Freethought & Rationalism Archive

BolshyFaker · 07-01-2002, 12:08 PM

The otherwise excellent article on the growth if "Universal Darwinsim" (far more advanced in the UK than America you should note

) contains the most stupid section on "evolutionary cosmology:

Quote:

Some of the ideas in this fold are rather speculative. For example, Lee Smolin proposes a "Darwinian cosmology" to explain certain features of our universe. He takes current ideas about a multiplicity of universes, and how the formation of a black hole might create another universe--one, perhaps, where the laws of physics are similar to that of the parent but slightly mutated. In that case, we can bring Darwinian population thinking to bear on cosmology, and find that the most common universes will be those which produce lots of black holes and hence offspring. Such as our universe.

In my, humble, opinion that is science of such a speculative nature that it doesn't deserve to be on a site that otherwise prides itself on scientfic integrity and the value of good science in dismissing superstition and beleif. In fact I'd go further than that, Id say that at this moment all discussions of "evolutionary cosmolgy" do is to make evolution look less like science and more like the religion that many of us consider it the antithesis of.

For starters the multi-verse theory is hardly accepted science despite it serving as an explanation of one of the most baffling phenomena science has ever witnessed, that of the "other universe's" photons interacting with our own.

So to take one theory on the edge of science and try to impose Darwinism onto it is at best ridiculous. From the very breif summary in the article there seems to be obvious flaws in the idea, but does anyone have a fuller discussion of this theory?

BolshyFaker · 07-01-2002, 12:16 PM

Still cant really find a good discussion of his book "Life of the Cosmos" that apparnetly lays out the theory in detail, but I did find a transcript of Lee Smolin discussing it:

Quoth Rob_Killheffer (whoever he is)

Quote:

The idea of our universe (and others like it) budding into millions and billions of others is just too great not to want it to be true.

(bold is mine)

Just thought that kinda backed up my point

tronvillain · 07-01-2002, 07:23 PM

I think you are overreacting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a widely speculative explanation of this kind as long as it is acknowedged that it is completely without supporting evidence.

On the other hand, whether or not there is a problem with discussions of "evolutionary cosmology" depends entirely what is actually being discussed. I suspect many of them amount to "stable patterns persist, unstable patterns do not" which can be understood as evolution, though since it lacks "reproduction with variation", not Darwinian evolution.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-01-2002, 07:23 PM	#3
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	I think you are overreacting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a widely speculative explanation of this kind as long as it is acknowedged that it is completely without supporting evidence. On the other hand, whether or not there is a problem with discussions of "evolutionary cosmology" depends entirely what is actually being discussed. I suspect many of them amount to "stable patterns persist, unstable patterns do not" which can be understood as evolution, though since it lacks "reproduction with variation", not Darwinian evolution.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.