Dogmatism about the origins: open letter 150 scientists

The 22 May 2015 the prestigious magazine New Scientist has published an open letter to the scientific community signed by over 150 scientists from all over the world: astrophysicists, astronomers and physicists, including some Italians. The news is reported by the weekly Internazionale on page 54 of the number 542, 4/10 June 2015. The text of the letter and the list of signatories are available on the website www.cosmologystatement.org. Here are the most significant passages:

“The big bang theory depends on an increasing number of hypothetical and never observed entities – like expansion, black matter and black energy, to name only the main ones. Without these there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the theory. A similar and continuous recourse to new hypothetical objects in order to bridge the gap between theory and observation, it would not be accepted in any other field of physics, or at least it would raise serious questions about the validity of the theory […]

But the big bang theory cannot survive without these lies […] Yet the big bang is not the only conception available to understand the history of the universe […] There are alternative approaches that explain the fundamental phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundance of light elements, the generation of large structures, the cosmic background radiation, and the increase of the red shift with the increase in the distance of the galaxies. These models even predicted new phenomena which were then observed, which the big bang failed to do […]

Yet such alternatives cannot be freely discussed or examined. In most official conferences there is no open exchange of ideas. While Richard Feynman could say that “science is the culture of doubt”, today in cosmology doubt and dissent are not tolerated. Young scientists learn to shut up when they have to say something negative about the standard big bang model, per paura che se esprimessero i loro dubbi perderebbero i finanziamenti per la ricerca.

Even observations are currently being interpreted through this biased filter, and judge right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. Thus the conflicting data on red shifts, the abundance of lithium and helium, the distribution of galaxies, and many others, they are ignored or ridiculed. This demonstrates the growth of a dogmatic mentality, estranea allo spirito della libera ricerca scientifica.

Today practically all of the financial and experimental resources in cosmology are dedicated to studies on the big bang […] As a result of this, the dominance of the big bang is self-maintaining regardless of the scientific validity of the theory […]

By supporting only research within the conception of the big bang, a fundamental element of the scientific method is undermined – the continuous verification of theories in the face of observations”.

This letter denounces a case that is anything but isolated in science: the dogmatic defense of the dominant conception and the fight against dissent have always been present in the scientific community and are described in the classic essay by Thomas Kuhn, The structure of scientific revolutions (Torino, Einaudi, 1969).

The big bang is part of the theories of origins. In fact, it is taught at school as the beginning of the history of the cosmos. The story then continues with the formation of the Earth, with the appearance by spontaneous generation of the first simple organism, which would then have generated the various species by evolution, il tutto sempre ad opera del caso.

If the big bang theory cries, the theories of biological evolution certainly do not laugh. These too are self-maintaining regardless of their scientific validity. Even for their defense, the observation data that do not support them are ignored or ridiculed. Even in their case, the gap between the observation data and the theories is filled with hypothetical and never observed entities: spontaneous synthesis of pure chemical isomers, spontaneous mutations that expand the genome, transformations of reptiles into birds, di mammiferi terrestri in mammiferi marini e altro.

Origins models have particular difficulties. Indeed, while in the experimental sciences the theories are open to verification, origins theories are much less so; this is because the origin models are part of the so-called “historical sciences”, in which the checks, compared to the data of the observations, are more than compatibility that of validity. In the absence of experimental confirmation, theories on origins are thus defended or rejected according to philosophical and ideological preferences, that is, for reasons unrelated to science.

Recently the press has been busy – with more noise – of another letter from scientists: that to Minister Moratti regarding the teaching of Darwinism at school. There is a difference between the position of the big bang and that of biological evolution and it is important. As for the history of the universe, as written above, there are alternative models perhaps even more valid, even if politically weak. Biological evolution, on the other hand, has no materialistic alternatives: life or happened by spontaneous generation, or it is the result of an intelligent design, and in the second case – which is much more likely – the draftsman resembles what believers call God. It gave, But, it does not enjoy a good reception among scientists, unless they are also believers. Ecco perché la lotta tra creazionismo ed evoluzionismo si sposta immediatamente sul piano filosofico e religioso.

The mystery remains as to why most scientists – surely those who are in control of power – does not admit that there is no scientifically valid explanation for the origin and diversification of life, but you care so much about teaching evolution from elementary school. Because they are the first to believe it, or because they want to instill their dogmatic mentality? Because they can't stand the idea of ​​not having an explanation? Because they consider it preferable “the mental habit” evolutionist for philosophical reasons, ideological, social or police? In this case, the answer must be sought on a psychological level, philosophical, sociale e politico piuttosto che su quello propriamente scientifico.

The excerpts from the letter we have reported show that the dissent on origins is not limited to a small group of dogmatic and reactionary obscurantists, but it also involves many scientists in a vast battle to get science back to what it should be: culture of doubt and continuous verification of theories by means of observations.

gives New Scientist – July 2015