… 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!
I think the idea of 1+1=2 should be retired. I mean it is true, but maybe it could lure everyone into a close-minded confidence derived from knowing factual stuff. Just my opinion.
Hopefully ID supporters and creationists will take that advice on board and stop referring to the science of evolution as being about the truth. If they want truths then see a mathematician.
Lincoln Phipps, you are confused as there isn’t any science wrt unguided evolution.
Well this is a strange quote,,,
,,, what makes that quote strange is that science is all about testing whether an idea is true or not.,,, Mr Phipps rushes in to supposedly defend the bizarre quote with this statement,,
Actually, contrary to Mr. Phipps assertion, it is now known that ‘truth’ cannot be based within mathematics, at least not within mathematical equations specific enough to have counting numbers in them. The reason is because of the Godel’s proof, i.e. the Incompleteness theorem:
So as to Mr. Phipps contention,,,,
Then I suggest, since truth cannot be based in mathematical equations, if people are seeking ‘truth’ then they will have to go higher than mathematics to the One who imparts truthfulness (breathes fire) into mathematical equations in the first place:
Moreover, since Mr. Phipps holds that ‘truth can be found in mathematics, I implore him to show us ‘IDiots’ the exact mathematical demarcation criteria of neo-Darwinism so that we may finally learn how to properly designate real Darwinian science from the pseudo-science of Intelligent Design?
Or if mathematics is not Mr. Phipps cup of tea, and he more of an empiricist, perhaps he can just demonstrate for us that Random Mutation/Variation and Natural Selection are the way in which species have originated?
Well so much for Random mutations/variations, How about Natural Selection? Can Mr. Phipps demonstration that it is true?
WOW, Natural Selection is not even on the right playing field dimensionally speaking! Moreover, even if it were on the right playing field, Natural Selection is hopelessly blind to the subtle changes it is required to select at the molecular level,,
This devastating ‘princess and the pea’ problem for natural selection is pointed out by Dr. John Sanford at the 8:14 minute mark of this following video,,,
All of which begs the question, if showing both of the two primary presuppositions of Darwinism to be false cannot falsify Darwinism, exactly what scientific finding can?
Of note: Intelligent Design does not suffer from such lack of mathematical rigor:
and Intelligent Design can easily be falsified
Moreover ID has positive evidence for its claim that Intelligence, and only Intelligence, can generate functional information/complexity, whereas Darwinism has none:
Dr. Fuz Rana, at the 41:30 minute mark of the following video, speaks on the tremendous effort that went into building the preceding protein:
Verse and Music;