… science ideas ready to be retired, along with the Big Bang (here at The Edge big thinksite, 174 responses as of today).
At Canada’s National Post, Joseph Brean tells us,
Roger Highfield, a former science journalist now at the U.K.’s National Museum of Science and Industry, wants to retire the idea that evolution is true, not because it is false, but because the dogmatic declaration of its “truth” lures a thinker into a close-minded confidence, unjustified by even the best current science of evolution.
Well, we see that every single day here, of course, and it explains the need for the Censor of the Year contest. Indeed, Darwin’s current most faithful followers are the strongest reason for thinking their theory in need of retirement. Any mediocre biology teacher can read from a textbook approved by the Darwin lobby. Only a gifted teacher would look into the new information about horizontal gene transfer, for example.
Brean’s article mentions but isn’t explicit about the rap against the Big Bang. But its appearance on the list is not a surprise. Many opponents in science are straightforward about their dislike of its theistic implications. The way that is put is, Martin Rees doesn’t think big bangs are “rigorous science,” and Lee Smolin wants to retire the Bang as the first moment in time:
if the big bang was the first moment of time there can be no scientific answer to the question of what chose the laws of nature. This leaves the field open to explanations such as the anthropic multiverse which are unscientific because they call on unobservable collections of other universes and make no predictions by which their hypotheses might be tested and falsified.
More here, searching on “big bang.”
The Guardian picked Max Tegmark’s response as one of the best. His main problem is with infinity. Readers will remember Tegmark from the multi-level multiverses and the theory that consciousness is a material state.)
And the world bangs on.
Hat tip:Timothy Kershner
See also: Science Fictions
Follow UD News at Twitter!