On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 21:17:29 -0600, Russell Cannon wrote:
RC>Stephen Jones reported the news about the collapse of the closed
>universe theory by quoting the following story (abridged by me) from the
>West Austrailian newspaper?:
>SJ>Big crunch idea on universe exploded...Research by US
>>astronomers has debunked the "collapsing universe" theory in favour
>>of the belief that the universe will continue expanding
>>forever. The "big bang" will not be followed by the "big crunch".
>>That's the conclusion of five teams of astronomers who used
>>different techniques to study the future of the universe.
RC>Incidentally, this was the top story on CNN a couple of days ago.
It's even better than that. The actual SCIENCE article not only
predicts an ever-expanding universe, but it also is against inflation
theories which have been used to support multiple-universe
hypotheses. The idea of a cosmological constant is back in, which
seems to me to be saying there is a fundamental constant which drives
cosmological expansion that is not derivable from any other natural
laws but which just so happens to be "just right" for the universe to
support life. Here is an extract:
----------------------------------------------------------
New Light on Fate of the Universe
Exploding stars seen billions of light-years away have given a
preliminary verdict: The universe may be doomed to expand
forever
In the flash of stellar explosions seen halfway back to the big
bang, two groups of astronomers have read clues to the future of
the universe. With the orbiting Hubble Space Telescope and
ground-based observatories they have analyzed light from these
remote cataclysms to estimate their distances and determine how
fast the stars were rushing away from Earth billions of years ago
when they exploded. Their goal is to learn how the universe's
expansion rate has changed over time-whether it has been slowed
by gravity, or perhaps boosted by large-scale repulsive forces.
The groups, longtime rivals, have been working independently,
but their results agree: The universe's expansion rate has slowed
so little that gravity will never be able to stop it.
The new results imply that the universe contains far less mass
than many theorists had hoped: less than 80% of the amount that
would be needed to slow its expansion to a halt, and perhaps far
less than that. The results even leave open the possibility that a
so-called cosmological constant-a hypothetical property of empty
space that might generate repulsive forces is at work, giving the
universe an expansive antigravity boost...."
[...]
...Already, as word of these developments makes its way through the
astrophysics community, the findings are adding to a growing sense
that the simplest version of the reigning cosmic creation theory,
known as inflation, may not work. Inflation traces key features of
the universe to a burst of It exponential growth in the first
fraction of a second after the big bang, and its simplest version
predicts a universe that contains just enough matter for gravity to
stop the big-bang expansion after an infinite time a mass density
that would make the large-scale geometry of space-time "flat."
[...]
When the Supernova Cosmology Project added just one Hubble supernova
to its sample, at a redshift of 0.83 (a distance of roughly 7 billion
light-years), the future of thee universe began to look different.
The data are now most consistent, says Perlmutter, with a universe
containing far less than the critical density of matter. If the
universe is flat, matter may account for only 40% to 80% of the
critical density, with the cosmological constant making up the rest.
If the universe lacks any cosmological constant, the supernovae imply
that the mass density of the universe, known as omega-matter, is
still lower, and the universe is destined to expand forever.
[...]
And it escapes no one's attention that these first conclusions fall
broadly in line with an increasing number of other observational hints
that the cosmic mass density may be low. one of the most recent
appeared in the 20 August Astrophys. J. Lett., where Princeton's
Bahcall and two colleagues showed that massive clusters of galaxies
have changed little over recent cosmic history, implying that large-
scale gravitational forces are feeble and pointing to a matter density
of just 40% of the critical value. Other hints of a low-density universe
emerge from computer simulations of how different mass densities
would affect the formation of giant clusters of galaxies, and from
searches for invisible dark matter in our cosmic neighborhood. "If
you look at the observational data, they all suggest a low density,"
says Bahcall.
Inflation can be modified to cope with a low-mass universe, says
Andrei Linde, a theorist at Stanford University who helped develop
the theory. But "at some point you can't patch a theory too much
before it gets too ugly to accept," says Bolte of Santa Cruz. "That's
what's going to come under fire, I think: whether inflation is the
correct model or not for the early universe."
[...]
(Glanz J., "New Light on Fate of the Universe", Science, Vol.
278, 31 October 1997, pp799-800)
----------------------------------------------------------
RC>John Rylander replied:
>JR>Just as background, probably the preferred way to avoid the issue
>>of design now is adopt the many-worlds interpretation of quantum
>>mechanics, in which (as I understand it, though there are probably
>>variations) every quantum possibility is actualized in individual
>>spatio-temporally disconnected universes....
>>
>>Of course, it does pay a rather enormous price for this. Most
>>physicists find this to be truly egregious, a simple theory with
>>an extraordinarily bloated ontology (talk about needlessly
>>multiplying hypothetical entities!)
Non-theist physicist Davies makes this point. The many worlds
theorist must invent an infinite number of universes in order to
explain *one* universe:
"In spite of the apparent ease with which the many-universes theory
can account for what would otherwise be considered remarkable feature
of the universe, the theory faces a number of serious objections.
Not least of these is Ockham's razor: one must introduce a vast
(indeed infinite) complexity to explain the regularities of just one
universe. This "blunderbuss" approach to explaining the specialness
of our universe is scientifically questionable..." (Davies P., in
Templeton J.M, ed., "Evidence of Purpose", 1994, pp52-53)
>JR>but it's one way to avoid design, in theory at least.
It doesn't even do that. It would have to also assume, without any
warrant, that the laws of physics would be different in each
universe:
"Another point that is often glossed over is the fact that in all of
the many-universe theories that derive from real physics (as opposed
to simply fantasizing about the existence of other worlds) the laws
of physics are the same in all the worlds. The selection of
universes on offer is restricted to those that are physically
possible, as opposed to those that can be imagined. There will be
many more universes that are logically possible, but contradict the
laws of physics...." (Davies P., in Templeton J.M, ed., "Evidence of
Purpose",1994, pp52-53)
RC>Remember, the design answer is automatically excluded from
>consideration. Consequently, only naturalistic answers to ultimate
>origin questions nead apply. As the situation becomes more desperate
>for the materialist, more and more bizarre proposals will be trotted
>out. Materialists will never concede the need for a designer even if
>all the evidence comes out for it.
What do you mean "if"? All the evidence does point to a Designer
now! That's why there are anthropic principles and infinite-universe
hypotheses.
RC>If we ever do reach that point, the cosmologists will drop the
>origin of the univese question the same way evolutionary biologists
>tend to ignore the question of the first origin of life. Then we
>will all go on our merry way pretending that although none of the
>theories ultimately work, we know we got here naturally. Or, maybe
>they will simply declare that an infinite number of universes
>probably exist and leave it at that. This will solve their problem
>and Darwin's at the same time.
It wouldn't solve Darwin's problems either! As Koons points out, the
infinite-universes (what he calls the "junky cosmos") explanation
would render *all* scientific explanations worthless:
"There is another serious drawback to the junky cosmos hypothesis:
if employed globally, it has the consequence that any form of
induction is demonstrably unreliable. If we embrace the junky cosmos
hypothesis to explain away every appearance of orderedness in the
universe, then we should assume that the simplicity and regularity of
natural law is also an artifact of observer selection. Universes
would be posited to exist with every possible set of natural laws,
however complex or inductively ill-behaved. Now take any
well-established scientific generalization. Among the universes that
agree with all of our observations up to this point in time, the
number that go on to break this generalization is far greater than
the number that continue to respect it. The objective probability
that every generalization we have observed extends no farther than
our observations is infinitely close to one. Thus, relying on
induction in such a universe is demonstrably futile. In short, the
junky cosmos hypothesis is both the most flagrant possible violation
of Occam's razor and a death sentence to all other uses of that
principle. This hypothesis postulates an infinity of entities for
which there is absolutely no positive evidence, simply in order to
avoid the necessity of explaining the anthropic coincidences we have
observed. This is the height of metaphysical irresponsibility, far
worse than the most extravagant speculations of medieval angelology."
(Koons R.C. , "A New Look at the Cosmological Argument," American
Philosophical Quarterly 34, April 1997, pp193-211, in "Literature
Survey", "Origins & Design", Access Research Network, Vol 18 No. 2,
Fall 1997. http://www.mrccos.com/arn/odesign/od182/ls182.htm)
RC>Perhaps the answer is to split origin issues off from the basic
>sciences. Maybe they should fall entirely into the domain of
>philosophy. One thing is certain, however, the way evolution is taught
>in schools ought to change. I don't mean that they should start
>teaching creation paradigms beside the natural one. I mean they should
>quit teaching children the certainty of naturalistic materialism as the
>one and only obvious explanation that satisfies all the evidence. They
>should teach the difference between the Special and General Theories of
>Evolution and explain that the General Theory falls beyond the domain of
>pure science.
Agreed. Origins are by definition on the borderland of metaphysics
and science. But as Johnson points out, a major functions Darwinist
evolution is Western secular society's creation-myth:
"Darwinist evolution is an imaginative story about who we are and
where we came from, which is to say it is a creation myth." (Johnson
P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, pp133-134)
If Darwinists gave up on offering up explanations of origins, then
they would lose enormous cultural power. And guess Who would take
their place?
RC>I live in the great American state of Alabama where there is an
>ongoing effort to introduce intellectual honesty concerning
>evolution and the origin of life into classroom curriculum. Don't
>believe the media which has been lying about the intentions of the
>government here in Montgomery. They are not trying to introduce
>Creationism as an alternate scientific theory; they are simply
>trying to correct the errors of the existing science programs.
I found an interesting press release at
http://alaweb.asc.edu/news_rel/science.html, where every Alabama
science teacher was going to be sent a copy of "Darwin on Trial":
----------------------------------------------------------
March 19, 1996
[...]
GOV. JAMES DISTRIBUTES BOOKS TO ALABAMA'S SCIENCE TEACHERS
MONTGOMERY--Gov. Fob James has sent a copy of the book, Darwin On
Trial by Phillip E. Johnson, to every public school science teacher
in the state. The books were ordered after the State School Board
voted to include an insert in science textbooks stating that
evolution should be studied as theory and not as fact. The new
Alabama Course of Study requires that science courses use an approach
that is both "hands-on" and teaches the process of scientific
inquiry. Darwin On Trial is a resource tool that meets that
objective. Darwin On Trial emphasizes perceived weaknesses in the
Darwinian theory of evolution, for example: the failure of natural
selection to explain how large-scale evolution took place. "If
Alabama's students are going to understand how science really works,
they must learn to evaluate and analyze theories," Gov. James said.
"It should be clearly understood that an attempt to improve science
education by encouraging healthy and constructive criticism of
evolutionary theory is not equivalent to teaching "creation science"
or to bringing religion into the classroom," the governor added. The
900 books were purchased by the Governor's Office at a cost of
$2,967.30. (Alfred Sawyer, Director of Communications Governor's
Press Office...)
----------------------------------------------------------
RC>Public school science textbooks, however, are the sacred ground of
>the materialist and cannot be changed no matter what evidence stacks
>up. I have found that as the evidence mounts, the depth of
>information provided in textbooks supporting evolutionary claims
>diminishes. Eventually we will get to the point--if we are not
>already there--where they will simply teach that everything came
>about naturally without offering the necessary evidence to support
>the claim.
We must be already there. AFAIK no evidence fir materialistic-
naturalism is ever provided. It is just assumed as a first
principle.
[...]
God bless.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------