Vatican deals blow to Intelligent Design

[midnight Target]

Why not?

Read this (regarding the fact that there was a big bang... lots of evidence for that, what came before is still up for grabs)

The Evidence

(1) General Relativity and Vacuum Energy Imply a Big Bang Inflation Event

When Einstein applied the equations of General Relativity to the entire universe, rather than just the solar system, he found they predicted either that the universe must expand from or collapse to a singularity. Einstein eliminated this result by arbitrarily adding a "cosmological constant" that balanced everything out. As Parker notes, "Einstein was reluctant to add the term. It destroyed the simplicity and beauty of his equations" (p. 51). As Einstein himself said, "If Hubble's expansion had been discovered at the time of the creation of the general theory of relativity, the cosmological member would never have been introduced. It seems now so much less justified to introduce such a member into the field equations" (Letter of 1932, quoted by Parker, p. 59).

When later scientists worked out all the possible solutions to this problem, it was found that the entire universe would inevitably have one of several particular shapes. Some of those shapes included a singularity at the beginning of time followed by an expansion: a Big Bang. As it happens, the known properties of the universe as presently observed entail that only one of those descriptions can be correct. So the universe had to have begun as a singularity. The only way this could not be correct is if General Relativity is false (and that is unlikely: it is very well corroborated) or if some as-yet unknown force or factor prevented it. Some theorists, like Stephen Hawking, argue that quantum theory is such a factor, that quantum uncertainty makes a singularity impossible, but this has not yet been proven. And even if that is correct, the Big Bang theory only changes in one minor detail--the observable universe still begins very, very small.

Much later it was noticed that such a Big Bang event would experience a very brief period of "supercooling" which would cause a rapid but brief period of "inflation," at least if we are right about currently-accepted physics. This in turn predicts many peculiar observations, like the near-perfect density, smootheness and flatness of the universe. Though Inflation Theory does not explain everything or fit all the facts, it has two things going for it: it appears to be independently predicted by other physical laws, and it explains a lot that otherwise would remain a mystery. Still, many physicists remain skeptical of Inflation Theory, even as they agree that the Big Bang theory is probably true.

(2) Expansion is Confirmed by Multiple Lines of Evidence.

There are five independent lines of evidence that all converge on a common conclusion: the universe began between 14 and 15 billion years ago in a superheated state where even atoms could not form, and has rapidly expanded and cooled ever since.[5]

The first and most important piece of evidence is the observation of redshifts, which can only be explained by assuming that every galaxy cluster in the universe is moving away from every other: the more distant, the greater the speed. Though many scientists have shown or argued that some redshift has other causes, these explanations do not account for even a significant fraction of the observed objects, or of the observed redshift overall, which is simply too enormous to be accounted for by any other known means. The most obvious contrary explanation is that something to do with the space the light passes through causes the frequency to decay, but this has been soundly refuted by two observations. First, the expansion rate is accelerating, which only a change in velocity can explain (since the rate of a space-caused decay could not change but would have to be constant).[6] Second, many observations of redshifted objects have been made whose light is split by a gravitational lens. These studies show that even when light coming from the same object traverses different distances, the redshift remains the same.[7] So light is not decaying as it passes through space. The redshift must originate with the object, and only velocity can explain that.

The five independent lines of evidence for the universe's age are as follows:


First, taking into account all known factors, including the recently-confirmed acceleration of the cosmic expansion rate, scientists have shown that if you rewind the observed behavior of the known universe, it all comes together in a tiny, superheated state about 14.5 billion years ago.


Second, we have confirmed that the oldest stars in our own galaxy are between 12 and 13 billion years old. Though Pickrell (cf. n. 5) notes that these "were probably not among the universe's very first stars," they would have formed no more than a billion years after the cosmos itself began to form. Though this only proves an age for our galaxy, not necessarily the universe, the result of 14 billion years perfectly matches the most recent calculation of the projected start-point for the universe's observed expansion.


Third, the most distant galaxy yet observed, based on the most precise and accurate observations to date, lies between 12 and 13 billion lightyears away, and thus is just as old as ours.


Fourth, the observed interstellar abundance of certain radioactive elements, calculating backwards from their known rate of decay, entails that they must have been produced at least 12 to 13 billion years ago, about the time we would expect them to have formed if the universe began about 15 billion years ago.


Fifth, the current calculated age of various globular clusters beyond our galaxy is no more than 15 billion years. This corroborates an age of the universe of about 15 billion years.

These five facts, especially in combination with all the other "evidences" ennumerated in this essay, would be a remarkable coincidence if the universe didn't in fact originate between 14 and 15 billion years ago. So it probably did.

It must be noted that Lerner discusses experimental evidence that the pressure-action of light itself, upon galactic or stellar magnetic fields, would inevitably accelerate all objects away from each other: in other words, there is a possible explanation of expansion other than a Big Bang, indeed, an explanation of accelerating expansion. And despite critics who originally attacked this suggestion, intergalactic magnetic fields have recently been demonstrated to exist on a vast scale.[8] Many other theories could perhaps account for it, too. However, all the other evidence concurs with a Big Bang event, not any of these other theories.

Likewise, M-Theory has recently provided an alternative that is just as successful as Inflation Theory without any Big Bang as ordinarily conceived. Called the ekpyriotic or "brane" theory, developed by Dr. Paul Steinhardt and others, this theorizes a "Big Collision" instead of a Big Bang.[9] Or, as Boslough puts it, "Maybe the big bang was just a big bang, an explosion in our little neighborhood of the universe that was neither the beginning of time nor the creation of the cosmos. Nobody knows."[10] This fact should be kept in mind throughout this paper: Big Bang theory is consistent with many different interpretations of the originating event. It is not solely tied to Singularity or Inflation Theory, nor does it entail that nothing else exists apart from what we observe: there may be other universes, and even this universe is probably much larger than we will ever see.

(3) The Microwave Background Radiation is Consistent with a Big Bang Event

Not only did Big Bang Theory predict a microwave background glow, it exactly predicted its temperature. Though there are problems with the exact pattern of that radiation, and though there may yet be other causes for it,[11] no one has demonstrated any better explanation to be correct. In contrast, analysis of the microwave background as observed by numerous independent instruments confirms certain features that suggest the universe was indeed in a superheated state (indeed, the very state that "Inflation" would have ended with) about 14 billion years ago. The evidence is of sound waves that passed through the early superheated universe, in such a way that predicts the current existence of roughly 4.5% "baryonic matter," based on experimentally proven ratios in particle accelerators, which is almost exactly what we observe.[12] This is not a slam dunk proof, but it is very strong evidence that the universe was once in a superheated state 14 billion years ago, again corroborating the basic elements of the Big Bang Theory. No other theory can explain this acoustic peak, except theories already resembling the Big Bang, like Brane Theory..

[midnight Target]

4) There are Too Many Light Elements to be Explained Any Other Way

I originally saw this as a failed evidence because we know too little to get anything like a precise ratio of light to heavy elements and thus could not base any argument on what that ratio was. However, on closer examination I found that this ambiguity does not matter so much. Even though a lot of matter remains unobserved, and the time and rate of star formation is not securely known so the actual ratio today is not securely known,[13] the vast quantity of key light elements that we do observe is far too great to be accounted for in any other way than by something like a Big Bang. Alternative theories are at present entirely speculative,[14] while Big Bang theory has experimental basis in particle physics.

This is most clear in the case of the verified presence of natural deuterium. Its quantity is not even important: its mere existence is inexplicable--except, so far, by the Big Bang theory. There is no other natural process known that can create stable deuterium. In fact, stars destroy this element. But the evidence doesn't end there: beginning at a superheated state entails a vast abundance of light elements over heavy, with more light elements in older epochs. Both observations are confirmed. The exact ratios are unknown, but everywhere (even in our own galaxy) older stars are comprised of more light elements than newer stars, and the vast scale of light elements is undeniable. There is simply way too much helium, for example, to explain by any other means. And no other theory can account for the precise kinds of light elements we observe in superabundance: not just any helium, for example, but only helium-3 and helium-4; not just any lithium, but lithium-7; and so on. Other light elements exist in only trace amounts. This is exactly what would be predicted if the universe began as a superheated mass of superhot protons and neutrons which then cooled, according to the experimental results of atomic physics.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bigbangredux.shtml#intro1

[Octavius]

Seagoon, what SOB said.  No attack intended...

I think it certainly has an oxymoron quality.  If one subscribes to the basic premise of ID, one dismisses any drive to seek knowledge and understanding... much like waving a big white flag at the logos.  "I strive to become content with what I know," is a bit strange.

[NUKE]

mt, in order for it to be taught, I thought you said it had to be reproducable?

Maybe someone has recreated the universe as it was before the big bang, then demonstrated how all the matter and energy was gathered into an infinitly small space, then decided to explode one day......... maybe I missed that experiment.

And yet this is what is being taught. How is that science?

[moot]

Nuke who cares whether it's "science" or not.  It's the best explanation.
Do you have a better one?  Is it any more reproducable?
Religion has no practical value.

[storch]

science has no explanation either.  both require a leap of faith.

[Maverick]

So ID says there is no such thing as evolution and other than minor mutations everything is as it was set in motion bu the "Intelligent Designer". How does ID explain extinct species, like possibly the dinosaurs, or are those theories (fabrications) that haven't been proven to the satisfaction of adherants of ID?

As to question number 2. Nope you didn't answer that one. I didn't ask anything regarding bible or liberal. I just asked if now you are saying there are Catholics or Christians or are there Catholic Christians in the Vatican?

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by NUKE
mt, in order for it to be taught, I thought you said it had to be reproducable?

Maybe someone has recreated the universe as it was before the big bang, then demonstrated how all the matter and energy was gathered into an infinitly small space, then decided to explode one day......... maybe I missed that experiment.

And yet this is what is being taught. How is that science?

Reproducable in this case refers to the evidence leading to the conclusion.

I'm guessing you didn't read the evidence.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Reproducable in this case refers to the evidence leading to the conclusion.

I'm guessing you didn't read the evidence.

I'm guessing that you are ignoring the fact that the idea of all the energy and matter in our universe being concentrated into an infinetly small space is not scientific in any way.

[SOB]

Why not?

[NUKE]

because an infenitly small space (think about it) containing all the matter in the universe is impossible.

[Maverick]

Nuke, first define why it is not scientific. Secondly your proof of your statement is?

[Seagoon]

Hi Mav,

Originally posted by Maverick
So ID says there is no such thing as evolution and other than minor mutations everything is as it was set in motion bu the "Intelligent Designer". How does ID explain extinct species, like possibly the dinosaurs, or are those theories (fabrications) that haven't been proven to the satisfaction of adherants of ID?

One of the things that has thrown yet another Monkey wrench in the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is what is called the "Cambrian explosion." If one examines the fossil record, in the strata scientists assign to the Cambrian era, you suddenly have a myriad of new lifeforms that appear "out of no where." Darwinian Paleontologists initially speculated that the lifeforms that they evolved from where soft-bodied and thus left behind no fossil evidence, but new evidence, especially from the Chengjiang fossil beds shows that we have soft bodied fossils of sponge spores in the Pre-Cambrian strata. Moreover, from the Cambrian period onwards, we see the "tree of life" being whittled down to fewer lifeforms as various species became extinct rather than spreading out. ID proponents affirm that the fossil evidence states that many of the Cambrian species became extinct.

Extinction isn't doubted by the IDer, fossil evidence indicates that there are several species that no longer exist, Dinosaurs for instance. The origin of those species is what is debated. Where did that sudden "Big Bang" of lifeforms in the Cambrian strata come from? We go from hardly any life-forms to a boatload in one leap.

Anyway, please understand Maverick that ID scientists work off the same data that Neo-Darwinians do, find a fossil, date it as billions of years old, classify it and the IDer has no problem, they aren't going to argue the age or any of the other empirical evidence. These guys are not young earth creationists. The major difference is in "the gaps" - i.e. what the empirical evidence doesn't tell us. Neo-Darwinians have their own theories explaining the gap between say Dinosaurs and Birds, gradual mutation changed these Lizards into birds. Let me point out how that works in application:

Evidence: Dinosaur Fossils (earlier strata) Bird Fossils (later strata)
Neo-Darwinian (orthodox) - Natural Selection caused the mutation of Lizards into Birds. Someday we'll find fossils showing us how that transition occurred.
Neo-Darwinian (punctuated equilibrium) - Yes, Lizards became birds, but the time gap doesn't allow enough time for the gradual mutation you speculate about, also this "eventually we'll find the transitional fossils" thing is getting lame, we've had long enough to find them.  Also, something between an arm and wing is actually less useful than either and thus natural selection would eliminate such a mutation. What happened is rapid mutation i.e. two lizards laid eggs and out popped a birds, who mated and whamo we have a bird population.
IDer Dinosaurs appeared, birds appeared. Birds are not the result of the mutation gradual or rapid of Dinosaurs, they are a new species.

     

As to question number 2. Nope you didn't answer that one. I didn't ask anything regarding bible or liberal. I just asked if now you are saying there are Catholics or Christians or are there Catholic Christians in the Vatican?

Just out of curiousity, why are you pressing me on this "are Catholics Christians" thing in this thread? Is this really the kind of forum where we can debate the merits of the Reformation or whether Justification by Faith Alone is really the article upon which the church stands or falls? Given that in this thread the majority of people posting don't accept that the Bible is literally the word of God, or even if there is a God, a debate on the meaning of the Bible which assumes that it is the Word of God would seem to me to be an absurdity. There are plenty of Christian Apologetics blogs and sites on the net where that argument can be constructively debated, but here all that is going to get generated is emotion and ad homs. As I said, here one has to fight for the most basic tenets of the Christian faith, let alone the more complex ones. "Is there a God and did He create the World?" is for instance far, far, more basic and fundamental a question than whether Peter was the first Pope and yet it's not something that one can establish here. Heck, here I'm pleasantly surprised when I encounter committed monotheists. So, you want a private opinion? Are there Catholic Christians? Yes. So can we close line of inquiry #2?

- SEAGOON

[Yeager]

Q: What came after the "Big Bang" ?

A: The "Big Cigarette"!

[SOB]

Originally posted by NUKE
because an infenitly small space (think about it) containing all the matter in the universe is impossible.

See Maverick's reply.