Cosmology: “In The Beginining” Controversy

In honor of Stephen Hawking’s 70thbirthday a conference was held.  And in this conference, there were two proposals posed being featured and one of which posed the greatest threat to the existing ‘models’ in cosmology.  You see, back in the 1970’s there was an uproar over a book called; “God and the Astronomers” by astronomer Robert Jastrow.

What was the uproar about? In the book, astronomer Robert Jastrow suggested that the universe had a beginning and he was very surprised on how much opposition came from cosmologists as a result. This is because they knew fully well if the universe had a beginning, this would suggest it was created out of nothing and they found that to be implausible therefore leaving the door open for a creator.  So  secular cosmologists embraced the idea of an eternal universe or universes that have no beginning.

Not only was the conference honoring Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday but also it was a conference that was trying to carefully explain the universe with a beginning while being concerned about making any inferences towards God being the creator. In New Scientist, “the universe is not eternal, resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator.”

Stephen Hawking told his audience in a pre-recorded speech, “A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God,’   Sadly, Hawking is wrong, science doesn’t break for a creator, science has broken down for natural causes being the creator of the universe. Take the big bang ‘theory’ for an example, if it was true then scientists would be observing a chronological structure of different stages concerning galaxies development as one looks deeper into space. But like in biology, this hasn’t been the case, astronomers have discovered galaxies and stars that are more fully ‘evolved’ in a segment of distant space where it was thought to represent the early, immature universe. One such discovery was discovered not long ago, a cluster of galaxies known as CL J1449+0856.

Stephen Hawking likes to invoke the “M-theory” at the very core of his beliefs.  But calling “M” a theory is a bit misleading because currently M-Theory is really not a theory at all, rather it’s a collection of different ideas (stories) with no observational or experimental data. He also invokes physical laws as the origin for the beginning of the universe.

However…

“… physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.”  -Professor and creationist at Oxford, John Lennox

John is correct, giving natural laws such profound abilities is not science but merely a man-made story in attempt to replace an intelligent creator namely, God. Back to “in the beginning”, there is a reason why a proposal of this kind has come out despite many objections for suggesting similar things in the past. New Scientist states this about the current status about an eternal universe, “cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead.”

Here are some of the reasons why these models have failed and considered to be “dead”

The “cosmic egg” model where the universe hatches out of an existing eternal state.  Last year, “Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096).” 

The universe bouncing eternally in an organized state from expansion to contraction. This doesn’t fit the laws of the physical universe, because “disorder increases with time.”  So after each cycle the universe increases in chaos, so given the old universe time frame, it would have already reached maximum disorder.

Inflation with eternal life.  Extrapolated from Alan Guth’s 1981 inflation proposal where universes forming and inflating spontaneously forever and ever. Why does this model fail? Because equations still require a boundary in the past as pointed out by Vilenkin and Guth back in 2003.

No model of an eternal universe has been shown to work. New Scientist calls it a “Genesis Problem”. Science has not broken down, it’s as good as ever and it is confirming God’s word! What is breaking here are these man-made stories from unbelievers who are bent on disproving God.

2011: A Great Year For Science Discoveries

It’s been a pretty remarkable year for true science without the Darwinian storytelling that is often times invoked into it.

For example, New Scientist suggested that waving by chimpanzees lead to well-known speeches like Dr. Luther King or the Sermon on the Mount. “Actions speak louder than words,” Nora Schultz proclaims. But if waving by chimps lead to human language through gradual steps then why did chimps and apes remain in a simplistic vocabulary?

In science this week, scientists discovered that pigeons have intelligence that either matches or exceeds the intelligence of chimpanzees! If waving of chimps lead to human language, then why wouldn’t it be inferred that humans evolved from birds?

“Although many animals are able to discriminate stimuli differing in numerosity, only primates are thought to share our ability to employ abstract numerical rules. Here, we show that this ability is present in pigeons and that their performance is indistinguishable from that displayed by monkeys.”

How can one explain pigeons of all birds having such advanced intelligence equal to or surpassed those of chimps? You invoke a story, which is what Tom Weller did. He suggested there was a common ancestor that was some kind of early dinosaur.  Stories like these sound more scientific than the hard data trying to confirm it and of course if fossils exist why not use circular reasoning within the story to fill in the falsified expectations of birds and chimps.

Speaking of animals, many great experiments and studies were conducted in 2011. Biomimetics (the imitation of nature) continues to show promise in advancing technology for the benefit of mankind. Darwinism holds no importance in advancing this part of science (like many other parts). For example, tree leaves that give ideas for solar cells. The skin of shark can reduce friction.  Weed burrs that inspire Velcro while whale flippers inspire models for better designed turbine blades!

In a more recent study, the study of bats and dolphins with their designed “biosonar” which still far exceeds human navigational machinery out there today. Scientists would like to improve upon the human designs so they studied this more closely at Tel Aviv University where they analyzed echoes the way animals do, looking for all the information bats and dolphins are able to obtain from sound.

It is quite amazing and great science! Looking forward to 2012 which is going to be another great year in science, and promises to reveal more astounding discoveries than ever before!

Evolutionary Expectations Experience More Falsifications

In the realm of science, observation is very different than explanation. Firstly, biology is full of highly advanced designs that are beyond anything we ever imagined and scientist continue to learn more. Brain chemistry happens to one of them. Evolutionists claim, homology is proof that evolution is fact and often times research various organisms looking for a pattern but scientists have discovered a contradictory pattern with similarities in which they are trying to squeeze it into the evolution’s framework.

Now brain chemistry falsifies the notion of homology. According to the ‘theory’ from microbes to humans, and everything else in between, complexity evolved through simple forms into more complex forms of life. So how could evolution if it was true, produce incredible feats of engineering early on which would be so critical to humans many millions of years later? You see, scientists have discovered components of human brain chemistry in one-cell animals. The author of New Scientist writes…

“When wondering about the origins of our brain, don’t look to Homo sapiens, chimpanzees, fish or even worms. Many key components first appeared in single-celled organisms, long before animals, brains and even nerve cells existed. The finding is intriguing on its own, but much more significant when combined with a growing body of evidence that essential brain components evolved in choanoflagellates before multicellular life appeared.”

This is like discovering key components of a rocket ship from the first airplane designed by the Wright brothers. If it is impossible for intelligently design machines to accomplish such a feat, how can they expect the public to believe it can happen through errors in the genetic code (mutations) that creates highly advanced components in the simplest form of life?  Nothing in biology obtains clarity while explaining it in the framework of evolution. The data is doing the predicting while stories continue to evolve about it.

Speaking of predictions, there has been a recent discovery of a star which should not exist!  That is in terms of star evolution. They call it the “freakish star,” which is found to be in the constellation Leo. However, this is not a “freakish star” by any length of the imagination rather the star is likely to be more common. There is a wait on more confirmation from other candidates that are in line to be observed, they say.

Science daily reports on the star named, SDSS J102915+172927, which was found with a telescope in Chile….

“A widely accepted theory predicts that stars like this, with low mass and extremely low quantities of metals, shouldn’t exist because the clouds of material from which they formed could never have condensed,” [2] said Elisabetta Caffau (Zentrum fur Astronomie der Universitat Heidelberg, Germany and Observatoire de Paris, France), lead author of the paper. “It was surprising to find, for the first time, a star in this ‘forbidden zone’, and it means we may have to revisit some of the star formation models.” 

What does star formation models really explain? This newly discovered star has 4.5 millionths the heavy elements found in our sun. There of course, are going to be an array of rescue models in order to save this particular explanation (due to popularity within the establishment, not facts) or more like invoking a story that could never be verified through real-time observation. The star’s discovery doesn’t diminish the fact that the universe is quite an amazing place where we can learn about throughout our lifetimes, God’s incredible design!

Does “Many-Worlds” and “MultiUniverses” Really Exist?

This sounds more like a Hollywood script of the tv-series Sliders back in the 1990s but this in fact a bizarre interpretation of quantum mechanics or more like a highly imaginative storyline coming from scientists rather than Hollywood. Rumblings started in 2004, that scientists were taking additional universes than our own more seriously. Hugh Everett proposed, “many-worlds”  where one has a coin and it could go one way or the other providing two different outcomes. How it splits into two actual coins one wonders but the more technical aspect which combines many worlds and multiple universes goes like this…

Justin Mullins at New Scientist, supporters of the multiverse hypothesis are seeing a cosmic convergence of Everett’s ideas (many worlds) with theirs…

“TWO of the strangest ideas in modern physics – that the cosmos constantly splits into parallel universes in which every conceivable outcome of every event happens, and the notion that our universe is part of a larger multiverse – have been unified into a single theory. This solves a bizarre but fundamental problem in cosmology and has set physics circles buzzing with excitement, as well as some bewilderment.”

“Cosmologists reconcile this seeming contradiction by assuming that the superposition eventually “collapses” to a single state. But they tend to ignore the problem of how or why such a collapse might occur, says cosmologist Raphael Bousso at the University of California, Berkeley. “We’ve no right to assume that it collapses. We’ve been lying to ourselves about this,” he says.”

And they call creationist models non-scientific. This requires leaps of faith with a lot of imagination for these untestable conjectures that increase over time because of their unwillingness to face the obvious so they lie to themselves, forcing the data into  an endless stream of worthless speculations!

The facts are quite clear, the universe appears designed because it is designed which indicates intelligence namely God. There is no way of getting around it, not even with a combination of “many worlds” and “multi-universes!” Scientists ought to be thinking about engineering of the universe rather than science fiction stories!

Scientists Connection With The Public On Research

When a scientist goes to work doing scientific research for a living, there is a tendency at times to take public support for granted, believing their work is justified on grounds for its own sake.  There have been articles written that are warning scientists and scientific institutions to re-think their presumed authority. Mistakes and surprises are partly responsible for the given warning to scientists on their understanding of nature, and the universe in general.

The public invests a lot of their hard-earned money and in turn they expect results. Often times scientists are back peddling on previously well established theories. For example, the “Crab Nebula has shocked astronomers by emitting an unprecedented blast of gamma rays, the highest-energy light in the Universe” says the BBC. It defies any explanation known to man which has worked on studying it for many years.

Exploration of Saturn’s moons like Enceladus with its geysers and Titan with its lack of an ethane ocean, contradicted previously long-held established predictions. They continue to work on various explanations for their evolutionary story to fill in the falsifications but nothing established yet.  In physorg, astronomers the past few years haven been observing planets orbiting the wrong way! The significance of this particular falsification when it comes to evolutionary thinking, it “obviously violates our most basic picture of planet and star formation.”

Then there is creating a story using a lot of imagination to fill in gaps in evolutionary thinking because the  evidence doesn’t point to it. For example, New Scientist reports, “Horsetail fossil tells tale of plant evolution.” But does it? When the reader looks for the evidence to start telling this tale, there is none to be found anywhere! The article does in fact talk about a fossilized horsetail that must have been preserved in a hot spring environment but goes on to say it looks modern. Channing’s work now “clears up” the story about evolution in this matter, claiming there was innovations conducted by natural selection the article suggests. But does it?

Channing’s study pushes the origin of modern-looking horsetails back another 14 million years, to 150 million years before the present. Then claiming this plant had suddenly popped into existence 150 million years ago (stuff happens theory in evolution) and never dreamt up any new innovations all the way to the present except, if anything, the older ones were bigger and better!

Like New Scientist’s article, studies on evolution are among the worst who take on the label of “scientist” but provide no return on investment to society – in fact, who do much to misuse and harm society while bragging about their status as scientists. When it comes to a  PhD, it confers no more authority on a scientist than a real estate license does on a realtor; it depends on what the individual person does with the skills and learning they acquired.

Look at the good work being done by citizen scientists! Better a field amateur with years of observations than an armchair professor pontificating from his PhD microphone! This in no way is intended to insult many honorable scientists working out there using their position for the good of mankind, doing honest work each day, and providing society with a good return on the public’s investment.

However, let me make this clear! Professional scientists need to realize, they must earn their wings each day.  Not everything they do is scientific, and not everything a non-scientist does is unscientific.  A scientist speaking outside his or her area of knowledge can have opinions no better than those of anyone! One of the solutions to this problem with scientists lack of connection with the public is the media. The media needs to practice “critical thinking” in its articles rather than hype up everything that comes out as though it were gospel. Also, scientists ought to serve society not preach to it!

When The Data Predicts Evolutionary ‘Theory’

As a good scientific theory, it generally should predict what is observed, what happens to it when unexpected evidence comes up as a result of advancements in science? How often should it be modified or thrown away for good? In evolution, the data predicts its explanation for the ‘theory’, a way to force new evidence into the famework.

For example, mutations are considered breakthroughs of new and more advanced information (increased complexity) in order to replace the Creator (God) which are randomly produced and then selectively chosen for a particular design. So it would be expected to find in nature that closely related species would have closely related genomes.  Makes sense if you believe in that story, right? That is what the Max Planck Institute expected in its research fully believing the evolutionary prediction was true. However, apparently it’s not the case with a lab plant Arabidopsis thaliana (thale cress) and the lyre-leaved rock cress.

“Genome size among the different species of the plant kingdom varies significantly. At the upper end of the currently known spectrum, scientists have identified the herb Paris or true-lover’s knot (Paris quadrifolia), whose genome is a good thousand times longer than that of the carnivorous plants from the genus Genlisea. However, these plants are so distantly related that it is almost impossible to identify the evolutionary forces at work in the individual species.”

“Therefore, researchers from Detlef Weigel’s Department of Molecular Biology at the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Tübingen working in cooperation with an international research team selected for their genome study a species closely related to the thale cress (Arabidopsis thaliana), probably the most widely studied flowering plant in genetics. The species in question was lyre-leaved rock cress (Arabidopsis lyrata) which, unlike thale cress, is unable to self-fertilise. “Thale cress and lyre-leaved rock cress shared an ancestor around ten million years ago, after which their evolutionary lineages diverged,” explains Ya-Long Guo from the MPI for Developmental Biology.”

Did the lyre-leaved cress gained new genetic information? On the contrary, “considerable elements have been lost from some parts of the thale cress genome.”  In March 2011, evolution by subtraction was also discussed.

In New Scientist

“The key changes are not in bits of DNA that humans acquired as they evolved – extra genes that we have but chimps and other animals do not – but in chunks of DNA that we lost.  What’s more, the chunks in question are not even genes at all, but sequences of DNA that lie in between genes and act as switches, orchestrating when and where specific genes are turned on and off through the course of an animal’s development.”

The researchers identified 510 genetic regions present in chimpanzees but missing in humans.  Only two of these have been tested so far for function. So in other words, it’s not an increased of information that designed humanity rather it was what was subtracted that created the most advanced life form on earth. This is what happens when secular scientists believe in man coming from animals.

Another subtraction or genetic loss involves the brain: the removal of a factor ostensibly limiting brain size. According to the authors and reporters, this somehow led to the expansion of the human brain, instead of a tumor, and by implication, our intelligence and rationality.  This imaginative idea would appear to only make sense if brain structure and function were already pregnant with intellectual and rational possibilities. In that case, why would a factor evolve to restrict expression of such a valuable asset in lower primates? Oh yes, the data is predicting evolutionary ‘theory’ which is the only way it can explain anything with all those falsifications!

Theory In Chaos: Forget Finding Natural Laws About Evolution?

The article opens with a letter from Charles Lyell who wrote to Charles Darwin in 1856.  Lyell didn’t know what to make of  various types of mollusc which abruptly disappeared from the fossil record, then all of a sudden reappear 2 million years later according to the evolutionary time frame with their structures being completely unchanged! Lyell asked Darwin to explain the observation, but he never did.

According to Keith Bennett of New Scientist, there has been no viable explanation to this day on why that happened and there isn’t one, he said.

“Because of the way evolution works, it is impossible to predict how a given species will respond to environmental change. That is not to say that evolution is random – far from it. But the neat concept of adaptation to the environment driven by natural selection, as envisaged by Darwin in On the Origin of Species and now a central feature of the theory of evolution, is too simplistic. Instead, evolution is chaotic.”

Many across the land dispute there is no controversy over evolution, it’s an absolute fact like scientific law. In fact, they interchange “evolution” with the term “science” to confuse people while attempting to make it more convincing with no avail. Keith Bennett points out…

“There is still huge debate about the role of natural selection and adaptation in ‘macroevolution’ – big evolutionary events such as changes in biodiversity over time, evolutionary radiations and, of course, the origin of species.”

Is Keith Bennett lying in his statement? Many across the United States have asked public schools to “teach the controversy” about the ‘theory’ of evolution and time after time again the public was told there was none! Bennett proposes chaos which in his mind has more flexibility in dealing with falsifications of evolution with better scientific data. He proposes a theory that advocates evolutionary changes are unpredictable, individualistic, highly sensitive to initial conditions, nonlinear, and fractal.

Bennett points out in the Quaternary period with its ice ages have many populations which did not adapt to the changes while others adapted in unpredictable ways, and many went extinct. He summarizes his proposal this way…

This view of life leads to certain consequences.  Macroevolution is not the simple accumulation of microevolutionary changes but has its own processes and patterns.  There can be no “laws” of evolution. We may be able to reconstruct the sequence of events leading to the evolution of any given species or group after the fact, but we will not be able to generalise from these to other sequences of events. From a practical point of view, this means we will be unable to predict how species will respond to projected climate changes over next century.”

It’s been the main focus to bring evolution under natural law since Darwin but Bennett’s statement reinforces there are no laws for evolution. What would that mean? It means, no predictions and no predictions means evolution could never be falsified under that particular framework of story telling. This is why Bennett has embraced such a concept so much otherwise his admission would be considered selling out evolution completely! Although a theory in chaos also brings no understanding about what goes on in nature.