Hi,

I'm forwarding these comments (with permission) from Joshua Schroeder related to the "Origin of the Universe Theories" web site (http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~danr/ph367u/ , linked from our resources page) that 2 of my cosmology students put together as a class project. I think these issues would make great discussion topics for this list, if anyone has thoughts to add.

Todd

Begin forwarded message:
> From: Josh Schroeder <jschroed@astro.Princeton.EDU>
> Date: Wed Feb 5, 2003 4:35:42 PM US/Pacific
> To: info@scienceintegration.org
> Subject: Origin of the Universe Theories
>
> To whom it may concern,
>
> The generally decent and well-thought-out paper that you have on your
> site
> by Ross Amans and Dan Ragland contains a few factual errors as well as
> some slight misinterpretations. I thought some of it was very good
> while
> some of it had some serious problems. Below I will outline the most
> egregious errors I found.
>
> page 4: "The truth, however is that many scientists would say that
> Einstein's theory has a much better chance of being proven factual than
> the theory of evolution."
>
> I know no self-respecting scientist who would ever claim such a thing.
> In
> fact, the distinction between "theory" and "fact" is one that is hardly
> warranted within the scientific community. A theory is simply the
> formalized way in which the "universe" is illustrated as working.
> Theories
> are model dependent and coherent statements that explain all previous
> observations and predict what future observations may hold. That is all
> that theories are. Theories are not "proven" in the sense that one can
> prove the fundamental theorem of calculus or the Pythagorean identity,
> rather they are tested by means of observation and experimentation.
> However, theories are, by definition, tautologies in a sense. They are
> true because we observe them to be true.
>
> Implying that there is a chance evolution is going to be "disproven" is
> bad science. If you want to know why, check out the excellent site:
> www.talkorigins.org
>
> "The point is that neither has been fully proven..."
>
> No, that's not what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory relies
> not
> on deductive proof but rather on all observational evidence. In this
> sense
> they have both been fully proven. If you have a problem with induction,
> that's something to take up with the philosophy of science.
>
> To that end the dictionary definition of theory on page 5 is a good
> thing
> to use as long as you realize that it is only the FIRST definition that
> applies to scientific theory. The other definitions involve different
> endeavors.
>
> page 11: attribution to George Gammow for the coining of the term "big
> bang" is incorrect. It was actually coined derisively by Fred Hoyle and
> picked up by Gammow and others as a quirky description of the new
> theory.
>
> page 14: "creationists use fossils to show the lack of evolving species
> claimed by the Big Bang theory."
>
> First of all, the Big Bang and evolution are two different theories
> that
> deal with different things. Saying that evolving species is claimed by
> the
> big bang theory might be construed to indicate that the authors of the
> text don't understand the big bang theory at all. Rather, evolving
> species
> is a paradigmatic observation (note I say observation) of evolution.
> This
> is a well documented observation and should not be dismissed as it is
> on
> this page of the text. For more information, you can search on the
> excellent website: www.talkorigins.org .
>
> "Creationists point out that this expansion contradicts the law of
> conservation of energy."
>
> Well, pointing out a contradiction that doesn't, in fact, exist isn't
> something in support of creationist ideas. The Big Bang doesn't violate
> this at all. Einstein took care of that by incorporating the law
> of conservation of energy into general relativity. Since the Big Bang
> is
> consistent with GR, we know that we are not violating the law of
> conservation of energy with an expanding universe.
>
> page 15: "The ICR, for example has a staff of over seventy scientists
> all
> holding relevant doctorate degrees from secular universities."
>
> This is definitely a misnomer and actually is devoid of content for the
> most part. Evaluation of a scientist's abilities doesn't really have
> much
> to do with a degree or where the degree comes from, but even so, most
> of
> those involved with creationism have questionable credentials at best.
> Again, this is well documented in www.talkorigins.org .
>
> It is problematic to opine that creationism could be "mainstream". We
> know
> from observations that it is a scientifically untenable idea. One might
> hold this idea as a matter of faith, but it is not a scientific theory
> in
> any sense of the term.
>
> page 18: the content of the AAS talk actually disproves Lerner's
> theory.
> You can e-mail Wright at UCLA and ask him about it.
>
> Other than that, a very well done paper.
>
> Best,
> Joshua Schroeder