A Beginning

2009-09-27T23:32:00.000-07:00

Where to start?

Here goes. Is there a God or does evolution explain all, or is it possible that the scientific reality of evolution is an instrument of a God/s?

Perhaps the Atheists have got it right, there isn't a God and there never was? Looking at the astounding hubble images (above) of just a few of the hundreds of billions of galaxies estimated to be out there perhaps belief in a higher power isn't that too far fetched.

I have few doubts that there is a God, what perplexes me most is the true nature of God. If in the years to come Science proves me (and billions more people) wrong then I will be more than happy to concede defeat, graciously I hope.

However, will Science ever to able to disprove God? It's perfectly feasible that Science will never be able to resolve this age old riddle. It's even possible that in the future Science will actually be able to prove the existence of a metaphysical power beyond human understanding, this possibility cannot be discounted.

I am not religious in the traditional sense. I'm constantly baffled by how much blood has been spilt in the name of the world's greatest ever pacifist, Christ. Neither do I fully subscribe to total pacifism, it is futile waving flowers at monsters such as Hitler and his devotees whilst chanting "Love will overcome".

Sometimes it seems there is a time for war, unfortunately. It's just tragic that invariably most wars are completely futile and only end up causing immense human misery as well as seemingly endless vicious circles of retribution .

The human story is the story of war, mankind as we all know has an innate propensity for war (as the rest of the animal kingdom has) the crucial difference being that we are by far the most destructive animal on earth. Our successive technological advances soon progressed from clubs to knives, axes and fire to canons, guns and our modern day chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities. One thing has remained a constant though, our inclination to warfare.

The term "God" is a highly loaded term, it has so many overtones, many of which are negative. Let me clarify exactly what I mean by "God". If someone were to ask me what type of God I believe in I would class my God as follows:

Primarily I consider God to be a Scientist, the ultimate mind. I'd also class God as the ultimate magician (pulling rabbits from a hat is one thing but creating a universe from scratch is a whole different ball game). Additionally for me God is infinite and the architect of evolution. As random as the Universe can sometimes appear I do believe that we live in a Universe that has meaning, an ingrained intelligence and ultimately a purpose.

On a more personal level I'd hope God is much more new testament than old as I would like to feel that should God exist he/she/it is much more full of love than vengeance. Even though I do not accept much of the new testament in terms of it's historical accuracy I do believe that not only did Christ exist but he also had an extremely powerful messages for humanity. Lessons that unfortunately we as a species have still miserably failed to learn in the main.

Richard Dawkins makes a very interesting point in The God Delusion. It's a point I had never considered before. He argues that any God capable of creating a universe which in time showcases life in so many forms has to be a God of such complexity that it could only appear towards the end of billions of years of an active evolutionary process and not at the very beginning. This is an extremely interesting point and definitely food for thought.

My counter argument to this moot point would be that to limit God to such a parameter is to think too much in human terms. Dawkins would I believe consider this argument far too convenient and his Scientific mind would balk at what may be considered to be a total cop out. Perhaps the bible is profoundly right when it states that God is the beginning and the end, the alpha and the omega.

Atheists amongst you might state that I'm way too old to have an invisible imaginary friend and on occasion I would agree but when push comes to shove this is my "faith" and it's born much more of logic (I hope) than desperation or wishful thinking, or indeed "brainwashing"

Interestingly as a discipline, logic dates back to Aristotle, who established its fundamental place in philosophy. Averroes defined logic as "the tool for distinguishing between the true and the false". Logic, is simply the study of reasoning.

Closely allied to logic is the word logos which is an important term in philosophy, analytical psychology, rhetoric and religion. Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC) established the term "logos" in Western philosophy as meaning both the source and fundamental order of the cosmos. The Sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to rational discourse. The Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the universe. After Judaism came under Hellenistic influence, Philo adopted the term into Jewish philosophy.

The Gospel of John identifies Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos, through which all things are made. The gospel further identifies the Logos as divine (theos). Second-century Christian Apologists, such as Justin Martyr, identified Jesus as the Logos or Word of God, a distinct intermediary between God and the world. In current use, Logos may refer to the Christian sense, identifying Jesus with the Word of God, though in academic discussions the term is more directly used in a rhetorical discussion.

If there is a God he/she/it must possess the oddest sense of humour, afterall who in their wildest dreams would conjure up humans (via the evolutionary process) and then leave them eternally (possibly) pondering riddles such as ~

Who am I?
What am I?
What is my purpose?
Where am I?
Where did I come from?
Where am I going?
Did I exist before my current existence?
Is there a God or isn't there?
Is death the end?
Is life and the Universe a random freak event or does it have an Architect?
Why do I ask so many questions and how come there don't seem to be any answers to any of them?

One thing is for sure that if indeed God exists he has made it look perfectly feasible to make it look like he doesn't. Although that is a very agnostic statement, I am not as such agnostic. All I'm trying to say is that either viewpoint could be considered in many ways to be equally valid.

The immense injustices of the human story point to a Deist God rather than a personal God. The inherent laws of the universe point to an Einsteinian Deist God. Though perhaps this isn't the case either.

Mankind surely is evolving on a spiritual and moral level, albeit incredibly slowly. Slavery still exists in the world, but the advent of democracy (pioneered by ancient Greece) and a plethora of other advances i.e the anti war movement, human rights, animal rights etc might suggest a slow but certain progress.

The Free will argument is hard to counter, if I state "How can God exist when there is and has been such evil in the world, what God would allow the holocaust, h.i.v, cancer, the Irish famine, the continual famines which blight the horn of Africa etc etc." The free will lobby will merely state. "God gave man free will and as such removed himself from the earthly equation." This doesn't cut it for me. Life is inherently hard. Nature is wondrous but nature is cruel. Hardcore religious people will state that Adam ate of the apple, the ancient Greeks talk of pandora's box. Both stories/myths that essentially say the same thing. There was a prior state of bliss and due to certain acts all manner of evils and miseries were unleashed upon the Universe.

It's often stated that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Perhaps people making this statement can't see the "wood for the trees". The presence of the universe itself and life within it could be considered ample evidence of a God? If there is a God what is the nature of God? If there is a God is God a universal constant or is God evolving too? Is God all good? If not does God have a dark side?.

Whatever the most hardcore of Athiests say to the contrary the jury on God's existence is still very much out. As the burden of proof of God's existence lays firmly at the door of the believer the dis proof of God's existence equally lays fully at the Athiests door.

Of course if you don't feel that God is the chicken as well as the egg you are left with "Which came first." Put simply ~ if you're of an atheist mindset ~ just how did the universe come into being?. If the big bang was a unique singular event you believe that all the energy in the universe was suddenly created spontaneously, that totally contradicts one of Sciences most basic laws. Those of you with a superior scientific background to mine will think I am misinterpreting the following scientific law as it applies to closed systems. The reason I use it is if energy cannot be created nor destroyed then how did the sum total of energy in the universe originate in the first place.

There are many more questions than answers and that's where science comes in, science has already thankfully made many of us bin our old "Earth-centric" and "Every word in the bible must be true." approach to things, of course it remains true that much of the world is still captivated/brainwashed by the "Total truth" of various holy books, but generally we're moving on, however slowly.

We're now almost certain how our universe began (ie the big bang) but how did the big bang occur in the first place? What generated the big bang? What - if anything - preceded the big bang. Is there just one universe ? Are there multiverses? Are there multi dimensioned multiverses? There may be multiverses of multi dimensioned multiverses for all we know? The big bang theory is accepted by most and quite rightly so but why should such a primal fire (on a scale beyond our imaginings) result in a universe that is ruled by laws of gravity, magnetism and nuclear forces amongst others.

Put simply can Professor Dawkins or any other scientist tell the rest of us how all the energy in the universe was created in the first place? How did everything (we know of) come out of nothing? Or has energy simply always existed? Perhaps the current universe was the result of the big crunch of a prior universe ad infinitum? Speculation is rife and answers are still so few, though of course we must continue to seek them.

Perhaps the universes' origins were indeed a complete self generating fluke random occurrence? If so how the hell could that have happened? With this scenario not only would the Big Bang be an absurdly improbable event but all the factors and variables which facilitate life on earth would equally be "immensely lucky" random events. Such factors include the earths orbit type, the earths distance from the sun, the stabilizing effect on the earth of our moon, our suns star type, not forgetting that the earths chemistry had to be optimal for life as self replicating DNA had to be established somehow, the list goes on and on.

The Scientific Revolution

Philosopher and historian Alexandre Koyré coined the term scientific revolution in 1939 to describe the new epoch of scientific knowledge and how it impacted long established (largely innacurate) deeply entrenched religious beliefs. In the history of science, the scientific revolution was a period when new ideas in physics, astronomy, biology, human anatomy, chemistry, and other sciences led to a rejection of doctrines that had prevailed from Ancient Greece through the Middle Ages, and laid the foundation of modern science.

According to the majority of scholars, the scientific revolution began with the publication of two works that changed the course of science in 1543 and continued through the late 17th century: Nicolaus Copernicus's De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) and Andreas Vesalius's De humani corporis fabrica (On the Fabric of the Human body).

New ideas

The scientific revolution was not marked by any single change. The following new ideas contributed to what is called the scientific revolution:

~The replacement of the Earth by the Sun as the center of the solar system.

~The replacement of the Aristotelian theory that matter was continuous and made up of the elements Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Aether by rival ideas that matter was atomistic or corpuscular or that its chemical composition was even more complex.

~The replacement of the Aristotelian idea that heavy bodies, by their nature, moved straight down toward their natural places; that light bodies, by their nature, moved straight up toward their natural place; and that ethereal bodies, by their nature, moved in unchanging circular motions with the idea that all bodies are heavy and move according to the same physical laws.

~The replacement of the Aristotelian concept that all motions require the continued action of a cause by the inertial concept that motion is a state that, once started, continues indefinitely without further cause.

~The replacement of Galen's treatment of the venous and arterial systems as two separate systems with William Harvey's concept that blood circulated from the arteries to the veins "impelled in a circle, and is in a state of ceaseless motion"

Perhaps the most innovative idea at the core of the new scientific revolution is what is commonly called scientific method in modern physical sciences. Stated by Galileo in his book Il Saggiatore in relation to the interpretation of experiments and empirical facts:

Philosophy [i.e., physics] is written in this grand book—I mean the universe—which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering around in a dark labyrinth.

Many of the important figures of the scientific revolution, however, shared in the Renaissance respect for ancient learning and cited ancient pedigrees for their innovations. Copernicus (1473–1543), Kepler (1571–1630), Newton (1643–1727) and Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) all traced different ancient and medieval ancestries for the heliocentric system.

In astronomy, heliocentrism is the theory that the Sun is stationary and at the center of the universe. The word came from the Greek (ήλιος Helios = sun and κέντρον kentron = center). Historically, heliocentrism was opposed to geocentrism, which placed the Earth at the center. Discussions on the possibility of heliocentrism date to classical antiquity. It was not until the 16th century that a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by mathematician and astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus. In the following century, this model was elaborated and expanded by Johannes Kepler and supporting observations made using a telescope were presented by Galileo Galilei.

In the Axioms Scholium of his Principia Newton said its axiomatic three laws of motion were already accepted by mathematicians such as Huygens (1629–1695), Wallace, Wren and others, and also in memos in his draft preparations of the second edition of the Principia he attributed its first law of motion and its law of gravity to a range of historical figures. According to Newton himself and other historians of science , his Principia's first law of motion was the same as Aristotle's counterfactual principle of interminable locomotion in a void stated in Physics 4.8.215a19—22 and was also endorsed by ancient Greek atomists and others. As Newton expressed himself:

All those ancients knew the first law [of motion] who attributed to atoms in an infinite vacuum a motion which was rectilinear, extremely swift and perpetual because of the lack of resistance... Aristotle was of the same mind, since he expresses his opinion thus..., speaking of motion in the void [in which bodies have no gravity and] where there is no impediment he writes: 'Why a body once moved should come to rest anywhere no one can say. For why should it rest here rather than there ? Hence either it will not be moved, or it must be moved indefinitely, unless something stronger impedes it.'

If correct, Newton's view that the Principia's first law of motion had been accepted at least since antiquity and by Aristotle refutes the traditional thesis of a scientific revolution in dynamics by Newton's because the law was denied by Aristotle. The ancestor to Newton's laws of inertia and momentum was the theory of impetus developed by the medieval scholars John Philoponus, Avicenna and Jean Buridan. The concepts of acceleration and reaction were also hypothesized by the medieval Arabic physicists, Hibat Allah Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdaadi and Avempace.

The geocentric model remained a widely accepted model until around 1543 when Nicolaus Copernicus published his book entitled De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. At around the same time, the findings of Vesalius corrected the previous anatomical teachings of Galen, which were based upon the dissection of animals even though they were supposed to be a guide to the human body.

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, the first person to use a microscope to view bacteria.Andreas Vesalius (1514-1564) was an author of one of the most influential books on human anatomy, De humani corporis fabrica. French surgeon Ambroise Paré (c.1510–1590) is considered as one of the fathers of surgery. He was leader in surgical techniques and battlefield medicine, especially the treatment of wounds. Partly based on the works by the Italian surgeon and anatomist Matteo Realdo Colombo (c. 1516 - 1559) the Anatomist William Harvey (1578–1657) described the circulatory system. Herman Boerhaave (1668–1738) is sometimes referred to as a "father of physiology" due to his exemplary teaching in Leiden and textbook 'Institutiones medicae' (1708).

It was between 1650 and 1800 that the science of modern dentistry developed. It is said that the 17th century French physician Pierre Fauchard (1678–1761) started dentistry science as we know it today, and he has been named "the father of modern dentistry".

Wilhelm Schickard (1592–1635) built one of the first calculating machines in 1623. Pierre Vernier (1580–1637) was inventor and eponym of the vernier scale used in measuring devices. Evangelista Torricelli (1607–1647) was best known for his invention of the barometer. Although Franciscus Vieta(1540,1603) gave the first notation of modern algebra, John Napier (1550–1617) invented logarithms, and Edmund Gunter (1581–1626) created the logarithmic scales (lines, or rules) upon which slide rules are based, it was William Oughtred (1575–1660) who first used two such scales sliding by one another to perform direct multiplication and division; and thus is credited as the inventor of the slide rule in 1622.

Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) made important contributions to the construction of mechanical calculators, the study of fluids, and clarified the concepts of pressure and vacuum by generalizing the work of Evangelista Torricelli. He wrote a significant treatise on the subject of projective geometry at the age of sixteen, and later corresponded with Pierre de Fermat (1601–1665) on probability theory, strongly influencing the development of modern economics and social science. John Hadley (1682–1744) was mathematician inventor of the octant, the precursor to the sextant. Hadley also developed ways to make precision aspheric and parabolic objective mirrors for reflecting telescopes, building the first parabolic Newtonian telescope and a Gregorian telescope with accurately shaped mirrors.

Denis Papin, best known for his pioneering invention of the steam digester, the forerunner of the steam engine.Denis Papin (1647–1712) was best known for his pioneering invention of the steam digester, the forerunner of the steam engine. Abraham Darby I (1678–1717) was the first, and most famous, of three generations with that name in an Abraham Darby family that played an important role in the Industrial Revolution. He developed a method of producing high-grade iron in a blast furnace fuelled by coke rather than charcoal. This was a major step forward in the production of iron as a raw material for the Industrial Revolution. Thomas Newcomen (1664–1729) perfected a practical steam engine for pumping water, the Newcomen steam engine. Consequently, he can be regarded as a forefather of the Industrial Revolution.

In 1672, Otto von Guericke (1602–1686), was the first human to knowingly generate electricity using a machine, and in 1729, Stephen Gray (1666-1736) demonstrated that electricity could be "transmitted" through metal filaments. The first electrical storage device was invented in 1745, the so-called "Leyden jar," and in 1749, Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) demonstrated that lightning was electricity. In 1698 Thomas Savery (c.1650-1715) patented an early steam engine.

German scientist Georg Agricola (1494–1555), known as "the father of mineralogy", published his great work De re metallica. Robert Boyle (1627–1691) was credited with the discovery of Boyle's Law. He is also credited for his landmark publication The Sceptical Chymist, where he attempts to develop an atomic theory of matter. The person celebrated as the "father of modern chemistry" is Antoine Lavoisier (1743–1794) who developed his law of Conservation of mass in 1789, also called Lavoisier's Law. Antoine Lavoisier proved that burning was caused by oxidation, that is, the mixing of a substance with oxygen. He also proved that diamonds were made of carbon and argued that all living processes were at their heart chemical reactions. In 1766, Henry Cavendish (1731-1810) discovered hydrogen. In 1774, Joseph Priestley (1733–1804) discovered oxygen.

Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) invented the binary system, foundation of virtually all modern computer architectures.German physician Leonhart Fuchs (1501–1566) was one of the three founding fathers of botany, along with Otto Brunfels (1489- 1534) and Hieronymus Bock (1498-1554) (also called Hieronymus Tragus).[40] Valerius Cordus (1515–1554) authored one of the greatest pharmacopoeias and one of the most celebrated herbals in history, Dispensatorium (1546).

In his Systema Naturae, published in 1767, Carl von Linné (1707–1778) catalogued all the living creatures into a single system that defined their morphological relations to one another: the Linnean classification system. He is often called the "Father of Taxonomy". Georges Buffon (1707-1788), was perhaps the most important of Charles Darwin’s predecessors. From 1744 to 1788, he wrote his monumental Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière, which included everything known about the natural world up until that date.

Along with the inventor and microscopist Robert Hooke (1635–1703), Sir Christopher Wren (1632–1723) and Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), English scientist and astronomer Edmond Halley (1656-1742) was trying to develop a mechanical explanation for planetary motion. Halley's star catalogue of 1678 was the first to contain telescopically determined locations of southern stars.

Many historians of science have seen other ancient and medieval antecedents of these ideas. It is widely accepted that Copernicus's De revolutionibus followed the outline and method set by Ptolemy in his Almagest and adapted the geocentric model of the Maragheh school in a heliocentric context, and that Galileo's mathematical treatment of acceleration and his concept of impetus grew out of earlier medieval analyses of motion, especially those of Avicenna, Avempace, Jean Buridan, and the Oxford Calculators (see Theory of impetus). The first experimental refutations of Galen's theory of four humours and Aristotle's theory of four classical elements also dates back to Rhazes, while human blood circulation and pulmonary circulation were first described by Ibn al-Nafis several centuries before the scientific revolution.
works of scientists such as Ibn al-Haytham, Benedetti, Galileo Galilei, or Johannes Kepler.

The Nature Of Time

Amongst all universal laws time itself is a fascinating topic. Even time it seems follows preordained rules. Our perception of time is naturally of an event that forever rolls into the future. I can safely say that tomorrow will follow today and that yesterday preceded today. Why should this be? Why shouldn't time operate in this way. Why shouldn't tomorrow be a day that occurs in four months time. Time has it's own inherent logic. It's sequential. Why shouldn't it be non sequential?

What Science is yet to explain

If the sum total of universal energy has always existed how can that be? Are we left to just accept that it's simply the way it's always been? Even Einstein was fallible, he strongly believed that the universe was pretty much static but modern Science is now convinced that we live in an ever expanding universe. What does it expand into? Does it create space as it goes and then occupy it as it goes along? If not is space truly infinite? Well there's plenty there to make the mind boggle.

What is infinity? How can a finite mind like ours comprehend infinity? The least we can do is try. Think of the biggest number you can and then add it to itself, then triple it ad infinitum, there's always a bigger number out there. Maths of course has a symbol for infinity but infinity is the most bizarre of realities. Is the universe infinite? We're clearly finite but some would argue that we have an infinite spirit which is incapable of being extinguished upon death of the flesh. What is an infinite number minus one? A ludicrous question but you get my point.

Traditional assumptions about the nature of the physical universe seem to be being usurped by quantum mechanics which is presenting more and more bizarre theories on the possible true nature of minute particles. Seemingly the bigger universe obeys fundamental well observed laws (thankfully!) but the quantum realm seems more and more like an errant child. For instance quantum theory tells us that it is possible for a single atom to exist in two different places simultaneously. Try to get your head around that possibility.

Black Holes

Sciences greatest minds have been working on black holes for decades. Einsteins theory of general relativity first predicted them. Our Sun has 1000000 times our earths mass, black holes are the result of massive stars exploding (supernovae). Black holes are considered to be the implosions of giant exploding stars that become supernovae and then implode upon themselves due to massive gravitational forces.
Latest studies seem to indicate that not only are their multitudes of mini black holes in space but that large black holes exist at the very core of every galaxy.
Science however currently can't get the maths to work with regard to two events, the singularities of the inner horizon of black holes and the exact moment of the big bang. Einstein's calculations resolve as infinity and quantum theory's calculations end in infinite infinity. So science main holy grail is the unification theory, the unification and resolution of Einsteins general relativity and Quantum theory with regard to the two aforementioned events.
By definition we can never see a black hole but we can observe their effects.

Black holes have always been seen as universal bad guys but seemingly science is discovering that they are potentially a vital and integral part of the universe. If indeed they lie at the core of every single galaxy perhaps they are galactic anchors, the perfect counterbalance which helps glue galaxies to themselves.

Black holes cannot be seen but their giant gravitational effects can be increasingly detected. It's thought that they each have halos (of light) as they suck all matter within the event horizon into the hole. Once this tipping point is reached all matter and energy is irretrievably dragged into the hole, seemingly never to escape.

Dark Matter

Like black holes science is currently unable to verify if this actually exists though it has been long postulated. In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is hypothetical matter that is undetectable by its emitted radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter (much as in the case of black holes). Dark matter and dark energy could account for the vast majority of the mass in the observable universe.

Dark matter was proposed by Fritz Zwicky in 1934, to partially account for evidence of "missing mass" in the universe, including the rotational speeds of galaxies, orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet Cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

Dark matter is believed to play a central role in structure formation and galaxy evolution. All these lines of evidence suggest that galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the universe as a whole contain far more matter than that which interacts with electromagnetic radiation: the remainder is frequently called the "dark matter component," even though there is a small amount of baryonic dark matter. The largest part of dark matter, which does not interact with electromagnetic radiation, is not only "dark" but also, by definition, utterly transparent.

The vast majority of the dark matter in the universe is believed to be nonbaryonic, which means that it contains no atoms and that it does not interact with ordinary matter via electromagnetic forces. The nonbaryonic dark matter includes neutrinos, and possibly hypothetical entities such as axions, or supersymmetric particles. Unlike baryonic dark matter, nonbaryonic dark matter does not contribute to the formation of the elements in the early universe ("big bang nucleosynthesis") and so its presence is revealed only via its gravitational attraction. In addition, if the particles of which it is composed are supersymmetric, they can undergo annihilation interactions with themselves resulting in observable by-products such as photons and neutrinos ("indirect detection").

Nonbaryonic dark matter is classified in terms of the mass of the particle(s) that is assumed to make it up, and/or the typical velocity dispersion of those particles (since more massive particles move more slowly). There are three prominent hypotheses on nonbaryonic dark matter, called Hot Dark Matter (HDM), Warm Dark Matter (WDM), and Cold Dark Matter (CDM); some combination of these is also possible. The most widely discussed models for nonbaryonic dark matter are based on the Cold Dark Matter hypothesis, and the corresponding particle is most commonly assumed to be a neutralino. Hot dark matter might consist of (massive) neutrinos. Cold dark matter would lead to a "bottom-up" formation of structure in the universe while hot dark matter would result in a "top-down" formation scenario.

As important as dark matter is believed to be in the universe, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive. Though the theory of dark matter remains the most widely accepted theory to explain the anomalies in observed galactic rotation, some alternative theories such as modified Newtonian dynamics and tensor-vector-scalar gravity have been proposed. None of these alternatives, however, has garnered equally widespread support in the scientific community.

Observational evidence

The first person to provide evidence and infer the presence of dark matter was Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky, of the California Institute of Technology in 1933. He applied the virial theorem to the Coma cluster of galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky estimated the cluster's total mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge and compared that estimate to one based on the number of galaxies and total brightness of the cluster. He found that there was about 400 times more estimated mass than was visually observable. The gravity of the visible galaxies in the cluster would be far too small for such fast orbits, so something extra was required. This is known as the "missing mass problem". Based on these conclusions, Zwicky inferred that there must be some non-visible form of matter which would provide enough of the mass and gravity to hold the cluster together.

Much of the evidence for dark matter comes from the study of the motions of galaxies. Many of these appear to be fairly uniform, so by the virial theorem the total kinetic energy should be half the total gravitational binding energy of the galaxies. Experimentally, however, the total kinetic energy is found to be much greater: in particular, assuming the gravitational mass is due to only the visible matter of the galaxy, stars far from the center of galaxies have much higher velocities than predicted by the virial theorem. Galactic rotation curves, which illustrate the velocity of rotation versus the distance from the galactic center, cannot be explained by only the visible matter. Assuming that the visible material makes up only a small part of the cluster is the most straightforward way of accounting for this. Galaxies show signs of being composed largely of a roughly spherically symmetric, centrally concentrated halo of dark matter with the visible matter concentrated in a disc at the center. Low surface brightness dwarf galaxies are important sources of information for studying dark matter, as they have an uncommonly low ratio of visible matter to dark matter, and have few bright stars at the center which would otherwise impair observations of the rotation curve of outlying stars.

Gravitational lensing observations of galaxy clusters allow direct estimates of the gravitational mass based on its effect on light from background galaxies. In clusters such as Abell 1689, lensing observations confirm the presence of considerably more mass than is indicated by the clusters' light alone. In the Bullet Cluster, lensing observations show that much of the lensing mass is separated from the X-ray-emitting baryonic mass.

There are places where dark matter seems to be a small component or totally absent. Globular clusters show no evidence that they contain dark matter, though their orbital interactions with galaxies do show evidence for galactic dark matter. For some time, measurements of the velocity profile of stars seemed to indicate concentration of dark matter in the disk of the Milky Way galaxy, however, now it seems that the high concentration of baryonic matter in the disk of the galaxy (especially in the interstellar medium) can account for this motion. Galaxy mass profiles are thought to look very different from the light profiles. The typical model for dark matter galaxies is a smooth, spherical distribution in virialized halos. Such would have to be the case to avoid small-scale (stellar) dynamical effects. Recent research reported in January 2006 from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst would explain the previously mysterious warp in the disk of the Milky Way by the interaction of the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds and the predicted 20 fold increase in mass of the Milky Way taking into account dark matter.

In 2005, astronomers from Cardiff University claimed to discover a galaxy made almost entirely of dark matter, 50 million light years away in the Virgo Cluster, which was named VIRGOHI21. Unusually, VIRGOHI21 does not appear to contain any visible stars: it was seen with radio frequency observations of hydrogen. Based on rotation profiles, the scientists estimate that this object contains approximately 1000 times more dark matter than hydrogen and has a total mass of about 1/10th that of the Milky Way Galaxy we live in. For comparison, the Milky Way is believed to have roughly 10 times as much dark matter as ordinary matter. Models of the Big Bang and structure formation have suggested that such dark galaxies should be very common in the universe, but none had previously been detected. If the existence of this dark galaxy is confirmed, it provides strong evidence for the theory of galaxy formation and poses problems for alternative explanations of dark matter.

Recently too there is evidence that there are 10 to 100 times fewer small galaxies than permitted by what the dark matter theory of galaxy formation predicts. There are also a small number of galaxies, like NGC 3379 whose measured orbital velocity of its gas clouds, show that it contains almost no dark matter at all.

Strong gravitational lensing as observed by the Hubble Space Telescope in Abell 1689 indicates the presence of dark matter—enlarge the image to see the lensing arcs.A gravitational lens is formed when the light from a very distant, bright source (such as a quasar) is "bent" around a massive object (such as a cluster of galaxies) between the source object and the observer. The process is known as gravitational lensing.

Dark matter affects galaxy clusters as well. X-ray measurements of hot intracluster gas correspond closely to Zwicky's observations of mass-to-light ratios for large clusters of nearly 10 to 1. Many of the experiments of the Chandra X-ray Observatory use this technique to independently determine the mass of clusters.

The galaxy cluster Abell 2029 is composed of thousands of galaxies enveloped in a cloud of hot gas, and an amount of dark matter equivalent to more than 1014 Suns. At the center of this cluster is an enormous, elliptically shaped galaxy that is thought to have been formed from the mergers of many smaller galaxies. The measured orbital velocities of galaxies within galactic clusters have been found to be consistent with dark matter observations.

Another important tool for future dark matter observations is gravitational lensing. Lensing relies on the effects of general relativity to predict masses without relying on dynamics, and so is a completely independent means of measuring the dark matter. Strong lensing, the observed distortion of background galaxies into arcs when the light passes through a gravitational lens, has been observed around a few distant clusters including Abell 1689. By measuring the distortion geometry, the mass of the cluster causing the phenomena can be obtained. In the dozens of cases where this has been done, the mass-to-light ratios obtained correspond to the dynamical dark matter measurements of clusters.

A technique has been developed over the last 10 years called weak gravitational lensing, which looks at minute distortions of galaxies observed in vast galaxy surveys due to foreground objects through statistical analyses. By examining the apparent shear deformation of the adjacent background galaxies, astrophysicists can characterize the mean distribution of dark matter by statistical means and have found mass-to-light ratios that correspond to dark matter densities predicted by other large-scale structure measurements. The correspondence of the two gravitational lens techniques to other dark matter measurements has convinced almost all astrophysicists that dark matter actually exists as a major component of the universe's composition.

The most direct observational evidence to date for dark matter is in a system known as the Bullet Cluster. In most regions of the universe, dark matter and visible material are found together, as expected because of their mutual gravitational attraction. In the Bullet Cluster, a collision between two galaxy clusters appears to have caused a separation of dark matter and baryonic matter. X-ray observations show that much of the baryonic matter (in the form of 107– 108 Kelvin gas, or plasma) in the system is concentrated in the center of the system. Electromagnetic interactions between passing gas particles caused them to slow down and settle near the point of impact. However, weak gravitational lensing observations of the same system show that much of the mass resides outside of the central region of baryonic gas. Because dark matter does not interact by electromagnetic forces, it would not have been slowed in the same way as the X-ray visible gas, so the dark matter components of the two clusters passed through each other without slowing down substantially. This accounts for the separation. Unlike the galactic rotation curves, this evidence for dark matter is independent of the details of Newtonian gravity, so it is held as direct evidence of the existence of dark matter

Cosmic microwave background

The discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation in 1964 secured the Big Bang as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos. Since then, many further measurements of the CMB have also supported and constrained this theory, perhaps the most famous being the NASA Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE). COBE found a residual temperature of 2.726 K and in 1992 detected for the first time the fluctuations (anisotropies) in the CMB, at a level of about one part in 105. During the following decade, CMB anisotropies were further investigated by a large number of ground-based and balloon experiments. The primary goal of these experiments was to measure the angular scale of the first acoustic peak of the power spectrum of the anisotropies, for which COBE did not have sufficient resolution. In 2000–2001, several experiments, most notably BOOMERanG found the Universe to be almost spatially flat by measuring the typical angular size (the size on the sky) of the anisotropies. During the 1990s, the first peak was measured with increasing sensitivity and by 2000 the BOOMERanG experiment reported that the highest power fluctuations occur at scales of approximately one degree. These measurements were able to rule out cosmic strings as the leading theory of cosmic structure formation, and suggested cosmic inflation was the right theory.

A number of ground-based interferometers provided measurements of the fluctuations with higher accuracy over the next three years, including the Very Small Array, Degree Angular Scale Interferometer (DASI) and the Cosmic Background Imager (CBI). DASI made the first detection of the polarization of the CMB and the CBI provided the first E-mode polarization spectrum with compelling evidence that it is out of phase with the T-mode spectrum. COBE's successor, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has provided the most detailed measurements of (large-scale)anisotropies in the CMB as of 2009. WMAP's measurements played the key role in establishing the current Standard Model of Cosmology, namely the Lambda-CDM model, a flat universe dominated by dark energy, supplemented by dark matter and atoms with density fluctuations seeded by a Gaussian, adiabatic, nearly scale invariant process. The basic properties of this universe are determined by five numbers: the density of matter, the density of atoms, the age of the universe (or equivalently, the Hubble constant today), the amplitude of the initial fluctuations, and their scale dependence. This model also requires a period of cosmic inflation. The WMAP data in fact ruled out several more complex cosmic inflation models, though supporting the one in Lambda-CDM amongst others.

In summary, a successful Big Bang cosmology theory must fit with all available astronomical observations (known as the concordance model), in particular the CMB. In cosmology the CMB is explained as relic radiation from the big bang, originally at thousands of degrees kelvin but red shifted down to microwave by the expansion of the universe over the last thirteen billion years. The anisotropies in the CMB are explained as acoustic oscillations in the photon-baryon plasma (prior to the emission of the CMB after the photons decouple from the baryons at 379,000 years after the Big Bang) whose restoring force is gravity. Ordinary (baryonic) matter interacts strongly with radiation whereas, by definition, dark matter does not - though both affect the oscillations by their gravity - so the two forms of matter will have different effects. The power spectrum of the CMB anisotropies shows a large main peak and smaller successive peaks, resolved down to the third peak as of 2009.e.g.. The main peak tells you most about the density of baryonic matter and the third peak most about the density of dark matter.

The acoustic oscillations in the early universe leave their imprint in the visible matter by Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) clustering, in a way that can be measured with sky surveys such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey. These measurements are consistent with those of the CMB derived from the WMAP spacecraft and further constrain the Lambda CDM model and dark matter.

Type Ia supernovae distance measurements

Type Ia supernovae can be used as "standard candles" to measure extragalactic distances, and extensive data sets of these supernovae can be used to constrain cosmological models. They constrain the dark energy density ΩΛ= ~0.713 for a flat, Lambda CDM Universe and the parameter w for a quintessence model. Once again, the values obtained are roughly consistent with those derived from the WMAP observations and further constrain the Lambda CDM model and (indirectly) dark matter.

Structure formation

3D map of the large-scale distribution of dark matter, reconstructed from measurements of weak gravitational lensing with the Hubble Space Telescope.Main article: structure formation
Dark matter is crucial to the Big Bang model of cosmology as a component which corresponds directly to measurements of the parameters associated with Friedmann cosmology solutions to general relativity. In particular, measurements of the cosmic microwave background anisotropies correspond to a cosmology where much of the matter interacts with photons more weakly than the known forces that couple light interactions to baryonic matter. Likewise, a significant amount of non-baryonic, cold matter is necessary to explain the large-scale structure of the universe.

Observations suggest that structure formation in the universe proceeds hierarchically, with the smallest structures collapsing first and followed by galaxies and then clusters of galaxies. As the structures collapse in the evolving universe, they begin to "light up" as the baryonic matter heats up through gravitational contraction and the object approaches hydrostatic pressure balance. Ordinary baryonic matter had too high a temperature, and too much pressure left over from the Big Bang to collapse and form smaller structures, such as stars, via the Jeans instability. Dark matter acts as a compactor of structure. This model not only corresponds with statistical surveying of the visible structure in the universe but also corresponds precisely to the dark matter predictions of the cosmic microwave background.

This bottom up model of structure formation requires something like cold dark matter to succeed. Large computer simulations of billions of dark matter particles have been used to confirm that the cold dark matter model of structure formation is consistent with the structures observed in the universe through galaxy surveys, such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey, as well as observations of the Lyman-alpha forest. These studies have been crucial in constructing the Lambda-CDM model which measures the cosmological parameters, including the fraction of the universe made up of baryons and dark matter.

Composition

Unsolved problems in physics: What is dark matter? How is it generated? Is it related to supersymmetry?Although dark matter was inferred by gravitational lensing in August 2006, many aspects of dark matter remain speculative. The DAMA/NaI experiment and its successor DAMA/LIBRA have claimed to directly detect dark matter passing through the Earth, though most scientists remain skeptical since negative results of other experiments are (almost) incompatible with the DAMA results if dark matter consists of neutralinos.

Estimated distribution of dark matter and dark energy in the universeThe dark matter component would have much more mass than the "visible" component of the universe. Only about 4.6% of the mass of Universe is ordinary matter. About 23% is thought to be composed of dark matter. The remaining 72% is thought to consist of dark energy, an even stranger component, distributed diffusely in space. Some hard-to-detect baryonic matter is believed to make a contribution to dark matter but would constitute only a small portion.

Determining the nature of this missing mass is one of the most important problems in modern cosmology and particle physics. It has been noted that the names "dark matter" and "dark energy" serve mainly as expressions of human ignorance, much like the marking of early maps with "terra incognita."

At present, the most common view is that dark matter is primarily non-baryonic, made of one or more elementary particles other than the usual electrons, protons, neutrons, and known neutrinos. The most commonly proposed particles are axions, sterile neutrinos, and WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, including neutralinos).

None of these are part of the standard model of particle physics, but they can arise in extensions to the standard model. Many supersymmetric models naturally give rise to stable dark matter candidates in the form of the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP). Heavy, sterile neutrinos exist in extensions to the standard model that explain the small neutrino mass through the seesaw mechanism.

Data from a number of lines of evidence, including galaxy rotation curves, gravitational lensing, structure formation, and the fraction of baryons in clusters and the cluster abundance combined with independent evidence for the baryon density, indicate that 85-90% of the mass in the universe does not interact with the electromagnetic force. This "nonbaryonic dark matter" is evident through its gravitational effect.

Historically, three categories of nonbaryonic dark matter have been postulated:

Hot dark matter – nonbaryonic particles that move ultrarelativistically
Warm dark matter – nonbaryonic particles that move relativistically
Cold dark matter – nonbaryonic particles that move non-relativistically

Davis et al. wrote in 1985:

Candidate particles can be grouped into three categories on the basis of their effect on the fluctuation spectrum (Bond et al. 1983). If the dark matter is composed of abundant light particles which remain relativistic until shortly before recombination, then it may be termed "hot". The best candidate for hot dark matter is a neutrino ... A second possibility is for the dark matter particles to interact more weakly than neutrinos, to be less abundant, and to have a mass of order 1eV. Such particles are termed "warm dark matter", because they have lower thermal velocities than massive neutrinos ... there are at present few candidate particles which fit this description. Gravitinos and photinos have been suggested (Pagels and Primack 1982; Bond, Szalay and Turner 1982) ... Any particles which became nonrelativistic very early, and so were able to diffuse a negligible distance, are termed "cold" dark matter (CDM). There are many candidates for CDM including supersymmetric particles.

Hot dark matter consists of particles that travel with relativistic velocities. One kind of hot dark matter is known, the neutrino. Neutrinos have a very small mass, do not interact via either the electromagnetic or the strong nuclear force and are therefore very difficult to detect. This is what makes them appealing as dark matter. However, bounds on neutrinos indicate that ordinary neutrinos make only a small contribution to the density of dark matter.

Hot dark matter cannot explain how individual galaxies formed from the Big Bang. The microwave background radiation as measured by the COBE and WMAP satellites, while incredibly smooth, indicates that matter has clumped on very small scales. Fast moving particles, however, cannot clump together on such small scales and, in fact, suppress the clumping of other matter. Hot dark matter, while it certainly exists in our universe in the form of neutrinos, is therefore only part of the story.

The Concordance Model requires that, to explain structure in the universe, it is necessary to invoke cold (non-relativistic) dark matter. Large masses, like galaxy-sized black holes can be ruled out on the basis of gravitational lensing data. However, tiny black holes are a possibility. Other possibilities involving normal baryonic matter include brown dwarfs or perhaps small, dense chunks of heavy elements; such objects are known as massive compact halo objects, or "MACHOs". However, studies of big bang nucleosynthesis have convinced most scientists that baryonic matter such as MACHOs cannot be more than a small fraction of the total dark matter.

Detection

If the dark matter within our galaxy is made up of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs), then a large number must pass through the Earth each second. There are many experiments currently running, or planned, aiming to test this hypothesis by searching for WIMPs. Although WIMPs are a more popular dark matter candidate, there are also experiments searching for other particle candidates such as axions. It is also possible that dark matter consists of very heavy hidden sector particles which only interact with ordinary matter via gravity.

These experiments can be divided into two classes: direct detection experiments, which search for the scattering of dark matter particles off atomic nuclei within a detector; and indirect detection, which look for the products of WIMP annihilations.

An alternative approach to the detection of WIMPs in nature is to produce them in the laboratory. Experiments with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) may be able to detect WIMPs; because a WIMP has negligible interactions with matter, it may be detected indirectly as (large amounts of) missing energy and momentum which escape the LHC detectors, provided all the other (non-negligible) collision products are detected. These experiments could show that WIMPs can be created, but it would still require a direct detection experiment to show that they exist in sufficient numbers in the galaxy, to account for dark matter.

Direct detection experiments

Direct detection experiments operate in deep underground laboratories to reduce the background from cosmic rays. These include: the Soudan mine; the SNOLAB underground laboratory at Sudbury, Ontario (Canada); the Gran Sasso National Laboratory (Italy); the Boulby Underground Laboratory (UK); and the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory, South Dakota.

The majority of present experiments use one of two detector technologies: cryogenic detectors, operating at temperatures below 100mK, detect the heat produced when a particle hits an atom in a crystal absorber such as germanium. Noble liquid detectors detect the flash of scintillation light produced by a particle collision in liquid xenon or argon. Cryogenic detector experiments include: the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS), CRESST, EDELWEISS, and EURECA. Noble liquid experiments include ZEPLIN, XENON, ArDM and LUX. Both of these detectors are capable of distinguishing background particles which scatter off electrons, from dark matter particles which scatter off nuclei.

The DAMA/NaI, DAMA/LIBRA experiments have detected an annual modulation in the event rate, which they claim is due to dark matter particles. (As the Earth orbits the Sun, the velocity of the detector relative to the dark matter halo will vary by a small amount depending on the time of year). This claim is so far unconfirmed and difficult to reconcile with the negative results of other experiments assuming that the WIMP scenario is correct.

Other direct dark matter experiments include DRIFT, MIMAC, PICASSO, and the DMTPC.

On 17 December 2009 CDMS researchers reported two possible WIMP candidate events. They estimate that the probability that these events are due to a known background (neutrons or misidentified beta or gamma events) is 23%, and conclude "this analysis cannot be interpreted as significant evidence for WIMP interactions, but we cannot reject either event as signal."

Indirect detection experiments

Indirect detection experiments search for the products of WIMP annihilation. If WIMPs are majorana particles (the particle and antiparticle are the same) then two WIMPs colliding would annihilate to produce gamma rays, and particle-antiparticle pairs. This could produce a significant number of gamma rays, antiprotons or positrons in the galactic halo. The detection of such a signal is not conclusive evidence for dark matter, as the backgrounds from other sources are not fully understood.

The EGRET gamma ray telescope observed an excess of gamma rays, but concluded that this was most likely a systematic effect. The Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, launched June 11, 2008, is searching for gamma rays events from dark matter annihilation.

The PAMELA payload (launched 2006) has detected an excess of positrons, which could be produced by dark matter annihilation, but may also come from pulsars. No excess of anti-protons has been observed.

WIMPs passing through the Sun or Earth are likely to scatter off atoms and lose energy. This way a large population of WIMPs may accumulate at the center of these bodies, increasing the chance that two will collide and annihilate. This could produce a distinctive signal in the form of high energy neutrinos originating from the center of the Sun or Earth. It is generally considered that the detection of such a signal would be the strongest indirect proof of WIMP dark matter. High energy neutrino telescopes such as AMANDA, IceCube and ANTARES are searching for this.

Alternative explanations

Dark matter and dark energy represent the most popular theory among physicists and cosmologists to explain the various anomalies that Zwicky and subsequent researchers have observed. However, direct observational evidence of dark matter has remained elusive. A minority of scientists have suggested that the existence of a vast amount of undetected matter is less likely than the possibility that current theories of gravitation are simply incomplete (much like the now discredited theory of ether, once thought to be the medium through which light travels, but overturned in the early 20th century, or the chemical substance phlogiston). Here is a list of some of the alternative theories to dark matter and dark energy which have been proposed.

Modifications of gravity

A proposed alternative to physical dark matter particles has been to suppose that the observed inconsistencies are due to an incomplete understanding of gravitation. To explain the observations, the gravitational force has to become stronger than the Newtonian approximation at great distances or in weak fields. One of the proposed models is Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), which adjusts Newton's laws at small acceleration. However, constructing a relativistic MOND theory has been troublesome, and it is not clear how the theory can be reconciled with gravitational lensing measurements of the deflection of light around galaxies. The leading relativistic MOND theory, proposed by Jacob Bekenstein in 2004 is called TeVeS for Tensor-Vector-Scalar and solves many of the problems of earlier attempts. However, a study in August 2006 reported an observation of a pair of colliding galaxy clusters whose behavior, it was claimed, was not compatible with any current modified gravity theories.[16] In 2007, John W. Moffat proposed a theory of modified gravity (MOG) based on the Nonsymmetric Gravitational Theory (NGT) that claims to account for the behavior of colliding galaxies. This theory still requires the presence of non-relativistic neutrinos (another candidate for (cold) dark matter) to work: modified gravity alone is not sufficient.

Another class of theories attempts to reconcile gravitation with quantum mechanics and obtain corrections to the conventional gravitational interaction. In scalar-tensor theories, scalar fields like the Higgs field couple to the curvature given through the Riemann tensor or its traces. In many such theories, the scalar field equals the inflaton field, which is needed to explain the inflation of the universe after the Big Bang, as the dominating factor of the quintessence or Dark Energy. Using an approach based on the exact renormalization group, M. Reuter and H. Weyer have shown that Newton's constant and the cosmological constant can be scalar functions on spacetime if one associates renormalization scales to the points of spacetime. Some M-Theory cosmologists also propose that multi-dimensional forces from outside the visible universe have gravitational effects on the visible universe meaning that dark matter is not necessary for a unified theory of cosmology.

Neutrinos

In 2009 Theo M. Nieuwenhuizen analyzed the lensing data of the galaxy cluster Abell 1689, assuming that its dark matter is described by an isothermal profile of quantum particles. Bosons do not fit the data. Fermions should have mass of a few eV, quite light, so it would explain why the many dark matter searches have failed. This approach explains the temperature, the radial profile and the reionization of the cluster gas. The best case is provided by neutrinos of about 1.5 eV. Active (left-handed) ones alone account for some 9.5% dark matter, so sterile (right-handed) ones with similar mass are needed to achieve about 19%. This would lead back to the hot dark matter scenario, which requires a new explanation of structure formation.

Dark fluid

The dark fluid theory proposes that the attractive gravitational effects attributed to dark matter are in fact a side-effect of dark energy.

No such thing as nothingness?

Latest research by leading particle physicists suggests that there is no such thing as nothingness. It's suggested that even space isn't a vacuum as such. Afterall gravity permeates the entire universe but the Higgs boson is a massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model in particle physics. At present there are no known fundamental scalar particles in nature.

The Higgs boson is the only Standard Model particle that has not been observed. Experimental detection of the Higgs boson would help explain the origin of mass in the universe. The Higgs boson would explain the difference between the massless photon, which mediates electromagnetism and the massive W and Z bosons, which mediate the weak force. If the Higgs boson exists, it is an integral and pervasive component of the material world.

The Higgs boson particle is one quantum component of the theoretical Higgs field. In empty space, the Higgs field has an amplitude different from zero; i.e., a non-zero vacuum expectation value.

The existence of this non-zero vacuum expectation plays a fundamental role: it gives mass to every elementary particle which has mass, including the Higgs boson itself. In particular, the acquisition of a non-zero vacuum expectation value spontaneously breaks electroweak gauge symmetry, which scientists often refer to as the Higgs mechanism.

This is the simplest mechanism capable of giving mass to the gauge bosons while remaining compatible with gauge theories. In essence, this field is analogous to a pool of molasses that "sticks" to the otherwise massless fundamental particles which travel through the field, converting them into particles with mass which form, for example, the components of atoms.

On a human level it's impossible to perceive nothingness. We clearly have consciousness as all animated matter does in my opinion. All animals have consciousness, even the most basic of lifeforms must have some level of consciousness. If our consciousness survives death of the flesh clearly our consciousness continues to perceive. If our essential selves is extinguished upon death there is still no nothingness as we surely must have an awareness to perceive nothingness?

So much more to know

Seemingly there's much more to know in every branch of science and we are far from being able to completely explain all ~ quite possibly we will never be able to. Of course we should continue to strive to learn more and more. Dawkins is clearly irritated by the human tendancy to fill gaps in our knowledge with "God" and I share his frustration. Human beings have evolved brains for a reason, to sue them!

The recent quantum leap in human knowledge is astounding. The murder and mayhem of the last four centuries has been immense, perhaps the only consolation is that at least we have learned much and dismissed so much other formerly accepted notions and non sense. Of course their remains so much more to learn.

Mankind's powers of discovery are immense. Our powers of invention are relatively impressive. Top chemists are busy trying to recreate the conditions whereby the first DNA structures appeared on Earth ~ an astounding occurrence without doubt. Top astro physicists are trying to simulate the very very early universe. One thing I am sure of though is that mankind may soon be able to simulate the immediate effects of the big bang or of the creation of the first complex cell structures but take away the original ingredients and I'm pretty sure we will never be able to create the required building blocks required to recreate these essential events in the first place.

Put simply, if we attempt to bake the perfect pie we can in time. We would need the perfect oven, the perfect chef and the perfect ingredients. But imagine that these elements do not exist, evolution would provide these in time but even evolution could not do so if there was nothing to go on in the first place.

Progress

There is no doubt that mankind has come on in "leaps and bounds" since for example the dark ages. A succession of Scientists have been instrumental in our progress. Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein and Darwin have undoubtedly advanced our understanding of the Sciences and that has to be applauded. Their findings have created the modern day schism between ancient religious dogma (largely inaccurate in my opinion) and the new faith of science. Is it possible that ultimately even science will hold it's hands up and say, "yes we can explain the mechanics of everything, from evolution to genetics to the behaviour of every celestial body etc etc but we are still no closer to explaining why or how it all happened in the first place."

A little about me

I'm Andy Kelly, I'm aged 44 and I was born in the U.K., where I live. I was raised a Catholic (but that's my problem). My cultural and original background is very much Irish. I can hardly claim to be an academic. I was a tearaway at school. I considered it smarter in my latter years at secondary school to play truant rather than to attend classes. I estimate that I missed at least 60% of my final two years at main school.

I managed to scrape some O levels somehow but I certainly wasn't a fan of mainstream education. I realised my foolishness ~ in hindsight of course. In my late teens I was painfully aware of my educational shortcomings so I attended nightschool and studied A levels in applied mathematics and economics. From there I then studied Accountancy and Economics at HND Level, when I passed I then commenced studying for my CIMA (Chartered Institute of Management Accountants) level 2 at Manchester University.

I didn't complete my level 2 course due in the main to the fact that although I always loved numbers I dreaded the prospect of officially becoming a chartered accountant. I was much more interested in becoming a rock star so I left to play music in London. Additionally I also had an ever growing monkey on my shoulders ~ an ever growing alcohol problem but more of that later. As a footnote I made a living out of music for many years ok but I never did become the second Jimi Hendrix.

Academically I guess I made up a little for my earlier foolishness but to me a true academic is one who has at least reached doctorate level in his/her chosen field. I do not fear academics specialist knowledge, rather I see it as an opportunity to learn from them. Whilst I do greatly respect their "having played the game" and stuck it out and through hard work and single mindedness achieved such academic honours I do not consider such academics beyond reproach or human fallibility. Let me also add that some of the smartest people I have ever met had little formal education whatsoever. My late father Jack Kelly is a prime example. One of my fathers' wisest sayings was "No one is as clever as they think they are.", a salutory lesson for all of us.

Previous to the onset of my teens I had been a model student. I have always loved knowledge even if I didn't really value my education. I always kicked back against the spoond fed style of education especially concerning mathematics. I couldn't palette being given various formulas ad hoc as I was always much more interested in why a formula worked rather than taking it as given that it did work.

I'm a massive fan of speed chess and on a daily basis play one minute (per player) chess online. Games of more than two minutes per player do not interest me. Speed for me truly is the essence. I like to think that I can give the best of speed chess players a good game. I have often beat players of master and even grandmaster level ~ my problem is consistency ~ as often as I play very well I am as equally inclined to play very poorly.

I was inspired to start this blog as I recently read and re-read Richard Dawkins extremely well written book "The God delusion." I agree with much of what Professor Dawkins has to say, though ultimately I cannot agree with everything he writes as Dawkins seems overly rooted to his atheistic stance and could be seen to be lacking a fully open mind about the "God" issue. Professor Dawkins could reasonably retort that believers in a God could be guilty of the same crime. Dawkins is adept at dismissing many of the weaker pro God arguments. I applaud his iconoclasm and his obvious depth of knowledge but I'm far from accepting every word he writes.

In the God delusion Dawkins interestingly discusses a scale of belief and disbelief. The scale is as follows.

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G.Jung, "I do not believe, I know."

2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards Theism. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. "I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical."

6. Very low probability,but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable,and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7.Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction that Jung "knows" there is one."

Dawkins interestingly claims to be in category 6 but leaning towards 7, this is very interesting to me as it seems Mr.Dawkins isn't as closed minded as I had feared . I class myself in category 3 but leaning towards category 2.

Professor Dawkins goes on later in his book to state that something less complex cannot make something more complex. An examples he gives is as follows, a horse shoe cannot make a horse etc. Ignoring the obvious critiscism that an inaminate object cannot create anything at all lets consider a couple of obvious flaws to this argument.

Humans have created super computers capable of over a 1000 trillion calculations per second. As of July 2009, the IBM Roadrunner, located at Los Alamos National Laboratory, is the fastest supercomputer in the world. The US$133-million Roadrunner is designed for a peak performance of 1.7 petaflops, achieving 1.026 on May 25, 2008.

In computing, FLOPS (or flops or flop/s) is an acronym meaning FLoating point Operations Per Second. The FLOPS is a measure of a computer's performance, especially in fields of scientific calculations that make heavy use of floating point calculations, similar to the older, simpler, instructions per second. The IBM Roadrunner is the first supercomputer to sustain one petaFLOPS. A petaflop is a measure of a computer's processing speed and can be expressed as a thousand trillion floating point operations per second.

You could argue that well ok so we humans ( a less capable creature) has created super computers but try and get a computer to think for itself or have consciousness, all I can say is stay tuned. We can't even imagine how complex the best computers will be fifty years from now. Clearly all the same we are far from capable of 100000s of operations per second never mind thousands of trillions.

The evolutionary process itself is of increasing complexity, ie a single cell in time begets a double celled being ad infinitum. As Dawkins knows far better than me evolution is all about increasing complexity from less advanced proto types. This is clearly how the primordial single cell creatures eventually resulted in the rich variety of complex animals abundant on the Earth this very day. Although some people in this world make single cell creatures look complex.

Before you start to wonder, I'm not a closed minded religious bigot. Let me assure you I do have - I believe - an open mind. I haven't got a dogmatic religious axe to grind. I have days when I'm almost completely baffled by the lack of any seeming "Rhyme or reason" to life. Life is hard and blatant injustices on a personal and global level could make the most devout of people lose any faith they have. However on a fundamental level I remain pretty much convinced that life for all it's problems and injustices is much more meaningful than meaningless. I should extend this to say that I believe the universe is also in my opinion much more meaningful rather than meaningless.

You will hopefully detect already a pattern emerging, I love thought and I reject dogma in the main and it's safe to say I don't belong to the "Flat earth society". I totally refute all armageddonists, those of an extreme and highly dangerous so called "Faith" who are brutally and misguidedly dedicated to the ultimatel self fulling prophecy ~ the cataclysmic end of the world. Why do they believe this? Because it's written in the bible ! Hasn't it crossed their minds that not every word in the bible is the word of God? Hasn't it occured to them that the bible (both old testamenet and new) has been revised throughout the ages to suit the bias of the day, be it for political reasons or religious reasons or for political reasons masquerading as being religious reasons.

I have no desire to believe any old nonsense for any quasi comfort it may bring ~ or might not bring. I'm pursuing the truth even if that truth totally contradicts my preconceptions. I want to learn, progress and develop a meaningful but also well founded approach to the most important questions we humans face. And to accept the ever elusive truth whether I like that truth or not. As the late great John Lennon sang so passionately in one his songs "All I want is the truth. Just gimme some truth ."

What's my stance? I hate to categorise myself but If I have to I'd say this much. I believe I'm a Christian to a large degree but I'm very much a fan of science also. Let me clarify what I mean by me being "Christian to a large degree". I'm a Catholic by birth but I rarely attend church. I am not a member of any denomination of Christianity. When I say I'm Christian all I'm saying is I believe in the teachings of Christ, and as such an atheist could claim to be a follower of Christ, as an athiest can easily try to follow Christ's teachings without subscribing to the whole Christian package. I am sceptic about much of the Christian story ~ much of which I detail below.

I believe a God created the universe. I don't believe that the mammoth fireball from which the universe sprang was a random self-perpetuating self-generating freak event. A freak event that somehow coalesced into galaxies, planetary systems, stars and worlds like our own. All glued together by a mysterious and miraculous force called gravity and all pretty much in harmonic orbit. Surely this notion is more bizarre than believing it all had an architect? A universe created out of nothing with pre determined scientific laws suggests to me that a power and an intelligence way beyond human comprehension was / and perhaps still is at play.

The first law of thermodynamics tells us that "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms." Interestingly what are we if not energy? A lifeforce, a spirit, a soul call it what you will. What happens to our energy upon death? Are we mere machines, granted incredibly complex machines. Are we the sum total of our flesh? Or is there a lifeforce that animates us? If so this energy can not be destroyed, as the law mentioned sates it can only change forms. Put simply having found myself to exist in this world is it unreasonable to consider that I may find myself to exist in some other life or some other place and in some other life.

The Big Bang ~ and now for a bit of science!

As used by cosmologists, the term big bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago), and continues to expand to this day. The big bang is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. It is the widely accepted cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe we inhabit.

Underlying assumptions

The big bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws, and the Cosmological Principle. The cosmological principle states that on large scales the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

These ideas were initially taken as postulates, but today there are efforts to test each of them. For example, the first assumption has been tested by observations showing that largest possible deviation of the fine structure constant over much of the age of the Universe is of order 10−5. Also, General Relativity has passed stringent tests on the scale of the solar system and binary stars while extrapolation to cosmological scales has been validated by the empirical successes of various aspects of the big bang theory.

If the large-scale Universe appears isotropic as viewed from Earth, the cosmological principle can be derived from the simpler Copernican Principle, which states that there is no preferred (or special) observer or vantage point. To this end, the cosmological principle has been confirmed to a level of 10−5 via observations of the CMB. The Universe has been measured to be homogeneous on the largest scales at the 10% level.

Observational evidence

The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, the abundance of light elements (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis), and today also the large scale distribution and apparent evolution of galaxies which are predicted to occur due to gravitational growth of structure in the standard theory. These are sometimes called "the four pillars of the Big Bang theory".

Hubble's law and the expansion of space

Observations of distant galaxies and quasars show that these objects are redshifted—the light emitted from them has been shifted to longer wavelengths. This can be seen by taking a frequency spectrum of an object and matching the spectroscopic pattern of emission lines or absorption lines corresponding to atoms of the chemical elements interacting with the light. These redshifts are uniformly isotropic, distributed evenly among the observed objects in all directions. If the redshift is interpreted as a Doppler shift, the recessional velocity of the object can be calculated. For some galaxies, it is possible to estimate distances via the cosmic distance ladder. When the recessional velocities are plotted against these distances, a linear relationship known as Hubble's law is observed.

Hubble's law describes the observation in physical cosmology that the velocity at which various galaxies are receding from the Earth is proportional to their distance from us. The law was first formulated by Edwin Hubble in 1929 after nearly a decade of observations. The recession velocity of the objects was inferred from their redshifts, many measured much earlier by Vesto Slipher (1917) and related to velocity by him. It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.

The law is often expressed by the equation v = H0D, with H0 the constant of proportionality (the Hubble constant) between the distance D to a galaxy and its velocity v. The SI unit of H0 is s-1 but it is most frequently quoted in (km/s)/Mpc, thus giving the speed in km/s of a galaxy one Megaparsec away. The reciprocal of H0 is the Hubble time.

What precipitated the big bang? For all we know the big bang was the result of the implosion of a prior universe? Was it a freak event? Was it the work of a creator? Buddhists would argue that all energy has always existed. They would argue that we inhabit samsara and that the whole purpose of life is to learn and in time escape from samsara. Personally I take the creator option, however I reserve the right to be wrong and I'm open to changing my mind, but this is how I think and feel. After all anything is possible.

My desire to read Dawkin's "The God delusion" was primarily to open my mind to alternative views, to absorb a hardcore atheists belief system. That may sound like an oxymoron but surely an atheist has beliefs? Surely a refusal to believe in something is a belief in itself? What credence do my beliefs have if I refuse to consider other ideas. I approached Dawkin's book with some trepidation I must admit. I was actually given it by a friend of mine. As I have never really considered myself atheist a part of me was reluctant to begin to read it. When I overcame this irrational fear I decided to read it as thoroughly as I could.

I love Science - even though it has much to answer for as has Religion. I have no desire to believe that the moon is made of cheese unless it can be unequivoacably proven. I like Darwin, I like Newton. Einstein was in my opinion the greatest human mind ever and Hawkins and Dawkins are incredibly well educated modern day leaders in their respective fields.

However I do find Richard Dawkins myopic in some respects. His theory of the "Selfish Gene" as the only factor in the evolutionary process is extremely limiting. I do not doubt that when push comes to shove self survival instincts are endemic across the animal and plant kingdoms. However Humans are not only capable of mere self preservation, we are also perhaps equally endowed with propensities for self sacrifice and kindness, even kindness that is detrimental to our own well being. What credence does Professor Dawkins place on the altruistic gene?

Dawkins is clearly a highly intelligent and extremely well educated man and he writes with passion, clarity and I agree with much he has to say. In his book he denounces the tyrannical role played by various religions from ancient times to the modern day. Dawkin's firm anti-religious stance is justifiable generally speaking as so many supposed men of the cloth have done their upmost to "Give God a bad name."

However surely we all need balance in our arguments and Dawkins in my opinion fails to see any positive role played by any of the aforesaid religions. Of course there have been many rotten apples involved in religion and sadly there continues to be to this day but to not acknowledge the various good deeds done throughout the ages is extremely myopic to me. Which way the scales of justice drop is anoyones guess, endless wars have been fought in the name of the worlds greatest ever pacifist. How ironic that the religions inspired by Christ ~ who tried to teach us to "Turn the other cheek." ~ has been used to conduct countless wars, pre crusades to the modern day.

I am not a religion apologist neither am I a communist but Karl Marx's infamous quote about religion being the opiate of the people still rings very true for me. Marx saw religion for what it was/is in many respects, a highly convienient mechanism of the state. A dogmatic unyielding vehicle used to create zombies, unquestioning citizens who were encouraged to accept the status quo in the hope that they would find justice beyond the grave in some Christian heaven. It should also be well noted that even communism ultimately failed its mission. Every attempt the communist leaders made to eradicate different faiths merely succeeded in driving these faiths underground. Ultimately the communists were unable to delte religion so perhaps we could conclude that there might well be a "Religious gene" as humanity can't help but create and subscribe to belief systems.

Take the faith I was raised with ~ Catholiscism. This faith has much blood on it's hands over the centuries. Any multi billion money earning industry that is a law unto itself has carte blanche in all matters be they financial or political or social. They are answerable to no one. Their financial practices are kept extremely well hidden. How much is the Catholic church worth? How culpable are the Catholic church for the sins of various popes over the years. During the height of Nazism it was claimed by many that the pope of the day (Pius XII) turned a blind eye and refused to condemn Nazism and the facts seem to strongly support this view.

During the second world war, Pope Pius XII followed a policy of public neutrality mirroring that of Pope Benedict XV during World War I. In 1939, Pius XII turned the Vatican into a center of aid which he organized from various parts of the world. At the request of the Pope, an information office for prisoners of war and refugees operated in the Vatican under Giovanni Battista Montini, which in the years of its existence from 1939 until 1947 received almost ten million (9,891,497) information requests and produced over eleven million (11,293,511) answers about missing persons

However it is not always fully appreciated that the Vatican was neutral during the Second World War, having committed itself from the very outset to a policy of conciliation that marked church diplomacy in the inter-war period. To the Vatican, neutrality meant remaining apart from the two power blocs and, most important, maintaining an environment in which the church could operate as freely and openly as possible. Particularly since the presentation of Rolf Hochuth's angry play, Der Stellvertreter (The Deputy) in 1962, this posture has been subjected to ongoing criticism. The Vatican has responded with the publication of a voluminous collection of documents on the role of the Holy See during the war, generating one of the most extensive historical discussions of the many ethical questions associated with the history of the Holocaust.

Other major issues I have with my catholiscism are their over emphasis of guilt. There is even a common term called "Catholic guilt." Sex is to this day a major problem with the catholic mind. Christ had to be born of a virgin birth. Mary had to be of course a virgin. Christ could not have been married as he would have had to have had sex. Contraception is bad. Priests must be celibate etc etc. No wonder the number of catholics in therapy is so disproportionately high and no wonder the number of catholic priests guilty of sex crimes against youngsters is so high too . On a personal level I feel I've spent a great deal of my adult life debrainwashing myself. The sense of guilt at actually being alive that a catholic can feel is ludicrous and toxic.

If I accept that Attila the Hun existed or the Roman Emperor Nero I have to accept Christ existed. The only issues I have are with the myth creators. No other man has had the ongoing impact that Jesus Christ has had. However how much of the new testament is actually factually based? How much is historically accurate? Clearly the image of Christ as a man who could walk on water, make the dead come to life, feed crowds of thousands with a meal only big enough for a few, turn water into wine, cure the blind, lepers and the disabled etc is the story of a superhuman deity. What better way to promote a new faith than to claim that it's one based on the Son of God.

We cannot doubt that Christ was a revolutionary, a man with tremendous courage and a man with a great vision and of course a world changing message. We should however question his supposed miracles and much of the other stuff written about him. This will be sacrilige to many people of faith but please note I'm not trying to be deliberately offensive. All I am doing is airing my true thoughts about the mechanisms used to promote Christ and the subsequent mass movement created on his behalf.

Free will advocates will naturally argue that all imperfection in the universe is merely a consequence of mankinds fall from grace. A valid counter argument could be that if there is a God then even God himself isn't perfect and as such created an ever evolving universe that although imperfect strives toward perfection ultimately. Another argument could be as Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche stated "God is dead." Another argument might be that God can't be dead as he/she never exitied in the first place. We should however all take note of another quote by Nietzsche. "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he doesn't become a monster."

All that said I feel an open minded approach to any philosophical debate is paramount. The truth is none of us "know" for sure ~ not this side of the great divide anyhow. Another thing you can bet on is that the great God debate will continue as long as there are people in this world.

So if you're an agnostic or a religious fundamentalist you could be wrong. Agnostics can't be wrong by definition as they are the philosophical worlds bet hedgers, not that there's anything wrong with that at all.

Your comments are welcome whatever your current stance. I firmly believe that everyone should share their beliefs and disbeliefs without fear of ridicule. That surely is the starting point of any adult debate. To mock anyone else for what they do or don't believe is not only undemocratic it's also incredibly small minded and indeed infantile.

Thankfully the days of heretics being burnt at the stake are largely over but that doesn't mean for one second that there isn't massive intolerance in the world regarding differing points of view. We in the west consider ourselves modern, many westerners would argue that in so many countries in the world you would be tortured for any dissenting point of view and in many instances they would be right. But before we get too carried away with our progressive western selves lets ask ourselves a few questions.

How many westerners believe that the whole of creation is a few thousand years old. How many of us totally reject evolution. How many of us believe that the earth is flat. How many of us are of the opinion that Jesus was born of a virgin birth?

We humans should strive to embrace beliefs that totally contradict our own. We should process and try to understand views contrary to our own. Otherwise what are we except parrots regurgitating dogma bequeathed down the generations. In this respect I am a scientist, If you have a theory or a belief test it, analyse it, open your mind to conflicting counter arguments. I'm reminded here of the play Pravda. The leading character is a media mogul and part of his monologue goes something like this.
"I have many books on my shelf but I have never read them as I have already made my mind up."

If there is a God what exactly is God? And what exactly is the nature of God? Of course I don't expect to be able to answer these questions, all I'm attempting to do is further the debate about faith and science in the modern era. All I seek to do is to perhaps approach this age old debate with a few new angles. This is no mean task as there have been almost as many theories of the origins of the universe as there are people on planet earth.

I share the average persons confusion in many ways about all matters pertaining to a God. Although the phenomena of life is astounding, this world has so many brutal realities, from natural catastrophes to the overwhelming brutality of the human animal, how then are we to make sense of it. Let me reiterate that last point, I do firmly believe that we humans are animals.

A legacy of the "Every word in the bible is true" believers is that somehow humanity is special, ordained by God and made in his image. Personally I do not believe every word in the bible, far from it and I firmly believe that mankind is nothing more than a another branch of the tree of life, granted a complex branch but just a branch all the same.

So why don't I believe every word in the bible? Quite simply I strongly believe that much of it was written by man. Nor do I hold the bible to be a factual and completely accurate historical document. I don't believe in Adam and Eve for example, I see that particular story as just that, a story, although a story with much metaphorical resonance possibly.

I'm very much a new testament rather than an old testament kind of bloke though one thing I do like about the Old Testament is it's opening pages. In the book of Genesis some of the very first words in the bible are as follows. "God said, 'Let there be light.' and there was light." Science has taught us that the origin of the universe was the result of the big bang, the giant explosion of light, heat and matter that over billions of years resulted in the universe we inhabit right now.

I have a natural dislike of viewpoints where people are convinced that they are right, that their God is indeed bigger and better than your God. Atheists can come across like this too from my experience, perhaps that is why I have a bias towards agnostics as they are the eternal fence sitters and they have every right to do so, an agnostic point of view could be perceived to be the ultimate in having an open mind.

My apologies in advance to all entrenched atheists out there but sometimes the best intentioned of atheists can appear to be as fundamentalist in their views as the most extreme of religious fanatics. All the same I want to hear from atheists, I might not agree with your views but that doesn't mean that I don't wish to hear and try to understand your views.

Of course my interest in the God debate is nothing new as humans have been obsessed with this very subject since we evolved the ability to think more deeply. As far as I know my pet dog doesn't contemplate the origin and the meaning of life but somewhere along the line human brains evolved to ponder such fundamental questions due to our ability to think in abstract terms. It could be argued that this ability is an evolutionary blip, a mere random occurence. My feeling is that as Salmon Rushdie once stated so wisely. "There is a God shaped hole" in each of us. For those of an atheistic bent perhaps a statement such as "There is a science shaped hole" in each of us is equally relevant.

Is a marriage between science and faith possible? Many consider them as diametrically opposed but could these two fields ultimately reach the same conclusions be it by very different routes. As advanced as we are in this age Science knows gravity exists but is far from explaining why. Why should the big bang result in an ordered Universe. A universe with laws that make life possible. The fact that the earth sustains life is incredible as there are so many variables involved. The earth is shielded from meteoric bombardment by much larger neighbours such as the Sun, the planet Jupiter and Saturn to name a few. Our solar systems structure means that the earth is exactly in the right orbit to allow life to evolve. If we were closer to the Sun our world would have been a cauldron incapable of evolving complex dna structures. If we were further away from the Sun our world would be a sterile cold lifeless planet.

Our ancestors were logical when they developed belief systems 1000s of years ago. Way before the onset of Christianity our ancestors worshipped nature, the sun and the moon etc. This is natural, indeed it's logical. The sun is the giver of all life on earth. Without the sun there is no vegetation, no animals. So what was so unreasonable of our forebears to worship the sun amongst other natural phenomena? Indigenous tribes all over the world developed belief systems based on natural phenomena. Way before the worlds main faiths arrived mankind generated varied belief systems to try and explain the origin and existence of the world and indeed the universe.

My family background is Irish, when I lived in Ireland in my twenties I visited Newgrange. Newgrange is a Megalithic tomb and is a world heritage site. The depth of planetary knowledge involved in building this tomb astounds me. Many would have us believe that our ancient ancestors were mere barbarians way too consumed with the issues of hunting food and making a shelter to have any idea of creating something this magnificent and this technologically advanced.

Newgrange (Irish: Sí an Bhrú) is a passage tomb of the Brú na Bóinne complex in County Louth. It is one of the most famous prehistoric sites in the world, and indeed the most famous of all Irish prehistoric sites. Newgrange was built in such a way that at dawn on the shortest day of the year, the winter solstice, a narrow beam of sunlight for a very short time illuminates the floor of the chamber at the end of the long passageway. Such knowledge of the suns properties is astounding.

History

Newgrange was originally built between c. 5500 and 3200 BC, which means that it is over 5,000 years old. According to Carbon-14 dates, it is more than 500 years older than the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt, and predates Stonehenge by about 1,000 years. Lets go over that again. Newgrange could be upto 7500 years old !

In the Neolithic period, Newgrange continued as a focus of some ceremonial activity. New monuments added to the site included a timber circle to the south-east of the main mound and a smaller timber circle to the west. The eastern timber circle consisted of five concentric rows of pits. The outer row contained wooden posts. The next row of pits had clay linings and was used to burn animal remains. The three inner rows of pits were dug to accept the animal remains. Within the circle were post and stake holes associated with Beaker pottery and flint flakes. The western timber circle consisted of two concentric rows of parallel postholes and pits defining a circle 20 m in diameter.

A concentric mound of clay was constructed around the southern and western sides of the mound and covered a structure consisting of two parallel lines of post and ditches that had been partly burnt. A free-standing circle of large stones was constructed encircling the mound. Near the entrance, 17 hearths were used to set fires. These structures at Newgrange are generally contemporary with a number of Henges known from the Boyne Valley, at Newgrange Site A, Newgrange Site O, Dowth Henge and Monknewtown Henge.

Excavation and restoration

Newgrange lay hidden for over 5,000 years due to mound slippage, until the late 17th century, when men looking for building stone uncovered it, and described it as a cave. Newgrange was excavated and much restored between 1962 and 1975, under the supervision of Professor Michael J. O'Kelly, Department of Archaeology, University College, Cork. It consists of a vast man-made stone and turf mound retained within a circle of 97 large kerbstones topped by a high inward-leaning wall of white quartzite and granite. Most of the stones were sourced locally (within a radius of 20km or so) but the quartzite and granite stones of the facade must have been sourced further afield, most probably in Wicklow and Dundalk Bay respectively.

As part of the restoration process the white quartzite stones and cobbles were fixed into a near-vertical steel-reinforced concrete wall surrounding the entrance of the mound. This restoration is controversial among the archaeological community. Critics of the wall point out that the technology did not exist when the mound was created to fix a retaining wall at this angle. Another theory is that the white quartzite stones formed a plaza on the ground at the entrance. This theory won out at nearby Knowth, where the restorers have laid the quartzite stones out as an "apron" in front of the entrance to the great mound.

Features

The Newgrange mound is 76m (250ft) across and 12m (40ft) high, and covers 0.4 hectares (one acre). Within the mound, a long passage, stretching approximately one third of the length of the mound, leads to a cruciform (cross-shaped) chamber. The passage itself is over 18m (60ft) long. The burial chamber has a corbelled roof which rises steeply upwards to a height of nearly 6m (20 ft). A tribute to its builders, the roof has remained essentially intact and waterproof for over 5,000 years.Near Newgrange are many other passage tombs, the largest being Knowth, and another significant tomb, Dowth. These tombs are all contemporary with Newgrange and together they and their 37 smaller satellite tombs form the Brú na Bóinne complex.

Art

Entrance stone with megalithic art. Spiral and lozenge motifs engraved on the magnificent entrance slab, "one of the most famous stones in the entire repertory of megalithic art", include a triple spiral motif, found only at Newgrange and repeated along the passage and again inside the chamber, which is reminiscent of the triskelion motif of the Isle of Man, of ancient Sicily and of several passage tombs on the island of Anglesey in North Wales. There are further examples of megalithic art on many other kerbstones at Newgrange (notably Kerbstone 52 and 67). However, the majority of the megalithic art in the Brú na Bóinne complex is located at Newgrange's sister tomb, Knowth.

Solstice event

Once a year, at the winter solstice, the rising sun shines directly along the long passage into the chamber for about 17 minutes and illuminates the chamber floor. This alignment is too precise to have occurred by chance. Professor M. J. O'Kelly was the first person in modern times to observe this event on December 21, 1967.

The sun enters the passage through a specially contrived opening, known as a roofbox, directly above the main entrance. Although solar alignments are not uncommon among passage graves, Newgrange is one of few to contain the additional roofbox feature (Cairn G at Carrowkeel Megalithic Cemetery is another). The alignment is such that although the roofbox is above the passage entrance, the light hits the floor of the inner chamber.

Today the first light enters about four minutes after sunrise, but calculations based on the precession of the Earth show that 5,000 years ago first light would have entered exactly at sunrise. The solar alignment at Newgrange is very precise compared to similar phenomena at other passage graves such as Dowth or Maes Howe in the Orkney islands, off the coast of Scotland.

Current-day visitors to Newgrange are treated to a re-enactment of this event through the use of electric lights situated within the tomb. The finale of a Newgrange tour results in every tour member standing inside the tomb where the tour guide then turns off the lights, and lights the light bulb simulating the sun as it would appear on the winter solstice. Anyone visiting the historic site can experience an approximation of the phenomenon any time of year, and is often the highlight of the tour. A lottery is held annually for "tickets" to be allowed into the tomb to view the actual event. The popularity of this event was the reason a lottery was introduced, and also why the lights were installed.

Purpose and uses

Newgrange appears to have been used as a tomb. The recesses in the cruciform chamber hold large stone basins into which were placed cremated human remains. During excavation, the remains of five individuals were found. It is speculated that the sun formed an important part of the religious beliefs of the neolithic ("New" Stone Age) people who built it. Formerly the mound was encircled by an outer ring of immense standing stones, of which there are twelve of a possible thirty-seven remaining. However, it seems that the stone circle which encircled Newgrange is not contemporary with the monument itself but was placed there some 1,000 years later in the Bronze Age.

Newgrange in Irish mythology

According to Irish mythology, Newgrange was one of the sidhe, or fairy-mounds, where the Tuatha Dé Danann lived. It was built by the god Dagda, but his son Oengus later tricked him out of it. It is named for the goddess Boann, the mother of Aengus, who is also credited with the creation of the River Boyne. According to some versions of the story, the hero Cúchulainn was conceived there. However, most of the mythical cycles associated with Newgrange date from the Celtic era of Irish history and mythology. The monument was already in existence for well over 2,000 years before the Celtic era.

Perhaps this blog should have been called God and evolution. From the onset I wish to state that I do believe that a supernatural force beyond our understanding created the universe. This viewpoint is flexible in that I am open to persuasion. I am not a blind faithed fanatic, I'm not a fundamentalist. I have no desire to alienate anybody no matter what they believe or choose not to believe.

Let me start off by saying that I'm not a Jesus freak. I accept and believe Christ existed just as I accept that William the Conqueror existed or Elvis existed. I haven't any ideological axe to grind. I consider myself to be open minded. I have beliefs but I'm open to persuasion. I don't believe that the earth is flat nor that every word in the bible is true nor that the universe revolves around the earth. What I offer here are thoughts only. Nothing in these words is set in stone. I'm not attempting to convert anybody. Put simply I love debate. I warmly welcome comments.

If I had to categorise myself I would claim to be a theistic evolutionist. However I must admit that the least likely stance I agree with is atheism. Although I totally appreciate Richard Dawkins iconoclasm and find it very healthy in many respects I find it very difficult to throw the baby out with the bath water. I am not educated to anywhere the level that Doctor Dawkins is but that doesn't mean that many of the points I make aren't as valid as his.

There is no dispute that many religions have succeeded in relaying nonsensical dogma down throughtout the generations, and many continue to do so. It's also a fact that many religions have been guilty of extreme greed and war mongering, just look at history it's full of it. For me the bottom dollar is that I find it almost impossible to believe that the universe came into being without a designer. I find it extremely difficult to accept that the giant fireball of the big bang - which resulted in the establishment of space and time and infinite universes that obey universal laws - was a freak unplanned occurrence.

Atheism is for me a curious beast. To propose that the universe has no divine origin smacks of arrogance and a lack of imagination. Of course atheists have as much right as believers in God to choose to believe not to believe. The world is full of injustice and history is littered with war and slaughter. Such sufferring can logically lead many to conclude that there might not be a supreme creator (or at least one who intervenes in earthly affairs) but surely is a much more acceptable standpoint? Afterall science has thankfully erased much baloney about the mechanics of the universe and the evolution of life on earth but science is nowhere near explaining how the big bang happened in the first place. Are we expected to believe that the big bang was a unique freak self-generating phenomena? Surely to believe that as fact is much more unbelievable than to accept that a supreme being generated the primordial fire that gave birth to the known universe and all that resides within it.

I have an interest in Buddhism and Paganism but I do strive to refine anything I do believe through empirical processes. Atheists amongst you may argue that to have any belief in a supreme being totally contradicts, but let me stress that although I do believe in such a force I am open minded enough to accept and respect that atheists have the right to challenge my most basic premise. Let me also stress that I firmly believe in evolution. Science has produced overwhelming evidence to suggest that Darwins epic work "The origin of the species" nailed a fact of life. Evolution is real. I don't believe the earth is a few thousand years old. I believe the earth is billions of years old.

There is a plethora of fossil evidence to support evolution as irrefutable fact. Modern genetics has firmly established that all life on earth is from the same source and is mainly comprised of the same core ingredients etc. From plants to fish to mammals we all share extremely similar dna.

FUNDAMNETAL DEFINITIONS

Lets get some basic definitions out of the way as it's important that I make some basic qualifications for the terms I will be using in this blog.

Atheism

This can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of a deity or deities.

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without gods", which was derogatorily applied to anyone thought to not believe in the accepted gods, or to believe in false gods, no gods, or doctrines that stood in conflict with established religions. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to self-identify as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century. Today, about 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist, while a further 11.9% is described as nontheist. Between 64% and 65% of Japanese describe themselves as atheists, agnostics, or non-believers, and up to 48% in Russia. The percentage of such persons in European Union member states ranges between 6% (Italy) and 85% (Sweden).

Atheism tends towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Common rationales include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical.

In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be irreligious or unspiritual. However, religious and spiritual belief systems such as forms of Buddhism that do not advocate belief in gods, have also been described as atheistic. Although some atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism, rationalism, and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.

Agnosticism

(Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable.It is not a religious declaration in itself, and an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist.

Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and/or non-religious people, using agnostic in the sense of noncommittal. However, this can be misleading given the existence of agnostic theists, who identify themselves as both agnostics in the original sense and followers of a particular religion.

Many philosophers and thinkers have written about agnosticism, including Thomas Henry Huxley, Albert Einstein, Robert G. Ingersoll, and Bertrand Russell. Religious scholars who wrote about agnosticism are Peter Kreeft, Blaise Pascal and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later elected as Pope Benedict XVI.

Theism

In it's broadest sense this is the belief in at least one deity. More specifically, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his/her relationship to the universe. Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism which contended that God — though transcendent and supreme — did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.

The term "theism" derives from the Greek theos meaning God. The term theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617–1688).

The negation, rejection, or absence of theism is known as atheism or nontheism.

Monotheism

Monotheism is the belief that there is only one deity.

Inclusive monotheism:

The belief that there is only one deity, and that all other claimed deities are just different names for it. The Hindu denomination of Smartism is an example of inclusive monotheism.
Exclusive monotheism: The belief that there is only one deity, and that all other claimed deities are distinct from it and false — either invented, demonic, or simply incorrect. Most Abrahamic religions, and most versions of the Hindu denomination of Vaishnavism, such as ISKCON which regard the worship of anyone other than Vishnu as incorrect are examples of exclusive monotheism.

Three religions are sometimes cited as the earliest known forms of monotheism still in practice today: Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and pre-Vedic Brahmanism, though originally all could have been described as henotheistic. Monotheism is sometimes sourced to the Egyptian religion of Atenism, which is no longer widely practiced.

Polytheism:

While a specific definition of theism may exclude polytheism, it is included by the most general definition. Polytheism is the belief that there is more than one deity.In practice, polytheism is not just the belief that there are multiple gods; it usually includes belief in the existence of a specific pantheon of distinct deities.

Within polytheism there are hard and soft varieties:

Hard polytheism views the gods as being distinct and separate beings; an example of this would be ancient Greek Mythology.

Soft polytheism views the gods as being subsumed into a greater whole. Most forms of Hinduism such as Smartism/Advaita Vedanta serve as examples of soft polytheism.
Polytheism is also divided according to how the individual deities are regarded:

Henotheism:

The viewpoint/belief that there may be more than one deity, but one is supreme.

Kathenotheism:

The viewpoint/belief that there is more than one deity, but only one deity is worshipped at a time or ever, and another may be worthy of worship at another time or place. If they are worshipped one at a time, then each is supreme in turn.

Monolatrism:

The belief that there may be more than one deity, but that only one is worthy of being worshipped.

Pantheism and Panentheism

While a specific definition of theism may exclude pantheism, it is included by the most general definition.

Pantheism:

The belief that the physical universe is equivalent to a God or Gods, and that there is no division between a Creator and the substance of its creation.Examples include many forms of Saivism.

Panentheism:

Like Pantheism, the belief that the physical universe is joined to a God or Gods. However, it also believes that a God or Gods are greater than the material universe. Examples include most forms of Vaishnavism.
Some people find the distinction between these two beliefs as ambiguous and unhelpful, while others see it as a significant point of division.

Deism:

While the specific definition of theism given above may exclude deism, deism is included as a form of theism by the most general definition given above.

Deism is the belief that at least one deity exists and created the world, but that the creator(s) does/do not alter the original plan for the universe. Deism typically rejects supernatural events (such as prophecies, miracles, and divine revelations) prominent in organized religion. Instead, Deism holds that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of a supreme being as creator.
Pandeism: The belief that God preceded the universe and created it, but is now equivalent with it.

Panendeism combines deism with panentheism, believing the universe is a part (but not the whole) of deity

Polydeism:

The belief that multiple gods existed, but do not intervene with the universe.

Autotheism :

While a specific definition of theism may exclude autotheism, it is included by the most general definition. Autotheism is the viewpoint that, whether divinity is also external or not, it is inherently within 'oneself' and that one's duty is to become perfect; divine. This can either be in a selfish, wilful, egotistical way or a selfless way following the implications of statements attributed to Jesus, Buddha, and other ethical philosophy/religion founders.

Value-judgment theisms

Eutheism

The viewpoint/belief that a deity(ies) is wholly benevolent; Dystheism allows for there being evil in the divine realm.

Theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism are similar concepts that assert that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.

Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict. In describing early proponents of this viewpoint, it is sometimes described as Christian Darwinism.A very similar view is evolutionary creationism.

Problems arise when our belief systems become a means of subjugating and invading others. History is littered with so called "Holy Wars" History is full of colonial powers invading foreign nations and systematically erasing all indigenous faiths as much as possible. Once erased such invading forces always brought their creed to the fore.

Thus started the "My God is bigger than your God" stance which has plagued mankind for millenia creating endless conflicts worldwide. The concept of God has been hijacked so many times over so many years and many of the main religions ahve so much to answer for. You could safely say that religion has greatly succeeded in giving God a bad name. It strikes me that although politicians have historically used religion as a conduit for their varied agendas the truth remains that if mankind had never invented religion some other similar vehicle would have been used. Communism was of course anti God, and in many ways that's also logical. Early communist thinkers only saw religion as an instrument of the state. A mechanism to maintain social order. Marx stated "Religion is the opiate of the people" and in many ways he was right. Am I a communist? No. I am merely trying to understand why the communist movement was so opposed to God in any shape or form.

I've long since relinquished most of my Catholic beliefs but I still believe that there is a God though there are times when I feel that I may be wrong and I'm open minded enough to realise that other people have the right to believe whatever they choose.. At various stages of my life I consider myself to have been agnostic, but always an agnostic who eventually veers back toward a belief in a force beyond human power. You could argue that there are many forces beyond human control. Gravity being an obvious example. Why can't evolution itself be an instrument of God. Perhaps we live in an intelligent universe where preset cosmic laws such as gravity, evolution etc are all part of a grand design. I find it extremely difficult to believe that all evolved life is the result of a gargantuan accident. Somehow the big bang was self generating, and the subsequent (and continual) explosion coalesced into galaxies, stars. planetary systems etc. by chance. Clearly there are well established laws to the universe. Why should there be any laws at all?

Is it by chance that our small planet can support life? Is it unreasonable to suggest that many more planets sustain life throughout a possibly infinite universe?

So my cards are on the table. But one thing I will always try to do is to have an open mind. That's why I'm enjoying reading "The God delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Afterall whatever beliefs I hold could never be so precious that I close my mind to others thoughts no matter how uncomfortable they may make me feel. Put simply what right have I to dismiss anybody else, be they athiest, agnostic, or a firm or even a fanatical believer. Beliefs too can evolve and should not be cast in stone. I guess in a nutshell I'm an empiriscist at heart. Whatever conclusions I reach I wish to be based on logical thought processes. We're all brainwashed, the secret is to unravel, to deconstruct our beliefs and begin again with a more scientific approach.

Well let me start by saying that I have never felt that God and Evolution are mutually exclusive concepts. As a child my family visited relatives in county Antrim in Northern Ireland. The Antrim Kellys are a very catholic Irish family. I vaguely recall a tv program being on and the theme was about Darwin's theory of evolution. Amusement and confusion was caused by the programs premise that mankind was descended from monkeys. Although I feel Darwin himself only ever stated that Man was descended from a similar ancestor. I guess that if you try to fully explain what Darwin was trying to teach us you'd accept that his findings led him to conclude that all life on earth is the result of the simplest primordial microbes evolving into a plethora of variously developed organisms of widely varying complexity.

Even then I thought what can be so unreasonable about that proposal. You could argue that Man's historic view of somehow being above the natural world was the source of his arrogance and massively added to the current multitudinous dilemas we face as a consequence. What Darwin faced was the most amazing brick wall of peer pressure imagianable. This of course greatly explains his great reluctance to publish any of his findings for a period of twenty years. He knew of the Spanish inquisition. And he was fully aware of the barrage of anger, fear and ridicule that his work would receive.

The standard theory of the history of the scientific revolution claims the 17th century was a period of revolutionary scientific changes. It is claimed that not only were there revolutionary theoretical and experimental developments, but that even more importantly, the way in which scientists worked was radically changed. An alternative anti-revolutionist view is that science as exemplified by Newton's Principia was anti-mechanist and highly Aristotelian, being specifically directed at the refutation of anti-Aristotelian Cartesian mechanism, as evidenced in the Principia quotations below, and not more empirical than it already was at the beginning of the century or earlier in the

God v Evolution

A Beginning