Cosmology Intelligent Design Naturalism Philosophy Science

Cosmic inflation theory outgrows the scientific method

Spread the love
inflation
NGC 2500, a barred spiral galaxy, by ESA/Hubble/NASA

And thrives anyway. From Denyse O’Leary (O’Leary for News) at Evolution News & Views:

Two features of our universe puzzle cosmologists: One is the horizon problem: The universe looks the same in all directions and the cosmic microwave background radiation is about the same temperature everywhere. As String Theory for Dummies puts it, “This really shouldn’t be the case, if you think about it more carefully.” Assuming that current measurements are correct, the radiation must have exceeded the speed of light if it really communicated in this way, but that is forbidden by the standard Big Bang model of the universe.

Then there is the “flatness problem”: “The matter density and expansion rate of the universe appear to be nearly perfectly balanced, even 14 billion years later when minor variations should have grown drastically” (Dummies). Inconveniently, the apparent 1:10^66 fine-tuning of the Big Bang, of which horizon and flatness are features, is frequently used as an argument for the existence of God.

Cosmic inflation theory, first proposed by Alan Guth in 1981, modified the Big Bang theory (the Standard Model) by proposing that the universe, instead of unfolding at a steady pace, expanded rapidly shortly after it was created, which could account for apparent fine-tuning.More.

But then the wheels fell off. And what do you think the cosmologists did then?

See also: How naturalism rots science from the head down

The Big Bang: Put simply,the facts are wrong.

What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

Cosmology is naturalism’s playground. But does the fun mask a science decline?

Post-modern physics: String theory gets over the need for evidence

10 Replies to “Cosmic inflation theory outgrows the scientific method

  1. 1
    Latemarch says:

    Inflation = Then something happened.
    An ad hoc explanation with no basis in physics to account for the horizon problem.

    Desperate grasping for anything to avoid a Creator.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    Latemarch @ 1

    Desperate grasping for anything to avoid a Creator

    No, trying to find an naturalistic explanation. “God did it” isn’t an explanation.

  3. 3
    kurx78 says:

    “It did it by random chance” isn’t an explanation either… oh wait, we don’t have any more naturalistic explanations D:

  4. 4
    Sebestyen says:

    No, trying to find an naturalistic explanation. “God did it” isn’t an explanation.

    It is, if God did it.

    If “Curiosity” would find a football on Mars, nobody would look for a naturalistic explanation but the question would be “Who put a football on friggin’ Mars?”, wouldn’t it?

    Sebestyen

  5. 5
    News says:

    Sebasteyn at 4: Yes. Saying “God did it” is not the same thing as studying a designed object.

    If God is the First Cause, God is the author of everything. But saying so is no more informative than stating that our universe began with the Big Bang.

    One studies the antikythera as a designed object because we are permitted to see it as such. No one puts himself to the trouble of discovering how such an information-bearing entity could have come into existence randomly.

    Current cosmology centres on the need to avoid the fact of fine-tuning, Cosmologists are people who put themselves to the trouble of discovering how such an enormous information-bearing entity could have come into existence randomly.

    It’ll get loopier. And angrier. Then melt down.

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    Seversky: “God did it” isn’t an explanation.

    Sure it is. God raised Jesus from the dead. That’s an explanation. You may not believe it. But it’s an explanation nonetheless.

  7. 7
    ppolish says:

    Scientific Method is overrated. I know, I know – it was invented by Theists. But it was never meant to test for OtherWordly Domains. That was explicitly set down by the inventors.

  8. 8
    PaV says:

    Mung:

    You should have said this: “That’s an explanation. It’s not a strictly ‘materialist’ explanation; but, it’s an explanation nonetheless.”

    If everything is ‘material,’ then theological/philosophical explanations are rendered impotent.

    But if everything is ‘material,’ then why can I make plans to go to Costa Rica next year should I desire?

    Skeptics can deny everything; however, they can’t ‘deny’ that they’re ‘denying everything.’

    Materialists can deny all non-material causes. What, then, though, is the ’cause’ of this denial?

    Elementary logic, eh?

  9. 9
    ppolish says:

    Actually Denyse, “the universe looks the same in all directions” isn’t exactly accurate. Pretty darn close – but not exactly…

    There is a “peculiar relationship”, and “this peculiar relationship to our solar system is aligned with the quadrupole and octupole”.

    Modern science is scratching its head over this. Or trying to ignore:)

    https://www.space.com/37334-earth-ordinary-cosmological-axis-evil.html

  10. 10
    News says:

    ppolish at 9, I was relying on conventional explanations for laypeople and thanks for the clarification.

Leave a Reply