Some of you might like to know I have subscribed to and am actively commenting on certain science discussion threads on kingdominsight.ning.com—which is described as a “Learning Community for Kingdom Builders”. I found the site on @JuanitaBerguson’s twitter profile and figured some of the people over there might appreciate some links and introductions to certain scientific principals.
Quantum Physics predicts the existence of multiple, parallel universes
Jim Gardner said:
I think you’re confusing quantum electrodynamics with string theory. Quantum physics is the study of subatomic particles. String theory surrounds the study of black holes—or more precisely the problem of infinite gravity at the centre of a black hole.
One postulate is that, since infinity is a mathematical way of expressing, “we don’t yet know”, it is hypothetically possible that Einstein’s famous equation E=MC2 breaks down at the point at which, according to string theory, black holes contain so much gravity they rip open into another universe—which would, from the point of view of a hypothetical observer on the other side of the event, produce a big bang similar to the one which created our observable universe.
I think your confusion, in a deistic sense, stems from the fact that this chimes rather well with the principle of so-called Anthropic Reasoning—which refers to a wide range of often contradictory methods of calculating both the exact age of the universe and the “why something rather than nothing” argument of “fixed constants”.
Astronomer Fred Hoyle had originally been a strong advocate of the fixed constants argument, because as a religious person he felt this pointed to a grand scheme, instigated by a designer. This also made him a strong opponent of big bang theory. However, he was later compelled to concede that both big bang theory had been proven more likely than his “steady state” theory and that therefore the argument of fixed constants no longer made sense. This was later shown to be a most valiant and educated concession on Hoyle’s part, since after his death it was discovered that carbon production inside stars actually hinges upon the radioactive state of three helium nuclei within a 20 percent range of Hoyle’s original fixed figure of 7.65 million electron-volts, which Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg called “not such a close call, after all.”
In other words, the production of the fundamental particles of which all things are made, within stars, doesn’t actually hinge upon fixed values at all. The “goldilocks” argument is a neat parable, but it doesn’t actually deal with all of the evidence. Similarly, it should be noted, that most of the universe is completely inhospitable to any kind of DNA based life. Only our pale blue dot Earth, as far as we know, is conducive to or contains any life at all. If, then, it is to be argued that the universe was created with DNA based life in mind, the immediate problem posed is why it was necessary to create the entire rest of the universe?
Lisa, thanks for the great information. I should have said “Science text books assume evolution is fact.” ;-)
Jim Gardner said:
Science is not about making assumptions, it is about establishing what can be proven to be true; removing uncertainties until only working hypothesises remain. In other words science is about establishing the exact opposite of an assumption. Text books which explain evolution do not do so on the assumption it is true, they do so on the evidence that it is highly likely to be true.
The mathematical probability of life having evolved by means of natural selection is a number with an almost infinite number of decimal places—because it grows exponentially each time new evidence in support of evolution is exposed to what scientific philosopher Karl Popper called falsification—the stronger of the logical processes between irrefutability and probability.
There may well be arguments between individual scientists over certain areas upon which evolution touches, such as in palaeontology where the age of certain fossils are incredibly difficult to gauge with a degree of accuracy any lower than a few million years. But these are not arguments about the validity of Darwinian evolution itself. They are about the way in which certain data sets are best located in the taxonomic table.
Remember, there is nothing within the theory of evolution which proposes origins. That is covered in the study of abiogenesis. Evolution theory is about what happened after the first spontaneous production of RNA and DNA as Alexander Oparin’s and J. B. S. Haldane’s famous experiment shows.