Why You Might Have to Choose Between Science and Faith

[spin]

174. There is evidence but there are scientists who dispute it. ...

Cosmology

Science Stifled by Dogma

Funding Denied for Plasma Cosmology Research

A group of cosmologists, other scientists and engineers have published an open letter in New Scientist May 22nd 2004. Their purpose is to draw attention to the current policy on research funding which seems to be governed by dogmatism and prejudice in favour of "establishment" science. The specific case refers to the denial of funding for research into Plasma Cosmology. The Big Bang theory has been the generally accepted explanation of the origins of the Universe since 1965, in spite of serious theoretical problems. New observational evidence is now accumulating against Big Bang. Lerner and his supporters contend that Plasma Cosmology provides a superior basis for understanding the Universe. They protest that decisions on research funding are taken in the interests of supporting the status quo rather than advancing scientific understanding.
In this article we give a background to the controversy, highlight some of the severe problems which have afflicted Big Bang in recent years, and give examples of recent observational evidence which, whilst readily explained in terms of Plasma Cosmology, appears to refute Big Bang entirely.

***snip***

Flaws in the Big Bang

The recent history of the Big Bang theory has been of mathematical struggle to find solutions to a sea of problems. We are now a very long way from Hawking’s ideal of a theory which “on the basis of a few simple postulates will make definite predictions which can be tested”. For example, when it became impossible to reconcile the standard cosmological model with the Universe as it appears, the concept of inflation involving a finite period of inflationary expansion was introduced. Since the proposal of what is now termed old inflation by Guth in 1981, we have experienced new inflation, chaotic inflation, eternal inflation, stochastic inflation, modified gravity, and their sub-variants. At the end of which, we have no evidence that inflation ever happened. All the above theories and their numerous variants are effectively attempts to explain the “facts” as we know them by mathematical modelling. Depending on results from the Large Hadron Collider, due to be completed at Geneva in 2005, it may be possible to determine whether we are in living in a (mem)brane universe in 11 dimensions of space time.7

It may not be unfair to conclude that the modern Big Bang theory comes with more patches and fixes than a piece of Bill Gates’ software. ...emphasis added

***snip***

Science Obstructed by Dogma In spite of the accumulation of observational evidence against it, and the array of fudge factors necessary to its survival, Big Bang remains the primary model of cosmology. The time has now come for serious investigation into an alternative explanation. This is the message of Lerner’s Open Letter. His complaint is that because of the entrenchment of Big Bang in the scientific establishment, it has become virtually impossible to obtain funding for open-minded research. Worse than that, young scientists who make bold to doubt the establishment theory put their careers in jeopardy - as Stephen Hawking did in his time. "Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed." This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Cosmology/index.html

I have no idea if any of the arguments against the Big Bang theory are valid but I do feel that it is unwise for the science community to accept one theory as gospel and reject those who disagree with it as heretics.

Religion has a long history of dogmatism but science should always be ready to consider conflicting views.

The problem may not be with the scientists but with governments who fund research.