Saturday, November 05, 2005

Cosmological FAQ's for the Creation/Evolution Debate

Misconceptions about what theories are valid and applicable to the human origins science are extremely widespread and abused equally by both sides.

On the forefront of this is what universal model carries weight in the CrEvo debate, because speculative cutting-edge theoretical physics theories have no more business in the human origins science than an intelligent agent does, because both are sci-fi-like in the distance that you have to go to get realistic plausibility and provability.

Cosmological evidence for anthropic preference indicates that we should look for a good physical reason for it, but it does not indicate that we automatically "cop-out" on that obligation by grasping at causality-lacking cutting edge theoretical straws in order to "explain-away" evidence that we're not here by accident. Empiricism supercedes all such unproven models, until and unless they eventually bear-out to be necessary to quantum gravity or the ToE, so orignis science is necessarily restricted to only the most conservative mainstream approach that accurately supports what is observed, which is a finite universe that measures to be about 13.7 billion years old.

This approach is necessarily preferred, because theoretical rationale that uses notions about an infinite numbers of possible universes, multiverses, baby universes and other similar arguments, are invalid until proven, and that's for good reason. For example, as it is used in the debate... Hartle-Hawking Theory predicts that there are an infinite number of possible universes, whereas, Hawking in Dublin, Ireland, last summer, contradicted this idea when he introduced a new theory that says that information is never lost if a true event horizon never forms.

While both of these two theories carry scientific merrit in the world of theoretical physics, both are also competing and contradictory of each other, because the second theory predicts that there can be only one result of our big bang if the information that produced everything in the universe was inherent to the energy when it happened.

That would mean that there was no absolute cosmic singularity, as information was inherently "convolved" into our universe due to a less-than-perfect big-bang event.

The bottom line is that empiricism rules until something has been unequivocally decided, because one new piece to the puzzle can easily turn the projections of the theoretical flavor of the day completely around, and throw them right back in your face.

- - - - - - - -