Big Bang Cosmology
Rav Dessler zt"l
The Slifkin Affair
Origin Sciences are speculative
Sciences describe how the universe operates today. Operational sciences
are based directly on empirical testing and can be used to get us to the
moon or map the human genome. Good technology is based mostly on such empirical
observations and testing. The stability and rationality of nature is guaranteed
by the Creator of the Cosmos, thus making the operational sciences possible.
the Origin Sciences attempt to explain via chance and
naturalistic processes how the cosmos and the marvels of life originated. For
example, how did the first cell originate? How did the human genome originate?
How did creatures with no eyes develop eyes? How did creatures with no no brains
develop brains? How did the solar system or galaxies of stars originate? The
Origin Sciences include implausible naturalistic accounts of such origins using
chance and naturalistic explanations such as Big Bang Cosmology, the Chemical
Origin of Life, Biological Evolution and Dating Methods
extrapolated to an open-ended
and unobservable past. Origin Sciences are speculative and often suspect
because they are based on untested foundational assumptions, vast
extrapolations, and the need to postulate unobserved hypothetical entities to
save the theories from disconfirmation from stubborn anomalies in the data.
to the many good sites that keep us informed of ground breaking science news. Feedback is much appreciated,
especially corrections to factual errors. We do not have specialized expertise in
these areas and so provide quotes from the scientific sources wherever possible.
[October 3, 2006]
The age of a supernova remnant dropped suddenly
from 10,000 years to less than 2,000 years.
According to a news item on Space.com, the object RCW 86 in Centaurus has
been linked to sightings by the Chinese in 185 of the Common Era, making it
the oldest supernova recorded by man, taking place 1821 years ago.
Astronomers dated this supernova remnant to 10,000 years old. But how could
the earlier age estimates be so far off? The article explains:
Shell shocked: In the Astrological Annals of
the Houhanshu, Chinese astronomers noted the bright light in the sky twinkled
like a star but didn’t appear to move, arguing against the object being a comet.
Within eight months, they recorded, the bright light faded, a phenomenon that
astronomers now know is consistent with supernovas. ...
Astronomers had suggested the stellar
material called RCW 86 could be leftovers from the 185 AD supernova, based on
historical records of the object’s position in the sky. But previous
work estimated the object was 10,000 years old, which led to doubts
about the link. ...
Astronomers led by Vink
studied the material in RCW 86 to determine when its progenitor star originally
exploded within the Southern Hemisphere constellation Centaurus. To do this,
they used the X-ray capabilities of NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory and the
European Space Agency’s XMM-Newton Observatory.
RCW 86 is encased in an expanding shock wave formed during its transit from the
original explosion. By peering into one part of RCW 86, the astronomers
calculated how fast this cosmic bubble was moving. So with the size and speed of
RCW 86, the astronomers could calculate the time of the explosion, and hence the
“Our new calculations tell us the remnant is about 2,000 years old,”
said Aya Bamba, a coauthor from the Institute of Physical and Chemical
Researcher in Japan.
Youthful star: The new age estimate matches the supernova spotted [by the
Chinese] in 185 AD. But this calculation means the remnant is 8,000 years
younger than previously thought. The astronomers said the difference can be
attributed to the irregular shape of the remnant’s expanding bubble. Stellar
wind from the progenitor star pushed some of the remnant’s gases in a certain
direction, forming a dense pile. “The idea for RCW 86 is that in some regions
the shock has hit this piled-up material. In those regions the shock will start
moving slower,” Vink said. And in other regions, the shock wave is much
“This could explain the earlier measurements for lower shock velocities,” Vink
told SPACE.com. The previous speeds were used to calculate RCW 86’s age.
The research is detailed in the Sept. 1 issue of The
Astrophysical Journal Letters. [Jeanna
Bryner, Staff Writer, "Astronomers Find Supernova First Spotted 2,000 Years
Ago", Space.Com, posted: 26 September 2006]
In the case of RCW 86, we had
the Chinese observation during historical times to calibrate the dating method.
The calibrated result was substantially lower than predicted from theory. But,
what about all those dating methods that depend on open-ended extrapolations
that cannot be so calibrated by empirical observations?
29, 2006] Crisis
in the Cosmos. If you believe in
the origin sciences, i.e. the implausible claim that chance and naturalistic
processes can account for the origin of the cosmos and the marvels of life,
then some recent findings might give one pause for thought. Critics of
creation ridicule the belief that our vast universe composed of a
multiplicity of phenomena and running at diverse rates could be of recent
vintage (the criticism is based on naturalistic presuppositions that matter
and energy is all there is). However, a little humility is in order when
considering the current state of naturalistic accounts of the origin of the
cosmos and the formation of galaxies of stars.
Crisis in the
Cosmos? (Ron Cowen.
168(15), p235, Oct 8, 2005).
Imagine peering into a nursery and seeing, among the
cooing babies, a few that look like grown men.
That's the startling situation that astronomers have stumbled upon as
they've looked deep into space and thus back to a time when newborn galaxies
filled the cosmos. Some of these babies have turned out to be nearly as
massive as the Milky Way and other galactic geezers that have taken billions
of years to form. Despite being only about 800 million years old, some of
the infants are chock-full of old stars.
These chunky babies may be pointing to a cosmic crisis.
They don't seem to fit the leading theory of
galaxy formation, which cosmologists have relied on for more than 2 decades
to explain an assortment of puzzling features of the universe.
(emphasis added) ...
Over the past few years, researchers have detected several galaxies that
were surprisingly massive, given that their measured distance puts them in
the early universe (SN: 3/1/03, p. 139). Two of the galaxies, recently found
by Andrew Bunker of the University of Exeter in England and his colleagues,
are less than a billion years old, which is less than 5 percent of the age
of the universe. Despite their youth, these galaxies contain stars that
formed at least 100 million years earlier in time. Furthermore, the galaxies
are at least 20 percent as massive as today's typical bright galaxy, which
took some 12 billion years to pack on that material. The team reports
several of its findings in an upcoming Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical Society. ...
report on Sept. 27, Mobasher and his colleagues describe what appears to be
an even more outlandish result. They have evidence of a
true whopper of a galaxy-perhaps the most massive ever detected from the
early universe. Observations taken at several visible-light and infrared
wavelengths suggest that it's likely to be one of the earliest galaxies ever
found. It appears to reside 13 billion light-years from Earth. So, the light
now reaching our planet left the galaxy when the cosmos was about 800
million years old. Mobasher's group estimates that the galaxy is six times
as massive as the Milky Way. Moreover, the reddish tinge of the
galaxy's stars indicates that they're quite mature and must have formed
about 200 hundred million years farther back in time.
Recent articles in
Nature indentify more such puzzling occurrences. For example the Swift
satellite detected a gamma-ray burst 12.8 billion years old at a redshift
(z) of 6.29 in a universe that according to big bang cosmologists is only
13.7 billion years old.
This means that not
only did stars form in this short period of time after the Big Bang, but
also that enough time had elapsed for them to evolve and collapse into black
holes. ("Gamma-ray bursts: Huge explosion in the early Universe" p164 G.
Cusumano et al. Nature 440(7081)
doi:10.1038/440164a, 9 March 2006)
10, 2006] Moral Darwinism. The acceptance of Darwin’s
implausible theory by western civilization has come with the hidden but
nasty baggage of moral Darwinism. The blame for the steady deterioration in
the dignity and holiness of life as manifested in societal trends such as
the call for euthanasia, abortion on demand, the redefinition of marriage
and current proposals to legalize infanticide of healthy three month old
babies at the whim of the parents, can be directly correlated with the rise of evolution
that has been promoted in the media and academia. E.O. Wilson (Harvard) and
Michael Ruse (Florida State University) write as follows:
The time has come to
take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the
favored Creation of a Benevolent G-d on the Sixth Day.
As evolutionists, we
see that no [ethical] justification of the traditional kind is possible.
Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an
adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the
basis of ethics does not lie in G-d’s will.... In an important sense,
ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes
to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Like Macbeth's
dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance.
Michael Ruse provides an
enthusiastic approbation to Rabbi Nathan Slifkin's new book, The
Challenge of Creation (Yashar Press, 2006). We explore
here some of the the
ethical consequences of moral Darwinism ala Ruse.
The apparent absence of
shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about
the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the
universe was created by a "Big Bang."
If the standard Big
Bang theory of the universe is accurate and the background microwave
radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe, then
massive X-ray emitting clusters of galaxies nearest our own Milky Way
galaxy should all cast shadows on the microwave background.
"If you see a shadow,
however, it means the radiation comes from behind the cluster. If you
don't see a shadow, then you have something of a problem. Among the 31
clusters that we studied, some show a shadow effect and others do not."
Taken together, the
data shows a shadow effect about one-fourth of what was predicted - an
amount roughly equal in strength to natural variations previously seen
in the microwave background across the entire sky.
"Either it (the microwave background) isn't coming from behind the
clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or ... there is
something else going on," said Lieu. "One possibility is to say the
clusters themselves are microwave emitting sources, either from an
embedded point source or from a halo of microwave-emitting material that
is part of the cluster environment.
Reference: Lieu, Mittaz
and Shuang-Nan Zhang, UAH, "The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect in a sample of
31 clusters: A comparison between the X-ray predicted and WMAP observed
decrement," Astrophysical Journal, Sept. 1, 2006, Vol. 648, No. 1, p.
Proofs of dark matter and problems with big bang cosmology. Who’s
right? Douglas Clowe’s team at University of Arizona claimed on August 21,
2006 that they found dark matter in the Bullet Cluster. They even had a
picture of it. The NASA Chandra X-Ray Center called it a “direct proof” of
dark matter. The story received wide publicity in the media. Four days later
New Scientist reported a new proposal to bring back ether theory in
modified form; the title of the article was, “Ether returns to oust dark
matter”. Soon thereafter New Scientist posted rebuttals to the
NASA announcement: “Dark matter ‘proof’ called into doubt”. Andreas
Albrecht, a cosmologist at the University of Calfornia, Davis, states in
reference to dark matter: “We've hit some really profound problems with
cosmology with dark matter and dark energy. That tells us we have to rethink
fundamental physics and try something new.”
28, 2006] Much of the DNA in the nucleus of human cells does not
code for proteins (perhaps up to 98% of the DNA). Evolutionists seeing the
Darwinian unintelligent purposeless and non-teological "tinkerer" at work
called this "Junk DNA". A press release
from Johns Hopkins
Medicine reports “Junk DNA May Not Be So Junky After All.”
The notion that mutations in enhancers play a
role in human disease progression has been difficult to confirm
because usually enhancers are located in the 98 percent of the human
genome that does not code for protein, termed non-coding DNA. Unlike
DNA sequences that code for protein, non-coding DNA, sometimes
referred to as “junk” DNA, follows few rules for organization and
sequence patterns and therefore is more difficult to study.
The research (to be
published online at Science Express March 23) suggest that this so called
"junk" may may contain vital control regions that switch the genes on and
off. They found a case where a control region for a human gene looked very
different from one in a zebrafish, but both performed the same function.
This hints that the non-coding regions are filled with enhancers and
suppressors that we are only beginning to understand. Oh well, another piece
of evidence ("Junk DNA") for that purposeless and unintelligent tinkerer
bites the dust, just like the putative (now debunked) embryological debris
(Haeckel's embryos) and the so called vestigial organs (like the appendix
and the tonsil) that turn out to manifest plan and purpose.
27, 2005] "Axis of Evil" threatens Big Bang Cosmology.
Marcus Chown reports in the
Independent that “We thought we knew all about the Big Bang – but a blip
in the cosmic afterglow is threatening our ideas". The “Axis of Evil” he
speaks of is not Iran or North Korea but a newly found polarity or direction
in the cosmic background radiation that contradicts current Big Bang
cosmologies. Cosmologist Jorge Magueijo at Imperial College in London is
reported as stating that “there may be something seriously wrong with our
big bang models" while others are still hoping to fit the data into current
Ever since 1965, when two researchers
at Bell Telephone Labs in New Jersey stumbled on it by accident,
astronomers have known that the Universe is alive with the dim
"afterglow" of the big bang fireball.
Now, something unexpected has cropped
up in that afterglow - a feature dubbed "the axis of evil". Some
think it is being caused by the gravity of a tremendous
concentration of 100,000 galaxies in our cosmic backyard. Others say
it is telling us there is something wrong with our big bang picture
of the Universe. The axis of evil is the biggest surprise thrown up
by Nasa's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). ...
If the standard big bang picture of
the Universe is correct, the blotches and freckles should be
scattered randomly about the sky. "The big surprise is they are
not," says Chris Vale of the University of California at Berkeley.
"The quadrupole and octupole blotches are aligned with each other -
along the axis of evil."
Nobody knows why. Could it be that all
our preconceived notions about the big bang are wrong, or is it
something less challenging? ...
However, some physicists wonder
whether the axis of evil requires a rethink of our ideas about the
Universe. They include Joao Magueijo at Imperial College in London,
who coined the term "the axis of evil". According to Magueijo, there
may be something seriously wrong with our big bang models.
Big bang models come out of Einstein's
theory of gravity. The only way theorists can apply the hideously
complicated theory to the Universe is to make two simplifying
assumptions. One is that the Universe is roughly the same in all
places, and the other is that it is roughly the same in all
But if the Universe is the same in all
directions, as the big bang models require, that means that the hot
spots and cold spots in the afterglow of the big bang should be
randomly splattered about the sky - the big temperature splotches
and the small temperature goose pimples should have no preferred
direction. The fact that they are aligned along the axis of evil
leads Magueijo to suggest that maybe the assumptions behind the big
bang models are wrong. In other words, the Universe is not the same
in all places or directions, but has a special direction.
(chown-2006, Feb 1, 2006, emphasis added).
Of course, this axis is not really "evil", but
confident claims that current cosmological theories (based as they are on
untested foundational principles) for the origin of the universe are
compelling may not be entirely harmless. Read more about the
problems with big bang cosmology and other origin sciences
27, 2006] Some ideas and quotes from
Julian Huxley's confession: Julian
Huxley was the grandson of the distinguished Thomas Henry Huxley, known as
“Darwin’s bulldog” for his spirited defense of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Like his illustrious grandfather Julian Huxley became a major spokesperson
for Darwinism when in 1942 he published his “Evolution: The Modern
Synthesis". It is important to remember that Darwin [and subsequent
evolutionists like Huxley] wholeheartedly subscribed to Lyell’s
Uniformitarian Doctrine; namely, that the forces we now see shaping the
world are the same forces that have operated in the past. While that is what
most geologists still accept there is no a priori justification for
extending that concept to the living world [it does not work in geology
either]. That is what makes the following quotes all the more significant.
Huxley’s book ends with the chapter “Evolutionary Progress.” On page 571,
seven pages before the end he presents the following synopsis (emphasis
“Evolution is thus seen as a series of
blind alleys. Some are
extremely short - those leading to new genera and species that either
remain stable or become extinct. Others are longer - the lines
of adaptive radiation within a group such as a class or subclass, which
run for tens of millions of years before coming up against their terminal blank wall. Others are still longer the lines that have in
the past led to the development of the major phyla and their highest
representatives; their course is to be reckoned not in tens but in
hundreds of millions years. But all in the long run have terminated
blindly. That of the echinoderms, for instance, reached its climax
before the end of the Mesozoic. For the arthropods, represented by their
highest group, the insects, the full stop seems to have come in
the early Cenozoic: even the ants and bees have made no advance
since the Oligocene. For the birds, the Miocene marked the end;
for the mammals, the Pliocene.”
Pierre Grasse reached the
same conclusion, viz. that evolution was finished:
“Facts are facts; no
new broad organizational plan has appeared for several hundred million
years, and for an equally long period of time numerous species, animal
as well as plant, have ceased evolving… At best, present evolutionary
phenomena are simply slight changes of genotypes within populations, or
substitution of an allele with a new one.” (Grasse, The Evolution of
Living Organisms,1977 page 84.)
“The period of great fecundity is over; present evolution appears as a
weakened process, declining or near its end. Aren’t we witnessing the
remains of an immense phenomenon close to extinction? Aren’t the small
variations which are being recorded everywhere the tail end, the last
oscillations of the evolutionary movement? Aren’t our plants, our
animals, lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora
and fauna?”(Ibid, page 71).
Long before Huxley or
Grasse, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch already asked why we do not see new
formations and creations happening?
The ending of creation, the cessation of formation of new
creations – in a word: the present Sabbath of creation – is a
greater revelation of the Creator than the very existence of heaven and
earth. If, as the materialistic outlook on the world has taught
throughout the world has taught throughout the ages, the origin of the
world was due to physical causes not founded on thought and free
will; if the world originated from forces of nature that are inherent in
the world – why, then, has there been a Sabbath in creation for
thousands of years? Why have these forces ceased to function and to
produce with great power new creations? Why has the cause – which still
exists – ceased producing the effect? What has put an end to its
creative power? We see that for generations upon generations creation
has ceased, and Sabbath has reigned in the world. This teaches us that
the present Sabbath was preceded by purposeful, all-powerful creative
activity, and that the universe is not a physical result of
blind forces of nature, but a moral work of a Creator endowed with
supreme wisdom, free will, and unlimited power. … (Gen 1:2)
26, 2006] We pointed out
here) that the authors (Kirschner
& Gerhart) of a new Yale
University Press book (2005) claim that their new hypothesis of
facilitated evolution can explain the appearance of design in nature.
The Yale University Press blurb states (emphases added):
150 years since Darwin, the field of evolutionary biology has left a glaring gap in understanding how animals developed their astounding
variety and complexity. The standard answer has been that small genetic
mutations accumulate over time to produce wondrous innovations such as eyes
and wings. Drawing on cutting-edge research across the spectrum of modern
biology, Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart demonstrate how this stock answer
is woefully inadequate.
review of the book recently
appeared in Science (December 9, 2005). The reviewer states
the problem to be solved as follows:
chapter 6 of The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin confronted the
problem of explaining the evolution of complex pieces of biological
machinery. How can natural selection, acting on "random" variation,
produce a beautifully functioning structure made up of many integrated
components, such as the vertebrate eye? His answer was that a structure
like an eye is built up by a process of stepwise change from a primitive
ancestral state, such as a simple group of light-receptive cells,
leading eventually to the complicated vertebrate system of lens, iris,
retina, optic nerve, etc. Each successive elaboration increases the
efficiency of an already serviceable organ. Many such steps collectively
produce a combination of characters that could never have existed in the
ancestor. Although in the majority of cases we have no direct
information on the steps that actually occurred in the evolution of
complex adaptations, there are many examples of intermediate states that
can be observed in living forms, as is indeed the case for the eye. The
consensus among evolutionary biologists is that Darwin's interpretation
has successfully stood the test of time, although the news has
apparently not reached Kansas.
wonder how the reviewer is able to show that Darwin's theory has "successfully
stood the test of time". Where are all those detailed testable Darwinian
pathways for amazing organs such as the vertebrate eye? In contrast to the
reviewer, the Yale blurb says there is a "glaring gap
in understanding how animals developed their
astounding variety and complexity"
-- this is well understood in Kansas and apparently at Harvard University
and Berkeley as
The Plausibility of Life, an account intended for a general
readership, Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart argue that the Darwinian
explanation is incomplete and that the results of recent discoveries in
cell and developmental biology can be used to remedy this defect. Are
they right, or does their effort represent the latest entry in the
catalogue of failed attempts by developmental biologists to supplement
or replace neo-Darwinian evolutionary biology?:
Unlike some of their predecessors,
Kirschner (the chair of Harvard's Department of Systems Biology) and
Gerhart (a professor in Berkeley's Department of Molecular and Cell
Biology) are not hostile to the view that evolutionary change at the
level of morphology or behavior is the product of natural selection
acting on variation that arises ultimately from mutation. Rather, they
argue that the basic properties of cells and their interactions during
development have profound consequences for the properties of the
variability available for use by selection. These properties and
interactions both constrain the possible types of alteration to the
organism's structures and offer opportunities for the rapid evolution of
novel structures. The authors call the latter "facilitated variation,"
well does facilitated variation succeed in explaining all that amazing
complexity of the eye without recourse to wishful speculation? The
Science reviewer's concludes:
As a result, it is
currently impossible to evaluate the idea that developmental systems
have special properties that facilitate variation useful for evolution.
Indeed, Kirschner and Gerhart do not present any detailed examples of
how the properties of developmental systems have actually contributed to
the evolution of a major evolutionary novelty. Nor have they shown
that alternative properties would have prevented such evolution.
Although The Plausibility of Life contains many interesting facts
and arguments, its major thesis is only weakly supported by the
16, 2006] According to cosmologists, our universe appears to be
more than a coincidence. A Nature article titled “Outrageous
fortune” (Jan. 2006) states.
For two decades now, theorists in the think-big field of cosmology have
been stymied by a mathematical quirk in their equations. If the number
controlling the growth of the Universe since the Big Bang is just slightly
too high, the Universe expands so rapidly that protons and neutrons never
come close enough to bond into atoms. If it is just ever-so-slightly too
small, it never expands enough, and everything remains too hot for even a
single nucleus to form. Similar problems afflict the observed masses of
elementary particles and the strengths of fundamental forces. In other
words, if you believe the equations of the world’s leading cosmologists, the
probability that the Universe would turn out this way by chance are
infinitesimal – one in a very large number. “It’s like you’re throwing
darts, and the bullseye is just one part in 10120 of the dart
board,” says Leonard Susskind, a string theorist based at Stanford
University in California. “It’s just stupid.”
The problem with all this is that a universe implausibly fine-tuned for life
could very well mean that we now have evidence for G-d's handiwork - a world
of plan and purpose.
The calculation had such topological complexity that you could
potentially get 10500 universes," Polchinski says. With so many
solutions, says [nobel laureate Steven] Weinberg, it becomes easier to
imagine that we happen to live in a Universe that seems tailored for our
Easy to imagine, hard to prove. Because other universes would be causally
separated from our own, it seems impossible to tell whether our cosmos is
the only one, or one of many. Most scientists find this disturbing. Talk of
a Universe fine-tuned for life has already attracted supporters of
intelligent design, who claim that an intelligent force shaped evolution. If
there's no way to tell whether the values of scientific constants are a
coincidence, the movement's followers argue, then why not also consider them
evidence of G-d's handiwork?
31, 2005c] Although many rocks show millions or billions of years
worth of decay products, there are some stubborn anomalies and discordances
in the literature which do not have a plausible scientific explanation.
Discrepancies frequently appear when different teams of geologists date the
same ancient geological formation involving different dating methods. Some
of the world’s top scientists held a workshop sponsored by the National
Science Foundation to address some of these problems. The October 17, 2003
issue of the journal Science (Kerr, R.A.
2003. “A Call for Telling Better Time over the Eons.” Science 302, no. 5466)
reported on this symposium and the rationale behind it:
At a workshop held here early this month at the National Museum of
Natural History, geochronologists declared that they must do better, much
better, and called for an unprecedented effort to calibrate the geologic
time scale. ... "We need a major international cooperative network of
geochronology centers dedicated to the goal of science-driven, integrative
calibration," said Samuel Bowring of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, a workshop organizer. Although no specific plan emerged, Bowring
notes, participants agreed that "we have to make sure we’re all getting the
same answer on the same rocks." That doesn't always happen.” ...
One example of this is the attempted dating of the Latemar limestone belt in
northern Italy’s Dolomite Mountains. Scientists have been trying to find out
how long it took microscopic carbonate skeletons to pile up on the ancient
seafloor to form this 600-meter layer. Science reported (see also Science,
12 November 1999, p. 1279):
“Other crucial ages are also out of whack. ... Assuming that the distinctive layers of the Latemar matched climate
cycles driven by clocklike variations in the shape of Earth’s orbit,
sedimentologists estimated that it took about 8 million years to form the
whole pile. Uranium-lead dating of zircons from volcanic ash beds in the
Latemar, however, produced a figure of about 2 million years — too little
time to form such deposits, sedimentologists say. Years of work on both
ways of dating the Latemar have failed to resolve the conflict”.
"In addition to more dating, researchers want better dating.
Long-recognized problems with standards, interlab calibration, and sample
processing have limited both the precision and the accuracy of uranium-lead
and argon-argon radiometric dating. At the moment, these two leading
techniques consistently differ on the age of the same sample by 1%"
The article makes the following interesting statement: “The general
sparseness of reliable ages was the primary complaint at the workshop".
Given that there are tens of thousands of dates reported in the literature,
one wonders why reliable dates are sparse. Do geologists know something
about discordances that we laypeople do not? One wonders how many results
are never reported and filed away for later study because of inconsistencies.
One also wonders what double-blind testing
of the radiometric dating scene would reveal? [emphases added].
31, 2005b] For an example of stubborn anomalous radiocarbon dates
see see Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences (Stanley-2001),
which discusses problems with radiocarbon dates that are both too old and in
the wrong sequence:
"ANOMALOUS RADIOCARBON DATES: In contrast with patterns of
clustered radiocarbon dates at the base of Holocene sections, there is a
weaker relationship between C-14 dates and core depths throughout most
deltaic core sections. This poor relationship has been observed since early
applications of the radiocarbon dating method to Mississippi Delta cores
(Fisk & McFarlan 1955, Frazier 1967). A review of the literature
indicates that most deltas for which radiocarbon dates are available,
regardless of geographical and geological setting, record this inconsistent
upsection stratigraphy. Radiocarbon dates, both conventional and
accelerator mass spectrometric (AMS), are not— as expected — consistently
younger upcore between the base and surface of deltaic sequences. In
addition to age-date reversals upcore, some dates in Holocene sections
are clearly too old (some to late Pleistocene in age) and, not
infrequently, those near the upper core surfaces are of mid- to late
Holocene age (Figure 2). In general, there is a modest to poor—and in some
cases no—relationship among C-14 dates, core surface elevation, subsurface
depth of sample in the Holocene sequence, material used for dating (i.e.
shell, organic-rich sediment, and peat), and geographic position of core
site relative to the delta coast." [page 270, emphasis added]
"These findings are both remarkable and disturbing, because
they call into question the reliability of both dates and method; they
raise concern regarding use of the radiocarbon method as presently applied
to deltas. A literature survey indicates that deltas are by no means the
only late Pleistocene to Holocene settings where dating problems are
encountered. Numerous articles in the journal Radiocarbon and in other
publications that focus on application of this method to Quaternary research
problems have called attention to anomalous 14C date results in coastal
deposits and soils (Delibrias 1989)." [page 284, emphasis added]
Reference: DATING MODERN DELTAS: Progress, Problems, and Prognostics
Jean-Daniel Stanley Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, May 2001,
Vol. 29, Pages 257-294.
31, 2005a] From Science, 12 November 1999,
p. 1279: When your wristwatch and a
wall clock disagree about the time, one (or both) of them is wrong.
Geochronologists have a similar problem, but the potential consequences are
more grave. ... Yet the uranium-lead method has its difficulties as well.
"The more you dig into the method," says Olsen, "the clearer it becomes
that getting dependable results is not a trivial matter." For example,
rock containing zircon crystals that hold the uranium and its decay product
can partially melt, millions of years after their formation in a volcanic
eruption, in a new volcanic outpouring. The zircon can survive the melting
and then grow a new layer of crystal over its old core. When the whole
crystal is analyzed, the apparent age will be older than the age of the
eruption that laid down the ash layer. Some geochronologists, including
Mundil, say they address such problems in their standard methods, screening
out zircons with old cores through inspection under the microscope. But
others aren't so sure. They look to other techniques that can pick out
chemically distinct cores that would otherwise be invisible. Telling which
clock, if any, is right will obviously take more effort than dialing up the
time lady. [emphasis added]
[December 30, 2005]
New Scientist interview with
Leonard Susskind (17 December 2005). Is string theory in trouble?
"Ever since Albert Einstein wondered whether the world might have been
different, physicists have been searching for a “theory of everything” to
explain why the universe is the way it is. Now string theory, one of today's
leading candidates, is in trouble. A growing number of physicists claim it
is ill-defined and based on crude assumptions. Something fundamental is
missing, they say. The main complaint is that rather than describing one
universe, the theory describes 10^500, each with different constants of
nature, even different laws of physics ... ". In the interview Susskind is
asked: "If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent
design?". He answers: "I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for
some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe
for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am
pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of
the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we
will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's
fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might
argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as
faith-based as ID." [emphasis not in the original].
Nobel laureate admits string theory is in
trouble. 10 December 2005, New Scientist Print Edition. "We don't know
what we are talking about." That was Nobel laureate David Gross at the 23rd
Solvay Conference in Physics in Brussels, Belgium, during his concluding
remarks on Saturday. He was referring to string theory - the attempt to
unify the otherwise incompatible theories of relativity and quantum
mechanics to provide a theory of everything. Gross - who received a Nobel
for his work on the strong nuclear force, bringing physics closer to a
theory of everything - has been a strong advocate of string theory, which
also aims to explain dark energy. "Many of us believed that string theory
was a very dramatic break with our previous notions of quantum theory," he
said. "But now we learn that string theory, well, is not that much of a
break." He compared the state of physics today to that during the first
Solvay conference in 1911. Then, physicists were mystified by the discovery
of radioactivity. The puzzling phenomenon threatened even the laws of
conservation of mass and energy, and physicists had to wait for the theory
of quantum mechanics to explain it. "They were missing something absolutely
fundamental," he said. "We are missing perhaps something as profound as they
were back then."
Peter Woit (Mathematics, Columbia University)
discusses the new book by Leonard Susskind (Felix
Bloch Professor in theoretical physics at Stanford University since 1978,
considered the father of string theory) called Cosmic Landscapes. In the
book Susskind writes: "During the 1990s the number of possibilities grew
exponentially. String theorists watched with horror as a stupendous
Landscape opened up with so many valleys that almost anything can be found
somewhere in it. The theory also exhibited a nasty tendency to produce
Rube Goldberg machines. In searching the Landscape for the Standard Model,
the constructions became unpleasantly complicated. More and more “moving
parts” had to be introduced to account for all the requirements, and by now
it seems that no realistic model would pass muster with the American Society
of Engineers — not for elegance in any case." Woit quotes the cosmologist
George Ellis, writing recently recently in Nature that: "Physicists [such as
Susskind] indulging in this kind of speculation sometimes denigrate
philosophers of science, but they themselves do not yet have rigorous
criteria to offer for proof of physical existence. This is what is needed to
make this area solid science, rather than speculation. Until then,
the multiverse situation seems to fit Paul’s description: “Faith is
the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” In this
case, it is faith that enormous extrapolations from tested physics
are correct; hope that correct hints as to the way things really are have
been identified from all the possibilities, and that the present marginal
evidence to the contrary will go away."
[November 25, 2005] Editors
Joseph Klafter and Michael Urbakh in a special issue of
Journal of Physics:
Condensed Matter (Volume 17, Number 47, 30 November 2005) with the
title Molecular motors, write:
"Macro-scale thermodynamic engines convert the random motion of
fuel-produced heat into directed motion. Such engines cannot be downsized to
the nanometre scale, because thermodynamics does not apply to single atoms
or molecules, only large assemblies of them. A great challenge for the field
of nanotechnology is the design and construction of microscopic motors that
can transform input energy into directed motion and perform useful functions
such as transporting of cargo. Today's nanotechnologists can only look in
envy at the biological world, where molecular motors of various kinds
(linear, rotary) are very common and fulfil essential roles. [italics not in
[November 20, 2005]
BBC reports (based on a recent
Science article) that African
swallowtail butterflies have fluorescent patches for signalling to each
other on their wings that work in a similar way to a new ingenious
design for high emission light emitting diodes (LEDs) developed at MIT.
high emission LEDs are an efficient variation on the diodes used in
electronic equipment and displays. In the final line of the BBC
story, Dr. Vukusic (who discovered this feature) states that, "When
you study these things and get a feel for the photonic architecture
available, you really start to appreciate the elegance with which nature [?] put some of these things together." So it all
seems, boil down to a happy series of (unexplained) evolutionary
accidents. The report states that "Most light emitted from standard
LEDs cannot escape, resulting in what scientists call a low
extraction efficiency of light. The LED developed at MIT [in 2001]
used a two-dimensional (2D) photonic crystal - a triangular lattice
of holes etched into the LED's upper cladding layer - to enhance the
extraction of light. And layered structures called Bragg reflectors
were used to control the emission direction. These high emission
devices potentially offer a huge step up in performance over
standard types. Pete Vukusic and Ian Hooper at Exeter have now shown
that swallowtail butterflies evolved [?] an identical method
for signalling to each other in the wild." Dr Vukosic stated that
"Unlike the diodes, the butterfly's system clearly doesn't have
semiconductors in it and it doesn't produce its own radiative
energy. That makes it doubly efficient in a way. But the way
light is extracted from the butterfly's system is more than an
analogy - it's all but identical in design to the LED."
Dr Vukusic agreed that studying natural designs such as this could help scientists improve upon manmade devices. [Italics not
in the original]
[November 9, 2005]
Altruism: On November the 5th, 2005, in Toronto, a grandmother
Rosalia DeSantis was travelling home from her job when she felt hot and
dizzy, and she leaned over the edge of the platform at Lawrence West
Station, to see if a train was on the way. She fainted, hit her head, fell
into the gap, and was lying across a track bleeding, with a train seconds
away. How did she survive? Two men who knew neither her nor each other -
Theo Parusis, 25, and Alvaro Meija, 26 - jumped down onto the track and
hoisted her up to safety, five seconds before the train rolled over the
spot. To most of us, these guys are heroes. But, as pointed out by
post-Darwinist Denyse O'Leary, they are considered by evolutionary
psychologists to be "the last remaining unsolved problem in evolution"
[Gabriel Dover, "Anti-Dawkins" in Rose, Hilary and Steven Rose, Alas,
Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology, London, Random
House Vintage, 2001, p. 48]. Why are these guys a problem? Because according
to evolutionary psychology, human beings are simply evolved animals, and
animals do not do things like that. For example, in a recent letter to
science journal Nature, researchers revealed that chimpanzees will not help
other chimps unless they know them, even if helping would cost nothing,
never mind that it might entail a risk. So if chimps don't do it, people
cannot really be doing it either. So, evolutionists are forced into a
variety of ingenious suggestions that the young men's behaviour was really
selfish at heart. The Nature article reference and abstract is:
Chimpanzees are indifferent to the welfare of unrelated group members
Nature 437, 1357-1359 (27 October 2005)
Joan B. Silk, Sarah F. Brosnan, Jennifer Vonk, Joseph Henrich, Daniel J.
Povinelli, Amanda S. Richardson, Susan P. Lambeth, Jenny Mascaro and Steven
Humans are an unusually prosocial species - we vote, give blood, recycle,
give tithes and punish violators of social norms. Experimental evidence
indicates that people willingly incur costs to help strangers in anonymous
one-shot interactions, and that altruistic behaviour is motivated, at least
in part, by empathy and concern for the welfare of others (hereafter
referred to as other-regarding preferences). In contrast, cooperative
behaviour in non-human primates is mainly limited to kin and reciprocating
partners, and is virtually never extended to unfamiliar individuals. Here we
present experimental tests of the existence of other-regarding preferences
in non-human primates, and show that chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) do not
take advantage of opportunities to deliver benefits to familiar individuals
at no material cost to themselves, suggesting that chimpanzee behaviour is
not motivated by other-regarding preferences. Chimpanzees are among the
primates most likely to demonstrate prosocial behaviours. They participate
in a variety of collective activities, including territorial patrols,
coalitionary aggression, cooperative hunting, food sharing and joint mate
guarding. Consolation of victims of aggression and anecdotal accounts of
solicitous treatment of injured individuals suggest that chimpanzees may
feel empathy. Chimpanzees sometimes reject exchanges in which they receive
less valuable rewards than others, which may be one element of a 'sense of
fairness', but there is no evidence that they are averse to interactions in
which they benefit more than others.
Editor's Summary, 27 October 2005 Law of the jungle:
There is plenty of evidence - some of it cited in this week's Review Article
- that humans care about the welfare of others and will provide costly
assistance even to strangers. Frans de Waal has argued that 'other-regarding
sentiments' may be deep-rooted in primate evolutionary history. But a test
for such behaviour in chimpanzees has drawn a blank. They spurn the chance
to deliver benefits to unrelated but familiar individuals at no cost to
themselves, cooperating only with their kin and partners.
[October 28, 2005]
The Torah often speaks of the heart as the seat of intellect and emotion:
“God saw that the wickedness of Man was great upon the earth, and that every
product of his heart was but evil always. And God reconsidered having
made Man on earth, and He had heartfelt sadness". (Gen 6:5). This is thought
to be thoroughly unscientific, since the heart is viewed as a purely
mechanical pump. However, as reported in a book review (in the science
magazine Discover 2004) of
essayist Charles Siebert's new book:
... the heart is no mere pump, as some physicians still insist, but a
sophisticated participant in the regulation of emotion. The heart has a mind
of its own: It secretes its own brain-like hormones and actively partakes in
a dialogue among the internal organs, a dialogue on which cardiac
researchers are only beginning to eavesdrop. The heart likewise undergoes
all manner of organic change inflicted on it by the tempestuous brain and
its neurochemicals. As one doctor explains, people do suffer heartbreak,
literally ... Consider the fate of William Schroeder, the second—and
longest-surviving—recipient, in 1984, of the Jarvik-7 artificial heart. As a
pump, the Jarvik-7 was a resounding success, keeping Schroeder alive for an
unprecedented 620 days. The patient’s mental state was another matter.
Schroeder was weepy and deeply despondent. (Barney Clark, the first Jarvik-7
recipient, expressed a wish to die or be killed.) The blood still
circulated, but something vital—some emotionally charged communication
between heart and mind—had been lost. What is it like, Siebert asks, to
watch your favorite sports team rally yet not feel your pulse quicken? To
see a loved one yet not feel your heart leap? “When someone’s heart is no
longer working in concert with those feelings, does he feel that and cry
more?” Affirming all myths, the heart truly is a seat of human emotion. The
Jarvik-7, in contrast, was deaf to the song of human experience; built to
invigorate its patient, it instead alienated him, supplying Schroeder with
everything but the will to live. He had the look, Siebert writes, “of a man
who has lost his heart".
[October 12, 2005] Quote from
Italian geneticist, Giuseppe Sermonti:
"Natural selection could perhaps be invoked as a mechanism
accounting for the survival of species. But the claim that natural
selection is creative of life, of life's essence and types and orders,
can only leave us dumbstruck. Natural selection only eliminates, and
its adoption as a mechanism of origin is like explaining "appearance" by
"disappearance". Many times a year a language dies; does this explain the
origin of languages? It is to be hoped that the third millennium will look
back on the twentieth century's wild guesses about evolution as a Big Joke in which the illustrious founders of molecular biology were
able to indulge. The neo-Darwinian theory embraced by the founders of
molecular biology is rather like saying that the text of The Iliad came into
being by mere chance, one step at time, letter by letter, emerging out of
some lower "organism" a few verses long."
[Page 13 in
Why a Fly is not a Horse (2005), italics not in the
original. The author, Giuseppe Sermonti, discovered genetic recombination in
antibiotic-producing bacteria, which explains why bacteria are easily able
to "evolve" resistance to antibiotics].
[October 10, 2005]
News: Israel´s Prof. Aumann Wins
Nobel Prize in Economics. Prof. Robert J. Aumann is a co-winner of this
year's Nobel Prize in Economics, for "enhancing our understanding of
conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis." Aumann, a religious
Jew who grew up in New York City and currently resides in Jerusalem, won the
prestigious prize together with Prof. Thomas C. Schelling of the University
of Maryland. The two established game theory as the dominant approach
towards understanding conflict and cooperation between countries,
individuals and organizations. They will share the $1.3 million prize. Prof.
Aharoni said that a famous article by Prof. Aumann, in which he applies his
theories to explain a difficult Mishna in Tractate Ketubot and another
Mishna in Tractate Baba Metzia "caused economists and mathematicians around
the world to take an interest in Talmudic texts and see how they deal with
economic/legal issues." Aumann has shown that the Talmud and Rishonim were
well aware of sophisticated concepts of modern risk taking (pdf)
and that the 2000 year old Talmud prescribes bankruptcy solutions that equal
precisely the nucleoli of the corresponding Coalitional games (pdf).
Between 1901 and 2004, more than 740 Nobel Prizes were handed out of which
at least 156 were Jews (pdf;
halachic status). Thus Jews
have been awarded over 21% of Nobel Prizes while being about
0.25% of the world
[October 2, 2005] The
evolutionary elite would like to keep all evidence of intelligent design in
biology out of the classroom, because that would be at odds with a strictly
materialist view of the world. In April 2005, the science journal
Nature interviewed Caroline
Crocker, a molecular microbiologist at George Mason University: "Caroline
Crocker says that she hadn't meant to start a controversy when she mentioned
intelligent design while teaching her second-year cell-biology course at
George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, last semester. But many of her
colleagues say that the soft-spoken molecular biologist, who received a PhD
in immunopharmacology from the University of Southampton, UK, has gone too
far. Sitting in an empty teaching lab, Crocker tells how she has been barred
by her department from teaching both evolution and intelligent design".
When Nature approached another researcher, he refused to speak for fear of
hurting his chance to get tenure.
[October 1, 2005]
Blog: A recent
study confirms what has been a long-standing problem of evolution, that
Lucy's bipedality is too early for Darwinian evolution. Richard Dawkins
attempts to make sense of it, and in the process contradicts his earlier
[August 24, 2005]
Article: Paul McHugh is a university
distinguished service professor of psychiatry and behavioral science at the
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and former psychiatrist in chief of the
Johns Hopkins Hospital. In The Weekly Standard, he provides evidence
that Darwin's narrative of the origin of species is in crisis, and that
civilized discourse about the growing controversy surrounding his theory is
all to the good: "Those who would expel all challenges to the Darwinian
narrative from the high school classroom are false to their mission of
teaching the scientific method."
[August 3, 2005] Robert
Laughlin, a Nobel laureate physicist concerned with the properties of matter
that make life possible, offers a strong criticism of the theory of
evolution by natural selection: "Much of present-day biological knowledge
is ideological. A key symptom of ideological thinking is the explanation
that has no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends
antitheories because they have exactly the opposite effect of real theories:
they stop thinking rather than stimulate it. Evolution by natural selection,
for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory,
has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up
embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at
best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws
of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical
reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical
principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!" [Robert
Laughlin, A Different Universe (Reinventing Physics from the Bottom up),
Basic Books, NY, 2005, pages 168–169].
[July 31, 2005]
New book on evolution.
Evolutionists keep insisting that evolution is a fact beyond any rational
debate. However, Kuhn has told us that scientists often keep hacking away
under inadequate paradigms despite the build-up of difficulties. In fact,
they do not admit to any difficulties until they find a new paradigm. The
authors of a new Yale University Press monograph claim that their new
hypothesis of facilitated evolution can explain the appearance of design in
nature (grains of salt come in handy when claims like this are made).
However, this example bears Kuhn out, as the authors admit: In the
150 years since Darwin, the field of evolutionary biology has left a glaring gap in understanding how animals developed their astounding
variety and complexity. The standard answer has been that small genetic
mutations accumulate over time to produce wondrous innovations such as eyes
and wings. Drawing on cutting-edge research across the spectrum of modern
biology, Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart demonstrate how this stock answer
is woefully inadequate.
[July 30, 2005] With
reference to the previous item on the mind-brain problem, the following
quote from an article in
Science 1980 is interesting: There's a young student at this university," says Lorber, "who has an IQ of
126, has gained a first-class honors degree in mathematics, and is socially
completely normal. And yet the boy has virtually no brain." The student's
physician at the university noticed that the youth had a slightly larger
than normal head, and so referred him to Lorber, simply out of interest.
"When we did a brain scan on him," Lorber recalls, "we saw that instead of
the normal 4.5-centimeter thickness of brain tissue between the ventricles
and the cortical surface, there was just a thin layer of mantle measuring a
millimeter or so. His cranium is filled mainly with cerebrospinal fluid."
How does one explain a flourishing intellectual life despite a severely
damaged brain if, according to the causal closure espoused by naturalists,
mind and brain coincide? More.
[July 30, 2005] An
article in Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society by Jeffrey Schwartz and Henry P.
Stapp challenges the materialism endemic to so much of contemporary
neuroscience. By contrast, it argues for the irreducibility of mind (and
therefore intelligence and free will) to material mechanisms. As they write
in their conclusion: Materialist ontology draws no support from
contemporary physics and is in fact contradicted by it.
[June 8, 2005]
Essay in Nature by George
Ellis: "A simple statement of fact: there is no physics theory that explains
the nature of, or even the existence of, football matches, teapots, or
jumbo-jet aircraft. The human mind is physically based, but there is no hope
whatever of predicting the behavior it controls from the underlying physical
laws. Even if we had a satisfactory fundamental physics 'theory of
everything', this situation would remain unchanged: physics would still fail
to explain the outcomes of human purpose, and so would provide an incomplete
description of the real world around us."
[June 1, 2005]
American Spectator Weighs in on Intelligent Design in the June 2005 issue.
Dan Peterson's absorbing article begins:"IMAGINE A NANOTECHNOLOGY MACHINE
far beyond the state of the art: a microminiaturized rotary motor and
propeller system that drives a tiny vessel through liquid. The engine and
drive mechanism are composed of 40 parts, including a rotor, stator,
driveshaft, bushings, universal joint, and flexible propeller. The engine is
powered by a flow of ions, can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm (ten times faster
than a NASCAR racing engine), and can reverse direction in a quarter of a
rotation. The system comes with an automatic feedback control mechanism. The
engine itself is about 1/100,000th of an inch wide, far smaller than can be
seen by the human eye."
[May 31, 2005]
Discussion: Michael Behe
explains how blood clotting expert Doolittle's misread a paper in his own
area of specialty. A variety of evolutionist keep rushing to claim they have
refuted intelligent design. But, as Behe says: "Proteins change single
mutation by single mutation, amino acid by amino acid, so that’s the level
of explanation that is needed. What part of “numerous, successive, slight”
is so hard to understand?". Evolutionist appear unable to produce detailed
testable Darwinian pathways to back up their vague claims. As always, we
need to distinguish between the claim and evidence for the claim.
[May 29, 2005]
Article in which the
reductionist approach and "theories of eveything" are critiqued -- " the
triumph of the reductionism of the Greeks is a pyrrhic victory".
[May 27, 2005]
Discussion: Dinosaurs fossils
may form very rapidly (within a few weeks) and dinosaur bones have been
discovered on the surface in North Alaska in silty sands and even confused with bison bones (bison
are recent large
[May 16, 2005]
discusses various "Darwinian doubts" including
an American Naturalist 2001 study of 63 field studies (involving 62
species) reported in archival journals between 1984-1997 attempting to
measure the strength of natural selection.
253 the authors report that "our most powerful studies indicate that
selection is weak or absent". It may very well be that natural selection
does not actually exist to any appreciable extent, and even if it does, it
may play very little real role in biological change altogether. The empirical evidence is slim indeed!
[May 15, 2005]
Letter: Professor Philip
S. Skell, Member, National Academy of Sciences, and the Evan Pugh Professor
of Chemistry, Emeritus at Penn State University, has written a letter to the
Kansas State Board of Education, voicing "strong support for the idea that
students should be able to study scientific criticisms of the evidence for
modern evolutionary theory along with the evidence favouring the theory."
He writes that "Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical
belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis" and that "Darwinian
evolution is an interesting theory about the remote history of life.
Nonetheless, it has little practical impact on those branches of science
that do not address questions of biological history".
[May 10, 2005]
Calculation: The Jewish
new moon (molad) is consistent with the 6 days of creation.
[May 10, 2005]
Quote; Frank Moore Cross, Harvard's eminent scholar of ancient Near
Eastern thought, critiques Wellhausians and Neo-Wellhausians.
[May 9, 2005]
Discussion: cosmology and hypothetical entities such as inflation, the
missing dark matter and dark energy.
[May 8, 2005]
Discussion added to
the essay on Big Bang Cosmology and the age of the Universe.