Apr

13

13

2010

05:26 AM

5

05

26

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

lars, Here is the context of your quote:

About one-quarter of the teachers devoted at least some time to creationism or intelligent design (18% between 1-2 hours; 5% between 3-5 hours; and 3% between 6-20 hours). Almost half of these teachers agreed with the statement “I emphasize that this is a valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of the species.”

As I read it, half of a quarter is one-eighth.Adel DiBagno

April 13, 2010

April

04

Apr

13

13

2010

04:42 AM

4

04

42

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Wow, the deleted section is actually pretty good: it reveals fairly clearly (though without numbers) that many who don't agree with the statement "humans developed from earlier animals" do have knowledge of the theory of evolution. It also points out, to my surprise, that almost half of US high school biology teachers agree with the statement, "I emphasize that this [creationism or ID, apparently] is a valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of the species." (Aside... I'm puzzled by the way some people put "the" between "origin of" and "species". Is that just a repeated mistake, or is there a justification for it?) To clarify what I wrote above about the Big Bang question... the original report says the relevant question was, "The universe began with a huge explosion." (T/F)lars

April 13, 2010

April

04

Apr

13

13

2010

04:09 AM

4

04

09

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

P.S. Thanks Sal for giving credit where it is due: John Bruer does deserve praise for speaking the unpopular truth, that "There are many biologists and philosophers of science who are highly scientifically literate who question certain aspects of the theory of evolution". In so doing he took a risk, but maintained his integrity. I wonder what would be an effective way to support him, as he doubtless feels some backlash. Btw, I just noticed the "Big Bang" in the question to Bruer, "When asked whether people who reject evolution and the Big Bang could be considered to be scientifically literate". This is ironic in light of the example of Lemaître above... this question actually implies that Lemaître-doubters are SI! But I guess they mean the Big Bang as opposed to Creation, rather than the Big Bang as opposed to Einstein's static universe model that it displaced. If that's the case, you can doubt scientific theories and still be literate if doing so does not challenge materialism; but if the theories you doubt are seen as important to materialist orthodoxy, you are illiterate. Better send you to a re-education camp.lars

April 13, 2010

April

04

Apr

13

13

2010

03:55 AM

3

03

55

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Jon Miller, a science literacy researcher at Michigan State University who originally devised the question about evolution, disagreed, however, asking, “If a person says that the earth really is at the center of the universe, even if scientists think it is not, how in the world would you call that person scientifically literate?”

A person is scientifically illiterate if they are skeptical about the mainstream theories of the times, even if they understand the issues? So Darwin was scientifically illiterate (SI) when it came to origin of species. "Scientists" at the time thought species originated by other means than NS. Georges Lemaître was apparently SI in 1925 in regard to his expanding universe model; "scientists" thought the universe was static. But within 8 years, his critics were SI when his expanding universe model became accepted. I guess if I'm Scientifically Illiterate, I'm keeping pretty good company. If people like Miller are really interested in what people know about science, they will ask questions that separate knowledge from acceptance of theories. If on the other hand they want to paint skeptics of certain theories as ignorant, they will continue to ask questions that fail to distinguish between disagreement and ignorance. They do this at the expense of discovering how much people know. Thus the pollster's priorities are revealed.lars

April 13, 2010

April

04

Apr

13

13

2010

03:39 AM

3

03

39

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

bornagain77:

...my post was aimed chiefly to point out the obvious fact that the centrality we observe for ourselves in the universe as a whole in regards to the CMBR, regardless of our motion around the sun, brings us full circle from the mediocrity that was derived from Copernicus’s and Galileo’s geocentrism. Indeed we find ourselves smack dab in the middle of the universe again. Just look at the video I linked. I would think that centrality should at least cause some small surprise to the person who has been told, relentlessly, as I was, through his life that we hold absolutely no special place in the universe (Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot comes to mind).

bornagain, You are completely misinterpreting the AMNH video. We are at the center of our observable universe, it's true -- but being at the center of our observable universe is not the same as being at the center of the entire universe. The universe as a whole has no center. To put it somewhat differently, our observable universe is not the same as the observable universe of someone living in the Andromeda galaxy, which is not the same as the observable universe of someone living a billion light-years away. All three observers are living at the center of their respective observable universes, and find themselves an equal distance from the cosmic microwave background in all directions, but none of them is at the center of the entire universe. I think the source of your error is that you're envisioning the CMBR as coming from a sphere. It doesn't. The CMBR permeates all of space, and the CMBR that someone living in the Andromeda galaxy sees is coming from a different place from the CMBR that we see, which is coming from a different place from the CMBR that someone a billion light-years away sees. For more on why the universe has no center, see this video by Phil Plait.pelagius

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

11:35 PM

11

11

35

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Jon Miller, a science literacy researcher at Michigan State University who originally devised the question about evolution, disagreed, however, asking, "If a person says that the earth really is at the center of the universe, even if scientists think it is not, how in the world would you call that person scientifically literate?" Jon Miller is scientifically illiterate. He is confusing the notion that the earth is the center of the solar system with the notion that the earth is the center of the universe. The universe is a four-dimensional hypersphere, with every point on its three-dimensional "surface" (curved through the fourth dimension of time) at the center of all around it, just as every point on the two-dimensional surface of a normal sphere (curved through a third spacial dimension) is at the center of all around it. This has all been clearly understood ever since Einstein introduced special and general relativity nearly a century ago. As far as polling goes: Any pollster who asks a question like, "Do you believe in evolution?" should be immediately fired for scientific ignorance and incompetence. Such questions are sub-meaningless, and the responses are less than worthless.GilDodgen

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

08:43 PM

8

08

43

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Sal, though you are probably right that Jon was referring to geocentrism in particular in this quote of his,,,, “If a person says that the earth really is at the center of the universe," ,,,,the fact that he mentioned the entire universe, instead of the solar system, or galaxy, etc.., clearly indicates that he does not fully realize that the Earth, really does sit at the center of the universe from our point of observation. The Known Universe by AMNH http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U He is clearly operating from a basis of the mediocrity principle, which you know full well is in serious jeopardy as a principle just from the evidence gathered for the Privileged Planet. Probability For Life On Earth - List of Parameters, References, and Math - Hugh Ross http://www.reasons.org/probability-life-earth-apr-2004 http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC2W0304RFT.pdf So I would have no qualms calling his bluff on that statement since even his intent behind the quote is wrong.bornagain77

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

08:16 PM

8

08

16

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

“Jon Miller, a science literacy researcher at Michigan State University who originally devised the question about evolution, disagreed, however, asking, “If a person says that the earth really is at the center of the universe, even if scientists think it is not, how in the world would you call that person scientifically literate?”

Apologies Ba77 if I misrepresented you, but John Miller appears to be talking about geocentrism, at least that would be a reasonable inference without any other data. Perhaps it would not be a good idea to challenge him on that point but on another that is less subject to misunderstanding. I'd challenge Jon for writing such a prejudicial question that insinuated that disbelief in evolution implies illiteracy in science. Give him a long laundry list of eminent scientists (including Nobel Laureates like Richard Smalley) who are skeptical of evolution. His line of questioning insults the contribution of these individuals. There is something unethical in this. Unfortunatley, I doubt he'll recant.scordova

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

07:07 PM

7

07

07

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

correction: should read: brings us full circle from the mediocrity that was derived from Copernicus’s and Galileo’s heliocentrism.bornagain77

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

06:44 PM

6

06

44

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Sal, sorry for not being clear in my post as to the actual subject you were discussing on the other thread,,, my point was not to contest heliocentrism, which I fully accept as perfectly valid in regards to our relative motion in the cosmos, and indeed I would hold anyone very suspect of scientific integrity who maintained the sun revolved around the earth just to support a particular Biblical interpretation, my post was aimed chiefly to point out the obvious fact that the centrality we observe for ourselves in the universe as a whole in regards to the CMBR, regardless of our motion around the sun, brings us full circle from the mediocrity that was derived from Copernicus's and Galileo's geocentrism. Indeed we find ourselves smack dab in the middle of the universe again. Just look at the video I linked. I would think that centrality should at least cause some small surprise to the person who has been told, relentlessly, as I was, through his life that we hold absolutely no special place in the universe (Sagan's Pale Blue Dot comes to mind). Though I seem to be having a fairly difficult time convincing people of the necessity for universal quantum wave collapse in order to maintain such symmetric 3-D centrality from different points of observation in the universe, and overcoming people's tendency to "rest on their laurels" with the expanding 4-D space-time of general relativity, The plain fact that this insignificant nothing of a speck of a "pale blue dot" sits in the middle of the universe speaks loudly and clearly that the mediocrity principle needs to be seriously revisited. further note: As you pointed out in reference to the Privileged Planet principle, there are other lines of evidence to be brought to bear on this.bornagain77

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

06:40 PM

6

06

40

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Ba77, Even ID proponents and creationists like me would have issues with a geocentric conception of reality. I accept we live on Privileged Planet, but I think geocentrism is pushing it. The Earth Orbits the Sun by our conventional understanding of how things work. One could have a change of coordinate system to make everything geocentric, but it would be mostly useless except for specialized application. The reason for Heliocentrism proceeds from the notion of Central Forces of gravity holding planets like earth in orbit. It is a natural coordinate system to conceive of planetary motions. It is completely natural to perceive the Earth as orbiting the sun. It is completely normal to attribute "sunrise" and "sunset" to the Earth's rotation, not some convoluted geometry where we get the Entire Universe to rotate around the Earth every 24 hours. Geocentric conceptions of reality don't enable scientific understanding but would set it back hundreds of years. Heliocentrism works and results in elegant physics. I suppose anyone can choose what they regard to be the center of the Universe. Paris Hilton is reputed to act like she's the center of the universe. But the issue with Heliocentrism prevailing over Geocentricism is for good reason. Evolution is another story. With respect to the Big Bang, several scientists even at my Alma Mater George Mason (considered the #1 up and coming school by US News & World Report) were Big Bang Dissenters. In contrast, you won't find many defenders of geocentrism with any serious scientific background.scordova

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

06:03 PM

6

06

03

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Clive correction: I mistakenly stated: "Clive, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), in the video, marks the definitive boundary of space/time as we know it in the universe." Whereas the truth is that the definitive boundary to space/time matter/energy goes a few hundred thousand years earlier before the CMBR: further note: For the first 400,000 years of our universe’s expansion, the universe was a seething maelstrom of energy and sub-atomic particles. This maelstrom was so hot, that sub-atomic particles trying to form into atoms would have been blasted apart instantly, and so dense, light could not travel more than a short distance before being absorbed. If you could somehow live long enough to look around in such conditions, you would see nothing but brilliant white light in all directions. When the cosmos was about 400,000 years old, it had cooled to about the temperature of the surface of the sun. The last light from the "Big Bang" shone forth at that time. This "light" is still detectable today as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. This 400,000 year old “baby” universe entered into a period of darkness. When the dark age of the universe began, the cosmos was a formless sea of particles. By the time the dark age ended, a couple of hundred million years later, the universe lit up again by the light of some of the galaxies and stars that had been formed during this dark era. It was during the dark age of the universe that the heavier chemical elements necessary for life, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and most of the rest, were first forged, by nuclear fusion inside the stars, out of the universe’s primordial hydrogen and helium. It was also during this dark period of the universe the great structures of the modern universe were first forged. Super-clusters, of thousands of galaxies stretching across millions of light years, had their foundations laid in the dark age of the universe. During this time the infamous “missing dark matter”, was exerting more gravity in some areas than in other areas; drawing in hydrogen and helium gas, causing the formation of mega-stars. These mega-stars were massive, weighing in at 20 to more than 100 times the mass of the sun. The crushing pressure at their cores made them burn through their fuel in only a million years. It was here, in these short lived mega-stars under these crushing pressures, the chemical elements necessary for life were first forged out of the hydrogen and helium. The reason astronomers can’t see the light from these first mega-stars, during this dark era of the universe’s early history, is because the mega-stars were shrouded in thick clouds of hydrogen and helium gas. These thick clouds prevented the mega-stars from spreading their light through the cosmos as they forged the elements necessary for future life to exist on earth. After about 200 million years, the end of the dark age came to the cosmos. The universe was finally expansive enough to allow the dispersion of the thick hydrogen and helium “clouds”. With the continued expansion of the universe, the light, of normal stars and dwarf galaxies, was finally able to shine through the thick clouds of hydrogen and helium gas, bringing the dark age to a close. Job 38:4-11 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut in the sea with doors, when it burst forth and issued from the womb; When I made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band; When I fixed my limit for it, and set bars and doors; When I said, ‘This far you may come but no farther, and here your proud waves must stop!" History of The Universe Timeline- Graph Image http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/CMB_Timeline.jpg As a sidelight to this, every class of elements that exists on the periodic table of elements is necessary for complex carbon-based life to exist on earth. The three most abundant elements in the human body, Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, "just so happen" to be the most abundant elements in the universe, save for helium which is inert. A truly amazing coincidence that strongly implies "the universe had us in mind all along". Even uranium the last naturally occurring element on the period table of elements is necessary for life. The heat generated by the decay of uranium is necessary to keep a molten core in the earth for an extended period of time, which is necessary for the magnetic field surrounding the earth, which in turn protects organic life from the harmful charged particles of the sun. As well, uranium decay provides the heat for tectonic activity and the turnover of the earth's crustal rocks, which is necessary to keep a proper mixture of minerals and nutrients available on the surface of the earth, which is necessary for long term life on earth. (Denton; Nature's Destiny). The Elements: Forged in Stars - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003861 Michael Denton - We Are Stardust - Uncanny Balance Of The Elements - Fred Hoyle Atheist to Deist/Theist - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003877 The Role of Elements in Life Processes http://www.mii.org/periodic/LifeElement.php Periodic Table - Interactive web page for each element http://www.mii.org/periodic/MIIperiodicChart.htmlbornagain77

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

05:58 PM

5

05

58

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case. ~ Pierre Grassebevets

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

05:36 PM

5

05

36

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Hans, If you cling to any form of a hidden variable argument, which Einstein postulated to remove the need for spooky action, at a distance, it is no use trying to reason with you, since hidden variable has been conclusively refuted. i.e. If you do not accept the formal refutation by empirical science what are my mere words going to do for you to change your mind?bornagain77

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

04:21 PM

4

04

21

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

bornagain77, Perhaps it would be easier if you could just tell me how far away that definitive boundary of space/time that you mentioned earlier is? And we can take it from there?Hans Fritzsche

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

02:58 PM

2

02

58

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

bornagain77

Hans, Since the video shows in living color the “singularity event” of the CMBR, where space-time, matter-energy all came into existence at the same time how can you say

Sorry, I don't see evidence for what you are saying from your links/quotes. It does not matter in any case.

The solution for the problem, of maintaining centrality from different points of observation, comes in realizing that quantum wave collapse is universal to each individual observer in the universe.

There are variants of quantum theory that do not require observers for the wave to collapse. It seems you are not a proponent of one of those variants. Have you chosen the interpertation you have because of the observer requirement, or for some other techincal reason? How far do you take the statistical interpretation of Born?Hans Fritzsche

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

02:52 PM

2

02

52

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I have to ask the question: is it really possible to believe that life can arise by pure chance and still be considered scientifically literate?SCheesman

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

02:17 PM

2

02

17

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Clive, what makes the centrality "special", not just to me but to each of us, is that materialism is in complete failure as to explain the phenomena of centrality adequately from different points of observation in the universe, whereas in Theism it clearly reflects both the omnipotence of God, as well as the extremely special importance God has placed on each of us "observers in the universe. It truly is mind blowing when you realize the extent to which the cause of the "First Mover" is required to explain the "effect" of reality for the centrality of each observer.bornagain77

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

02:16 PM

2

02

16

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Hans you stated: "in fact no evidence exists that shows that the boundary of the observable universe corresponds to the physical boundary of the universe." Hans, Since the video shows in living color the "singularity event" of the CMBR, where space-time, matter-energy all came into existence at the same time how can you say,,,, "no evidence exists that shows that the boundary of the observable universe corresponds to the physical boundary of the universe"?""Do you not believe your own eyes" ? Since you don't think the entirety of the observable universe, is sufficient evidence, How about "proof" instead of evidence?: Formal Proof For The Transcendent Origin Of the Universe - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4170233 "Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past."(Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970 http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html "The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science." - William Lane Craig http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6115 Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete - Borde-Guth-Vilenkin - 2003 Excerpt: inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012 "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Alexander Vilenkin - Many Worlds In One - Pg. 176 Hugh Ross PhD. - Evidence For The Transcendent Origin Of The Universe - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347185bornagain77

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

02:06 PM

2

02

06

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

bornagain77, And secondly, the center in medieval thought was considered a position of low regard, like the drain in the middle of a court, it is where all of the trash collects. If you're thinking that the center means a position of privilege just by virtue of being the center, that just depends on who you ask, and different thinkers have thought differently throughout time on this. I cannot see any objectively necessary value, even metaphysically, on any importance on anything being placed in the center of something. Our heart is not in the center of our chest. I suppose I just don't understand what's important in your mind about our planet being at the center of the universe.Clive Hayden

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

02:06 PM

2

02

06

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

bornagain77, But of course, that boundary is not really a boundary, and it is contingent on our ability to measure it from where we sit, meaning that from our vantage point we work outwards, and will always consider a circle of our knowledge to be in proportion to our vantage point. Had we been in a different vantage point, the circle would look the same from that different vantage point, like a portrait, that no matter where you stand in the room, seems to be looking at you. Clive Hayden

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

02:00 PM

2

02

00

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Hans, though you are correct to state that each observer will be central to the universe, the 4-D space time you use for a "complete" explanation is grossly insufficient to explain the 3-D centrality we witness to the CMBR from radically different points of observation in the universe. The solution for the problem, of maintaining centrality from different points of observation, comes in realizing that quantum wave collapse is universal to each individual observer in the universe. Of further note, materialism is at a complete loss to explain the centrality we witness for ourselves in the universe with the refutation of the "hidden variable" argument. Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm further note: The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. - The Mental Universe "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Wignerbornagain77

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

01:50 PM

1

01

50

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

bornagain77, I've not watched the video (no sound!) but could you tell me how far away that definitive boundary of space/time as we know it in the universe is then? I guess you are talking about the edge of the observable universe? After all, any part of the universe that is causally disconnected from us cannot be observed, but that does not mean it does not/cannot exist, and in fact no evidence exists that shows that the boundary of the observable universe corresponds to the physical boundary of the universe.Hans Fritzsche

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

01:50 PM

1

01

50

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Clive Hayden you asked: "In order to claim that something is in the center, doesn’t it require knowledge of the boundaries? How do we know if something is physically central without a concept of boundaries in space, given that space is three dimensional (at least), and anything three dimensional as a space cannot have boundaries without there being something else outside of it? I can see how something can be centrally located in a room, but that’s because it has walls, so how is something known to be the center of the universe in the same way?" Clive, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), in the video, marks the definitive boundary of space/time as we know it in the universe. That is the point at which space/time, along with all energy/matter came into existence. As far as 3-D material reality is concerned there is no "out there" outside of the CMBR.bornagain77

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

01:38 PM

1

01

38

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I always understood "the centre of the universe" to be whereever you are, in a way. Remebmer the balloon analogy? It's intended to be understood in the following way: The universe is the surface of the balloon. It is not embedded in anything and the surface of the balloon is everything that exists. It has no "center" for this illustration. Now imagine that the balloon is inflated, through an infinitesimal hole. Then the sphere that is the surface expands, and all points on that surface move apart from one another. They not only move apart, but the distance (measured along a great circle joining them on the surface) increases at a rate that is proportional to the distance separating the points. All points see all other points as receding directly away from them. In that sense, any point is the "center". But in no case is the center to be construed as the center of the ball of which the sphere is the boundary. So the view from any point is that it's in the centre, as everything is receding from it.Hans Fritzsche

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

01:35 PM

1

01

35

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

bornagain77 @3,

Maybe he, being scientifically literate and all, can explain to me why the earth is not central in the universe even though it is clearly shown to be central in the universe.

I think Clive Hayden is correct @6 when he says we need to know the layout of the universe to know our position in it. We can't simply say that no matter which way we look in the night sky we see an uncountable amount of stars and therefore, we must be at the center. If only one object can occupy the the center of a universe which contains n objects, the odds are (n to 1) against it being us.Toronto

April 12, 2010

April

04

Apr

12

12

2010

01:34 PM

1

01

34

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link