Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Yasha Hartberg (
11 May 1995 18:22:07 GMT

In article <>, (Gil
Hardwick) wrote:

> In article <>, Yasha Hartberg
( writes:
> >Well, first I would ask you to explain what the evolution of humans has to
> >do at all with the Big Bang. Second I feel I have to point out the
> >inherent weaknesses with your argument against evolution. Namely, your
> >analogy is only appropriate if Rolex watches reproduce themselves. Since
> >they don't, you haven't made a useful comparison. Additionally, evolution
> >depends on intervention from a little something called natural selection.
> Well yes, but if you would care to go back over the history of the
> idea you will note that back then the converse argument was being
> bandied about. At that time God ruled, and it was the new breed of
> scientist encouraged by Darwin, himself from a devoutly evangelical
> clan of Midlands industrialists, among others, who were insisting
> otherwise.

I'd like to hear more about this, Gil. I fear I may be incredibly dense
because I often have a devil of a time understanding many of your points
the first time around. Listening long enough, though, I've found you do
make some good points. Here, for instance, I can think of a number of
ways to interpret what you are saying, but it seems you are implying that
industrialization may have been an impetus for the ideas of evolution. I
have likely misinterpreted what you are saying, though, so could you
please elaborate a bit?

> Dwelling upon ultimate causes is one of those odd preoccupations of
> humankind which bring out their extremes. It can bring bliss, or as
> in these cases we here witness reduce otherwise recognisably sane
> men to ranting . . .

Yes, I've noted this myself. As I posted earlier, I think that much of
this ranting and hostility must come from both a competition for resources
and from two seemingly incompatible world views operating within a common

> >And thank you for your insightful addition to this thread. It is at least
> >clear that YOU don't care enough what others think to spend even the least
> >amount of time to understand what they are talking about.
> We simply don't care much what YOU think, Yasha old bean. There are
> so many more worthwhile and enjoyable things to care about, and our
> own work to be getting on with.

Perhaps not, but I am interested very much in what YOU think. Note that I
have never asked you to accept any particular cosmology, nor have I ever
expressed any dismay that you don't spend your days and nights pondering
the big bang, string theory, time direction, or any of the other esoteric
topics in theoretical physics. I, myself, spend most of my waking moments
concerned instead with the structure, function, and evolution of
proteins. While I find it suprising that few in the world share my
fascination with these topics, I have come to accept that there is other
work to be done. Nevertheless, I am interested in the interplay between
scientific research, technology, and culture and so I will continue to
buzz about your ear until we either have a productive conversation on the
topic or you choose not to play any longer.

> Now go away. Scoot!

Not quite yet, thank you. I believe I'll finish my tea first.

Yasha Hartberg
Texas A&M University
"The most beautiful thing in Tokyo is McDonald's." Andy Warhol