Darwin

[cybercoma]

Bandelot,

Aristotle believed the earth was the center of the universe and that rocks desired to be the best they could be by getting as close to the center of the universe as possible. The 4 thinkers that I mentioned destroyed Aristotle's "scientific" theories by giving us an entirely new understanding of the physical world.

You ask if previous thought is just thrown out. Although it may have led to the subsequent revolutions, previous thought is thrown out when it's wrong. Ptolemy is a fine example of that and anything Aristotle said about science is naturally thrown out as our understanding becomes more complete.

You're right though, he did plant the roots for future Western thought, as did Plato. I'm pretty sure you can take just about every philosopher after them and put them in one camp or the other: thought or examination? For example, Bacon believed in observations and testing, compare with Aristotle. Descartes believed in doubting everything, starting with immutable truths, and branching out with generalizations, compare with Plato. Those examples are just regarding the scientific revolution. Of course, the reality is that some combination of the two is necessary for any intellectual advancements.

Blah. I'm generalizing and most of this is really besides the point of this thread.

[Sir Bandelot]

......... 'Xcuse me for thinking that's a pretty provincial sort of observation. Movies and commercial radio? If you are looking for stagnant, that's where you'll find it, all right.

Listen to the street music. Check out what's happenning in the nearest high school, musically and artistically. Those kids are wa-a-ay ahead of you.

We've got street music here... some rubby with an out of tune violin... I can't stand it. And the guy who thinks he's Garth Brooks, with the cowboy hat, leather jacket and tassels. Lord, give me strength...

I am a musician, have been since I was a teen so my ear is always listening to whats going on in modern music. I'm not putting the kids down, I love to see them pick up an instrument. But thats not what I'm talking about. That's small scale stuff, and now seems too few and far between. I'm talkin about the state of the art. Every generation had their thing going. Today its mainly a bunch of boy bands that are put together by an executive producer. My kids don't even listen to it, but they know all the old tunes.

[Sir Bandelot]

Bandelot,

Aristotle believed the earth was the center of the universe and that rocks desired to be the best they could be by getting as close to the center of the universe as possible. The 4 thinkers that I mentioned destroyed Aristotle's "scientific" theories by giving us an entirely new understanding of the physical world.

Sure, ok, fine. You found the speck in my eye. He was a man of his times in many ways, limited to what was observable without the benefit of technology. But his most valuable contribution was not in cosmology but in ethics, logic, politics, and arts. To say he was "destroyed" is truly a sad dismissal of a man who was one of the greatest thinkers ever in history. But I know, he's so yesterday.

[betsy]

Quite an interesting read that explains about the extrapolations of Darwin. Long article.

Excerpts from....

Teaching Darwin

Why we're still fighting about biology textbook.

by Paul McHugh

03/28/2005, Volume 010, Issue 26

"EIGHTY YEARS AGO THIS SUMMER, the Scopes trial upheld the effort of the state of Tennessee to exclude the teaching of Darwinian evolution from Tennessee classrooms. The state claimed Darwinism contradicted orthodox religion. But times change, and recently a federal judge ruled that a three-sentence sticker stating that "evolution is a theory not a fact" must be removed from Georgia high school biology texts because it contradicts orthodox science and represents an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Both legal mandates--no Darwin yesterday, nothing but Darwin today--look less like science than exercises in thought control.

The leading Darwinist in America, Ernst Mayr, describes the method:

Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science--the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.

After noting Mayr's fearless use of the words "tentative," "philosophy," and "theory," one surely is justified in responding: No wonder Darwinism, in contrast to other scientific theories, seems an argument without end! It's history--indeed, history captured by that creative-writing-class concept narrative. If historical narrative--and the "philosophy" it propounds--are what justify the Darwinian opinions, the textbook writers of Georgia can legitimately claim that Darwin's "tentative reconstruction" is not only a theory but a special kind of theory, one lacking the telling and persuasive power that theories built on hypothesis-generated experiment and public prediction can garner.

DARWIN HIMSELF UNDERSTOOD that questions raised about his narrative had substance. In Chapter IX of On the Origin of Species, he noted that the fossil record had failed to "reveal any . . . finely graduated organic chain" linking, as he proposed, existing species to predecessors. He called the record "imperfect" and went so far as to say, "This, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." Darwin presumed that the problem rested on the "poorness of our palaeontological collections" and would be answered when more of "the surface of the earth has been geologically explored."

In the same Chapter IX, Darwin also acknowledged that the fossil record does suggest the "sudden appearance of whole groups of allied species all at once." He noted that if this fact were to stand, and "numerous species belonging to the same genera or families have really started into life all at once, . . . [it] would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection." He forestalled that fatal blow to his theory by asking his readers not to "over-rate the perfection of the geological record."

MANY OF US were taught these Darwinian extrapolatory links to the evolutionary narrative in high school, usually with photographs of the European peppered moth (Biston betularia), which became darker with environmental pollution and thus less conspicuous to bird predators in industrial areas. The same idea springs up in discussions of the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, or of the transformation of the beaks of finches under the pressure of drought. We were taught in high school that these observable biologic changes display evolution "in front of your eyes."

But not everyone agreed with this conclusion. Many criticized the Darwinists for extrapolating too far, and now the Darwinists confess that actual, observable variation--whether in the barnyard or in nature--demonstrates only the capacity of a species population to vary within limits. The original species picture reappears when either the farmer's selective enterprise or the natural environmental pressure on the species population stops and crossbreeding recurs. The finches' beaks never turn into pelican pouches but revert to their original shape when the rains arrive.

No farmer or experimental scientist has ever produced a new species by cultivating variations. The peppered moth didn't become a butterfly, and the closely and repeatedly studied fruit fly, despite gazillions of generations producing varieties in the laboratory, always remains a fruit fly. Again, Darwin himself was more honest than his followers have been. He knew the distinction between variations that could be observed and those posited according to the theoretical extrapolation that was key to his narrative. For this reason he repeatedly notes, as in Chapter IV of On the Origin of Species, that "natural selection will always act very slowly, often only at long intervals of time, and generally on only a few of the inhabitants." In this way he puts the process of species generation outside the reach of experimental demonstration.

Perhaps it's enough for the friendly guardian of the Darwinian narrative to propose that the genes that control the switching on and off of other genes simply changed in some random way, allowing humans to branch off the primate line. And maybe they did. But again, notice, this is a molecular narrative, not a proposition demonstrable by experiment. It's a story that fits the facts--but so might another.

If Michael J. Behe, the cellular biochemist who wrote Darwin's Black Box, proposes that the complicated molecular mechanisms sustaining the integrity of the cell seem impossible to explain as the result of random variations, the president of the National Academy of Sciences counters by pronouncing, "Modern scientific views of the molecular organization of life are entirely consistent with spontaneous variation and natural selection driving a powerful evolutionary process." That is, he affirms the Darwinian narrative by restating it, not by offering compelling proof that it is true. Lots of views are consistent with the cell's complexity--including the view Behe explores, that an intelligent creator designed the cell to work. But cellular formation needs identified generative mechanisms, not simply a consistent narrative, to explain it--a problem both for those who call on Darwin and those who call on an "intelligent designer."

Official science is too much at ease with the Darwinian narrative--primarily because it can't come up with anything better. As a result, many scientists are driven by an ideological bias and by fear--the thought that any challenge to the narrative will plunge the republic back into some dark age. Richard Dawkins and his associate Niall Shanks predict that, as Shanks wrote, "discriminatory, conservative Christian values [will be imposed] on our educational, legal, social and political institutions" should the public schools permit any airing of questions about the Darwinian narrative. This fear is way over the top, but it's of long standing, and in the past has provoked some loss of judgment among scientists.

Scientists as they engage in dialogue with others should abhor attempts to close off the conversation by excessive claims for any privileged access to truth. Scientists should tell what they actually know and how they know it, as distinct from what they believe and are trying to advance. If all of us, scientists and non-scientists alike, accepted that guiding principle, the 80-year history of attempts to use law to stifle the teaching of science--stretching as it does from the courtrooms of Dayton, Tennessee, to those of Cobb County, Georgia--could perhaps finally be brought to a close."

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.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Prot...7xndpp.asp?pg=2

Edited May 12, 2009 by betsy

[Molly]

"But when one tries to grasp how the distinct species, as against varieties, are generated--by what mechanism they separate--a pause to reflect is warranted. Darwin's random variation and natural selection may well offer the best available narrative, the most compelling theory. Yet something seems missing--for example, any sense of what propels life's forms toward a progressive complexity, rather than toward a simplicity of design that would guarantee survival come what may."

A strange POV... to seek chaos within percieved order, rather than seeking order within the chaos.

"Progressive complexity" is itself a doubtful concept. The question is rendered nonsense until it is defined, and then shown to exist. That could be someones lifetime of labour, and still fail!

Edited May 12, 2009 by Molly

[cybercoma]

Sure, ok, fine. You found the speck in my eye. He was a man of his times in many ways, limited to what was observable without the benefit of technology. But his most valuable contribution was not in cosmology but in ethics, logic, politics, and arts. To say he was "destroyed" is truly a sad dismissal of a man who was one of the greatest thinkers ever in history. But I know, he's so yesterday.

I wasn't saying he's destroyed. I'm saying his scientific ideas were rejected with the new science. That's all.

[Sir Bandelot]

I wasn't saying he's destroyed. I'm saying his scientific ideas were rejected with the new science. That's all.

""Aristotle is the earliest natural historian whose work has survived in some detail.... His description of the hectocotyl arm was about two thousand years ahead of its time, and widely disbelieved until its rediscovery in the nineteenth century. He separated the aquatic mammals from fish, and knew that sharks and rays were part of the group he called Selachē (selachians).

Aristotle's views on the physical sciences profoundly shaped medieval scholarship, and their influence extended well into the Renaissance, although they were ultimately replaced by Newtonian Physics. In the biological sciences, some of his observations were confirmed to be accurate only in the nineteenth century."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Biology_and_medicine

And who do you suppose THAT could be? Who confirmed scientific (biology) theories of Aristotle in the 19th century?

Seems old Darwin himself had something to say about Aristotle-

"Charles Darwin's famous 1882 letter, in response to a ... recent translation of Aristotle's Parts of Animals... reflected an authentic, and substantial, increase in Darwin's already high respect for Aristotle, as a result of a careful reading both of Ogle's introduction and of more or less the portion of Ogle's translation which Darwin says he has read. Darwin's admiration... was most likely the result specifically of Darwin's late discovery that the man he already knew as one of the greatest observers that ever lived was also the ancient equivalent both of the great modern systematist and of the great modern advocate of comparative functional explanation."

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1551904

[cybercoma]

Yes. Aristotle looked at a bunch of things and put them in groups. He would have made an excellent secretary for real scientists.

[Sir Bandelot]

Yes. Aristotle looked at a bunch of things and put them in groups. He would have made an excellent secretary for real scientists.

That's right, cataloging is what good biologists like Darwin do. All thanks to Aristotle

[betsy]

I pulled this thread up for TruMetis.

As for that link, here's another one.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html

Edited August 29, 2010 by betsy

[dre]

Don't get me wrong, I admire Darwin. More so that I've researched a bit about him. You're right, it is a humble admission of uncertainty. I'm not attacking him. It is his theory that is on center-stage here.

A theory that's being pushed and passed up for a fact. When in fact it's far from that!

Scientists are still working on finishing that theory today. As for Darwin questioning his own theory at times... Thats EXACTLY what scientists are supposed to do. And THAT is why most people find it to be a more compelling method of learning about the universe around us.

The alternate theory here...

that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree

...invites no such scrutiny or introspection, or evidence. If youre worried about your own version of the truth, then why not ask these same questions of a theologian or of your pastor or pope?

[ToadBrother]

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.

Which are meaningless qualifications to biology. This is a classic attempt at an appeal to authority, except that a psychiastrist is not a biologist. It's like using an auto-mechanic's statements to try to falsify a rocket engineer's.

And anyone who takes anything Behe has to say seriously best look at how he fell apart during the Dover Trial.

At any rate, Betsy, here's a challenge. Provide a citation anywhere in peer reviewed articles that Michael Behe has published where he debates evolutionary theory.

[ToadBrother]

Scientists are still working on finishing that theory today. As for Darwin questioning his own theory at times... Thats EXACTLY what scientists are supposed to do. And THAT is why most people find it to be a more compelling method of learning about the universe around us.

Don't fall too much into that trap. There isn't a complete scientific theory anywhere, and it's dubious that we could ever accomplish such a thing, at least not for a very long time.

But Betsy should ponder that the number of scientists whose actual fields of inquiry fall within biology, save for an exceedingly small number, have no debate with evolutionary theory. There are a vanishingly small number like Behe, who, through fallacious logic and no lack of dishonesty, make some absurd claims, but you'll note that Behe has never once published an actual peer-reviewed article on Intelligent Design, has in fact never published anything that would suggest, from his scientific work, that he questions evolution at all. In fact, he has stated pretty openly on a number of occasions that he doesn't deny evolution or Common Descent, though he is clearly a theistic evolutionist who believes that God's needed somewhere. His mistake, from a scientific perspective, is not leaving it at that but attempting through what he must certainly know is basically pseudo-scientific claptrap to justify inserting God somewhere in the mix, even if he, like his fellow IDers, has to try to disguise it, in the hopes of fooling the US Supreme Court.

I suspect Betsy knows very little about biology or evolution. I suspect she couldn't name, say, three or four evidences for evolution and common descent.

[betsy]

Don't fall too much into that trap. There isn't a complete scientific theory anywhere, and it's dubious that we could ever accomplish such a thing, at least not for a very long time.

But Betsy should ponder that the number of scientists whose actual fields of inquiry fall within biology, save for an exceedingly small number, have no debate with evolutionary theory. There are a vanishingly small number like Behe, who, through fallacious logic and no lack of dishonesty, make some absurd claims, but you'll note that Behe has never once published an actual peer-reviewed article on Intelligent Design, has in fact never published anything that would suggest, from his scientific work, that he questions evolution at all. In fact, he has stated pretty openly on a number of occasions that he doesn't deny evolution or Common Descent, though he is clearly a theistic evolutionist who believes that God's needed somewhere. His mistake, from a scientific perspective, is not leaving it at that but attempting through what he must certainly know is basically pseudo-scientific claptrap to justify inserting God somewhere in the mix, even if he, like his fellow IDers, has to try to disguise it, in the hopes of fooling the US Supreme Court.

I suspect Betsy knows very little about biology or evolution. I suspect she couldn't name, say, three or four evidences for evolution and common descent.

Sorry ToadBrother and Dre, but as I've stated in the other topic....I have no wish to get back into the same rut of rehashing an old issue...everything I've got to say about the topic was already said and explained in the numerous evolution threads all over this forum. Besides, this theory of evolution is, for me, just so passe'.... just so insignificant now compared to the big picture.

Just in case Dre has not been following what transpired in the other thread "Einstein's Thoughts On God," I'm pasting one of my posts here:

Of course my belief is well-known. And so is yours. Someone mentioned that Einstein was an agnostic. I gave a simple reiteration of that fact (Einstein was an agnostic).

You didn't leave it at that. Like a dutiful sentry of the fortress of Atheism, you had to hold me back by saying..."theists shouldn't find comfort to that"....and now I say the same to you that Atheists most definitely shouldn't... and couldn't find comfort in that! How can you?

More so the problem for you than for me, don't you think so? I don't need any proof.

Your concern about the toppling down of evolution theory is just a minor detail.....your whole belief structure falls with it!

If scientists like Einstein....and Darwin...are confrimed AGNOSTICS, for them the possibility of a God is always there. Where does that leave your belief? Especially when Atheists are pinning their hopes on science?

Increasingly, science, your foundation, is turning against you.

Agnostic scientists - especially with the stature of Einstein and Darwin - don't make a foundation for Atheist belief. In fact, it poses a question to atheists.

I highlighted that statement you made above. What you're actually saying is....

My very simple reiteratement of a fact - Einstein was an Agnostic - was so threatening for you and TruMetis. Got you both all armored up for war.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16971&pid=575947&st=45entry575947

Both of you wield books on theories, especially those that were peer-reviewed so mightily....your biggest comfort must be drawn from the contested, incomplete and unproven theory of evolution (for it's been well-guarded - as ToadBrother had zealously demonstrated in Einstein thread and here).

And speaking of peer-review, there is also a question to its credibility since the process isn't without any criticisms.

Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.[24]

[edit] Allegations of bias and suppression

The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers always raises the possibility that the intermediators may serve as gatekeepers.[25] Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.[26] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories.[27][28][29] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views,[30] and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, it has been argued[by whom?], ideas that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones, which accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

It doesn't require a stretch of the imagination how and why these allegations are made....and why these allegations have a ring of truth to them. Anyway.....if you draw comfort from these books that bear the stamps of having been peer-reviewed....that's your choice. I can relate to that. Peer-reviewed books to you is what The Bible is to me.

My reply to you in Einstein thread was focused mostly about them - Einstein and Darwin - being agnostics.

The implications of scientists like Einstein and Darwin being Agnostics to the end is actually simply just small fry when one looks at the bigger implication of scientists - not just botanists, but from various fields (math/cosmologists, philosophers etc..,) - who in the process ended up converting to Christianity. See the thread "Rejoice...." for some of these names.

You look to science for validation of your faith.

Well, being Atheists, you both got a lot of very serious thinking to do that definitely goes way, way beyond the theory of evolution....and certainly way beyond scientific books of peer-reviewed theories.

Edited September 1, 2010 by betsy

[Smallc]

Nice attempt, but I give it an F. The scientific process isn't about belief.....and belief in science isn't about faith.

[DogOnPorch]

Nice attempt, but I give it an F. The scientific process isn't about belief.....and belief in science isn't about faith.

Notice how Hubble, Hawking, Preskill, Thorne, etc are never brought-up. Just Darwin and Einstein...

[GostHacked]

A scientist needs to question his own theories. This is how he validates it. If he asked no questions and just stated something as such, he'd get laughed out of the room. And once he has answered all his own questions, then it goes up for peer review so others can ask questions about the theory Darwin may not have thought of. This leads to even better validation of Dariwn's theories because other scientists have tested the theory, and for the most part have come to the conclusion that it is true and supported by evidence.

And I find nothing wrong with stating a theory which you still have some questions about. It does not show your theory as wrong, it just shows that more work needs to be done. It also shows that he had an open mind and considered many things.

Betsy, I am trying to read a couple articles on TalkOrigins, There are some good articles (at a glance) and there are horrible ones as well. Like this one .. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2010_07.html The title is 'Is the Earth the fixed center of the Universe?' Easy answer ... no ... long answer with evidence, again no.

The model for an earth-centric universe was trashed a long time ago. Everything would rotate around the earth if that was the case. Which we now know is not true.

It could possibly happen (although the probability is quite low) that there is a God and he/she/it created it all, but if you consider Darwin and Einstein to essentially be agnostics, then they at least have an open mind to both possibilities as being true. To me this is true agnosticism and it's the category I consider myself to be in.

Since Darwin says he was bothered by the irreconcilability of God and evolution, he had faith in god, but this other evidence points to that there really is no god. Something else was at work here, and from what I interpret, Darwin was a bit troubled by it. He had a faith in a god, then through some observations and tests, he moved to agnostic because he now questioned all his previous beliefs. And after soo much work, he still could not make a final say either way. Although using the scientific method has garnered more results favouring evolution.

After more than a century of exploring this theory, it has gained more evidence than we ever expected. It has yet to be debunked in any fashion.

Darwin and Einstein are to me true scientists, simply because they questioned their own theories.

[DogOnPorch]

Gosthacked: It could possibly happen (although the probability is quite low) that there is a God and he/she/it created it all, but if you consider Darwin and Einstein to essentially be agnostics, then they at least have an open mind to both possibilities as being true. To me this is true agnosticism and it's the category I consider myself to be in.

As mentioned in a similar thread, new star and planetary systems are being formed all the time. There are also stars burning away merrily out there that are over twice the age of our own Sun. Quasars have been found that were 14 billion light years away at the time their photons left them...due to expansion, they are now estimated at 30 billion light years distance (and are probably 'normal' galaxies like ours rather than quasars). Neither Darwin nor Einstein were fully aware of this...if at all. Folks writing the Bible certainly weren't.

It's very self-centred of us humans to think all those billions of galaxies each with their complement of stars are devoid of life.

Edited September 1, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[GostHacked]

As mentioned in a similar thread, new star and planetary systems are being formed all the time. There are also stars burning away merrily out there that are over twice the age of our own Sun. Quasars have been found that were 14 billion light years away at the time their photons left them...due to expansion, they are now estimated at 30 billion light years distance (and are probably 'normal' galaxies like ours rather than quasars). Neither Darwin nor Einstein were fully aware of this...if at all. Folks writing the Bible certainly weren't.

It's very self-centred of us humans to think all those billions of galaxies each with their complement of stars are devoid of life.

I agree, it is self-earth-centered based on our observations from this planet in terms of intelligent life and us being the only ones around. But regardless, we have found that we are not in the physical center of the universe. There might not even be a center to this universe.

[DogOnPorch]

I agree, it is self-earth-centered based on our observations from this planet in terms of intelligent life and us being the only ones around. But regardless, we have found that we are not in the physical center of the universe. There might not even be a center to this universe.

Many folks can't name the nine planets in order let alone wrap their brains around the Milky Way...or the Local Group...or the Virgo Supercluster...or...(???)

Then there's the existence of fossils...and petroleum...and etc...yet Earth is supposed to be only 6,000 some odd years old according to the more literal Christian types.

Now the above SHOULD be a joke...but it's for real to a significant percentage of people...lol.

Edited September 1, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[wyly]

I agree, it is self-earth-centered based on our observations from this planet in terms of intelligent life and us being the only ones around. But regardless, we have found that we are not in the physical center of the universe. There might not even be a center to this universe.

if all the outward expanding galaxy's were tracked back to their point of origin would not that be the center of the "known" universe? or at least the center of what we can observe and concieve of as the universe...what if there were multiple universes ... our insignificance in all this is really humbling... Edited September 1, 2010 by wyly

[DogOnPorch]

if all the outward expanding galaxy's were tracked back to their point of origin would not that be the center of the "known" universe? or at least the center of what we can observe and concieve of as the universe...what if there were multiple universes ... our insignificance in all this is really humbling...

That point is now everywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

[GostHacked]

if all the outward expanding galaxy's were tracked back to their point of origin would not that be the center of the "known" universe? or at least the center of what we can observe and concieve of as the universe...what if there were multiple universes ... our insignificance in all this is really humbling...

It will always be humbling to me. I read this one scifi book called Diaspora by Greg Egan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(novel)

Plot introduction

This novel uses for its setting a posthuman future, in which transhumanism long ago (during the mid 21st-century) became the default philosophy embraced by the vast majority of human cultures.

The novel began as a short story entitled "Wang's Carpets" which originally appeared in New Legends, a collection of short stories edited by Greg Bear (Legend, London, 1995). Egan later adapted and included "Wang's Carpets" as a chapter in the novel.

The author appends a glossary which explains many of the specialist terms in the novel. Egan invents several new theories of physics, beginning with Kozuch Theory, the dominant physics paradigm for nearly nine hundred years before the beginning of the novel. Kozuch Theory treats elementary particles as semi-point-like wormholes, whose properties physicists can explain entirely in terms of their geometries in six dimensions. Certain assumptions, common to Greg Egan literature, inform the plot, such as the digital mutability of reality (the idea that no difference exists between any "real" thing and a sufficiently similar mathematical replica of that thing).

For the story, Egan adopts Keri Hulme's gender-neutral pronouns "ve", "vis", and "ver" for most of the characters in the novel, who opt to have a neutral gender.

It was a tough read, but I could not put it down. Essentially in the post-human world, these virtual lives in the nexus (kind of like a huge computer for AIs) get together to form offspring AIs. Sometimes an orphan gets created without 'parents'. Now in terms of sci-fi, we are always wanting to look in to the virtual world being physical entities. This reverses it and the AI uploads itself to a robot to go about and explore the physical world. (yeah it blew my noodle as well)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Egan I heard he was a theoretical physicist as well, but I am not 100% sure.

Diaspora was fantastic in many ways, and eludes to different universes in the book. If you like reading hard sci-fi, definately look into his books. I suggest the novels Diaspora, Quarantine, and Permutation City, and the short story collections Luminous and Axiomatic.

Edited September 1, 2010 by GostHacked

[wyly]

Many folks can't name the nine planets in order let alone wrap their brains around the Milky Way...or the Local Group...or the Virgo Supercluster...or...(???)

Then there's the existence of fossils...and petroleum...and etc...yet Earth is supposed to be only 6,000 some odd years old according to the more literal Christian types.

Now the above SHOULD be a joke...but it's for real to a significant percentage of people...lol.

my daughter the archeology major comes home with stories about creationist types she meets in the archeology field...how does a creationist attain a degree in a field of study that requires acceptance of evolution and then get a job afterward in that field if they don't accept evolution? it would be like a nuclear physicist not accepting the existence of the atom, or a biologist denying DNA, who would hire them?

her favourite story is of the creationist student arguing with a Prof on male anatomy insisting men had fewer ribs then women because of the bible story...even when shown a male skeleton and counting the ribs the student insisted it was an error and the specimen must be female, when told the identity of the donor body was known and male she still refused to accept the evidence...faith evidently must require a great deal of self delusion...

[DogOnPorch]

my daughter the archeology major comes home with stories about creationist types she meets in the archeology field...how does a creationist attain a degree in a field of study that requires acceptance of evolution and then get a job afterward in that field if they don't accept evolution? it would be like a nuclear physicist not accepting the existence of the atom, or a biologist denying DNA, who would hire them?

her favourite story is of the creationist student arguing with a Prof on male anatomy insisting men had fewer ribs then women because of the bible story...even when shown a male skeleton and counting the ribs the student insisted it was an error and the specimen must be female, when told the identity of the donor body was known and male she still refused to accept the evidence...faith evidently must require a great deal of self delusion...

I assume you're seen the classic 'debate' between Richard Dawkins and Wendy Wright (Queen of the Creationists as of late). Painful. I bet Richard needed a stiff drink after that one.