Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?
Gerald Gleason (email@example.com)
Tue, 5 Sep 1995 18:54:04 GMT
Peter Ceresole writes
> In article <DEE9vu.L4G@crash.cts.com>,
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Roosen) wrote:
> > In fact, Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis is a much more popular view
> >of the origin of life and is a far more satisfactory basis for a
> >globally acceptable cosmology.
> The Gaia hypothesis is merely a restatement of Darwinism, but it has
> acquired a load of mystical crap which seems to attract the ignorant (I
> don't think that Lovelock intended that to happen, but it has).
You don't know what you are talking about. Darwin had nothing to say
about global regulation or global systems, and this has everything to do
with Lovelock's thinking. There is a small point to be made about broader
interpretations of this hypothesis. From what I have read and seen on a
PBS show or two, I don't get the impression that Lovelock is interested in
discouraging these broader views, but neither would he present them as a
> > For physicists, the Big Bang may be good enough. For humans, it
> >is sadly limited and crippling.
> For ignorant and lazy humans that might be true.
So, anyone who does not take the scientific world view is ignorant and
lazy? I see little or no evidence to support this statement.
Seriously, this thread has been going on for quite some time with everyone
talking at cross purposes. One point is that the BBT has very little to
do with anything that directly effects human lives, and it is
anthropologically interesting that it fits so well symbolically or
syncronisically with the M/I complex. Does this mean anything? I don't
know, but the opponents only seem interested in discrediting the person
who brought it up, rather than entering into a dialog. Maybe it was badly
presented, but I think it's pretty clear what he was trying to get at.
As for the scientific standing of the BBT, while I'm not an cosmologist,
what I have read suggests that there are some rather large holes in this
theory. Yes, it is a very useful working model if for no other purpose
than as a baseline theory to compare predictions with. While some of the
astronomers posting have made it clear that these ideas are under active
revision, and radical alternatives are being considered. On the other
hand, others have exemplefied the "science as theology" world-view that is
in fact antithetical to the spirit of science as practiced by the best in