1. Comment #435732 by retep57 on November 27, 2009 at 11:58 am

More signs please, we need some down here in oz.
FFRF hmm perhaps i should join. Seems pretty quiet down here in australia in terms of billboards at least.

Other Comments by retep57

2. Comment #435738 by Metch on November 27, 2009 at 12:08 pm

I don't like the sign that says "Praise Darwin". It feeds the idea that atheists somehow 'worship' Darwin, as the religious worship their gods and prophets. Darwin was wrong about many things, as anyone with a knowledge of evolution can point out. Imagine a Christian admitting that their god, or Jesus, was wrong about something(s).

I can't imagine it. I tried and can't.

Other Comments by Metch

3. Comment #435744 by alabasterocean on November 27, 2009 at 12:17 pm

Metch:

My friend, they do admit that, but they say: "We interpreted the text wrong"

PS. Well, maybe in a more theologi-cal way:

"The book of Mark in adequate historical perspectives, due to logic and the phrases of verses 6-7-9-11 and 19 in Luke makes the perfect word of God a bit more open to, well, love and other kind of poetry we call morality. In this way hell is more of an exemplar, and the rational is somewhat love and more love"

Other Comments by alabasterocean

4. Comment #435745 by Sandra S on November 27, 2009 at 12:19 pm

2. Comment #435738 by Metch

Agreed. Science shouldn't be confused with faith and belief. Not that I think the ones who put it up had confused the two, but I think some who see it might.

Other Comments by Sandra S

5. Comment #435748 by TheLordHumungus on November 27, 2009 at 12:23 pm

"I just feel like, you know, if you raise your children to believe in something that a sign is not going to change their minds."

I wish that these people could understand the concept of indoctrination, and how their children have no choice in their religion.

Metch, I also do not like the Darwin billboard for the same reasons that you do not. It also seems like they want to upset the religious instead of find the lonely atheists in the bunch like other billboards have done.

Other Comments by TheLordHumungus

6. Comment #435756 by Logicel on November 27, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Praise Darwin would work here, at this site, or at Pharyngula, as an in-group joke. But on a billboard? Wrong move. Very sloppy and disappointing. They could have done something like "you are entitled to your opinions, but not to your version of facts" and that "evolution is a fact."

Other Comments by Logicel

7. Comment #435757 by BiologicDentists.com on November 27, 2009 at 12:43 pm

I don't feel the messages on these billbords are effective enough. We need to put up bible passages. The fastest way to create an Atheist is to have them read the bible. Most Christians have never read the bible. Let's show them what is in it finally!

Other Comments by BiologicDentists.com

8. Comment #435758 by Demotruk on November 27, 2009 at 12:44 pm

"Praise Darwin" is counter productive, and just plain stupid. Playing right into the hands of the 'evolution is a religion' brigade.

Other Comments by Demotruk

9. Comment #435759 by BiologicDentists.com on November 27, 2009 at 12:45 pm

I agree with Metch about the Praise Darwin sign. I feel it is not very effective.

Other Comments by BiologicDentists.com

10. Comment #435760 by bucklap on November 27, 2009 at 12:48 pm

The problem with a praise Darwin sign is that it suggests that there is always a requirement for belief in a being of some sort. Surely a poster that says 'Praise the evidence' would be more satiric and accurate?

Other Comments by bucklap

11. Comment #435770 by Gaz on November 27, 2009 at 1:17 pm

I was in Alamagordo NM a few weeks ago and there seemed to be church on every block. Apparently a few years ago one church there organized a book burning for Harry Potter novels - now where have we seen that before???

Other Comments by Gaz

12. Comment #435773 by RightWingAtheist on November 27, 2009 at 1:28 pm

Yay!!!

The reporter is intelligent enough to qualify atheism as a NON-belief.

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

13. Comment #435775 by seabala on November 27, 2009 at 1:29 pm

we need some down here in oz.

Let's first get the Atheist Bus campaign rolling in our cities.

Other Comments by seabala

14. Comment #435776 by keddaw on November 27, 2009 at 1:34 pm

@Sandra S

Science shouldn't be confused with faith and belief. Not that I think the ones who put it up had confused the two, but I think some who see it might.

Tell that to anyone who tries to publish a report that goes against the 'orthodoxy' of climate change.

Other Comments by keddaw

15. Comment #435783 by CaptainMandate on November 27, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Even if some find them controversial, the group said they arent about to take the billboards down.

no need, should be enough christians about to ensure it gets vandalised

Sandra S/keddaw

Science shouldn't be confused with faith and belief. Not that I think the ones who put it up had confused the two, but I think some who see it might.

Tell that to anyone who tries to publish a report that goes against the 'orthodoxy' of climate change.

personally I think it's counterproductive to try and seperate science and faith/belief. they are not the same thing by any stretch but in order to have a sensible debate we do have to admit that science relies on faith and belief. faith that the method of scientific enquiry is robust and belief albeit short term if needed, in certain basics of science.

what needs to be pointed out is that scientific belief is a belief that can be questioned and tested and exists purely because that is the case.

As an atheist it's easy for me to say all pseudoscience is bollocks but that doesn't help me engage with someone who uses a semantic argument that my point is no more defensible then theirs.

we should embrace faith

we have faith in science, faith in humanity (doesn't mean we submit to it, I have faith people can be complete twats as well as decent), faith in reason and faith in ourselves.

besides, they HATE it when we use any of their special words ;)

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

16. Comment #435793 by rod-the-farmer on November 27, 2009 at 2:16 pm

Billboard suggestion

Darwin did not invent evolution by natural selection, he discovered it

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

17. Comment #435796 by bethe123 on November 27, 2009 at 2:29 pm

Go Albuquerque!

I like the Darwin sign.

Praising Darwin rather than God has a rather blasphemous feel about it. Excellent. You would have to be stupid to think atheists are worshiping Darwin when the sign is being put up by the people who don't believe in religion, and hence don't believe in worship.

It also underscores the fact that religion has nothing to offer. There is no reason for religion. Every phenomena, all the mysteries of the world, can be understood by science. People should be made aware of the great discoveries of Darwin and evolution, if even on a billboard.

Other Comments by bethe123

18. Comment #435801 by bluebird on November 27, 2009 at 3:07 pm

colorful messages

Put 'em on a balloon!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albuquerque_International_Balloon_Fiesta

Other Comments by bluebird

19. Comment #435804 by Sonic on November 27, 2009 at 3:14 pm

Rod, I like your suggestion -- It works on more than one level.

Incidentally, your suggestion illustrates the problem I have with some "philosophers of science" (not the subject, but what some particular people have done with it lately). Some "philosophers of science" might write your suggestion the other way around (that Darwin didn't discover it, he invented it). Regardless of whether that might be "valid" (within that academic field), presenting that maneuver in this public debate would carelessly undermine the truth claims of science without making any effort to invalidate the truth claims of religion. The result is a net loss of public understanding (and I don't think anybody learns any philosophy from the maneuver, either). Again, I'm not busting on philosophy, or philosophers, but I am saying some particular people have made this counterproductive maneuver, and that irks me. I mean, of all the things I could write in public that might be "true" or "valid", I try to pare what I say down to the subset of those things that are helpful. And that involves effort on my part to anticipate how people are going to receive things I say. For example, I see I've taken about 50 minutes to write this post.

But I like your suggestion!

Other Comments by Sonic

20. Comment #435821 by JemyM on November 27, 2009 at 4:20 pm

These are anti-religion if it's religions agenda to get into government. Those who do not try to get into government is unaffected by this billboard, thus it's not anti-religion.

Other Comments by JemyM

21. Comment #435822 by astronomer24 on November 27, 2009 at 4:21 pm

I like how in their graphic of religious symbols they put the cross at the pinnacle. As if it were better than any other religion ever made up.

Other Comments by astronomer24

22. Comment #435824 by Rikitiki13 on November 27, 2009 at 4:34 pm

(not sure if this posted - apologies if a repeat)
Just weeks before "the biggest religious holidays in the world", huh£
How about a billboard stating: "The only part of Christ in Christmas is in the name" - then below that list all the elements of 'traditional' X-mas that were co-opted by the church: the tree, gift-giving, etc.

Other Comments by Rikitiki13

23. Comment #435826 by Sandra S on November 27, 2009 at 4:37 pm

15. Comment #435783 by CaptainMandate

We can't call it faith. Faith is just not a good word for the belief in science. You have said it yourself that faith in science is hardly on a par with faith in god. Sure it takes some faith in science, at least if you're a hard-nosed philosopher, but in no way the same as in religion.

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious belief

(Merriam-Webster)

The common definition of faith is just not something that applies very well to science. It leaves it too open for misunderstanding, and it is already misunderstood enough. Of course science can be questioned, but the only way to point this out is not to use a word that would suggest that science has no evidence.

As an atheist it's easy for me to say all pseudoscience is bollocks but that doesn't help me engage with someone who uses a semantic argument that my point is no more defensible then theirs.

And so your solution would be to use words which lend credence to what they say?

My belief in science goes no futher than the evidence gets me. Should something turn up that unambigiously refute evolution I'd be amongst the first to give it up. Some things I may have to trust experts to interpet the evidence for me, but as long as the scientific method is around, and airplanes fly while prayers don't I feel secure in listening to physicists when they say quantum physics and whatever is true. I would not call this faith.

Why would anyone pick one faith over another? If they equate faith in god with faith in science, then what reason would they have for believing in science over god and the Bible? Should we really help them equate the two by acting like science is a religion and Darwin a prophet?

Other Comments by Sandra S

24. Comment #435828 by anonbloger on November 27, 2009 at 4:42 pm

1 to the disliking the "Praise Darwin" ones.

They are either an in-joke which most people won't get or sadly mistaken. Worst thing is they will feed some of the common misunderstandings about those who reject gods and support science.

http://carnifexinsania.blogspot.com/

Other Comments by anonbloger

25. Comment #435835 by zengardener on November 27, 2009 at 5:24 pm

Comment #435738 by Metch

Marked as excellent


Biggest religious holidays?

Well, I guess since it has co-opted the pagan holidays, and is also an incredibly huge, commercial sales event, yeah.

Other Comments by zengardener

26. Comment #435841 by j.mills on November 27, 2009 at 6:29 pm

CaptainMandate said:

we do have to admit that science relies on faith and belief. faith that the method of scientific enquiry is robust and belief albeit short term if needed, in certain basics of science.

I find that very unhelpful. I have confidence in the scientific method because it works. I accept the provisional conclusions of scientific enquiry. 'Faith' and 'belief' connote unevidenced and thus unsupportable convictions.

Darwin, meanwhile, is certainly deserving of 'praise', as an admirable person, writer and scientist. But the religious pastiche 'Praise Darwin' is just asking for trouble, inviting a muddying of the waters and a miring in a pointless argument.

Still, good to see the inoffensive billboard offensive spreading... :)

Other Comments by j.mills

27. Comment #435842 by cynthia_pismobeach on November 27, 2009 at 6:34 pm

Glad to see large signs being posted. I for one, think it might let people know they are not alone in their thinking. For many years I knew I didn't believe in a God in any form, but it wasn't until I heard Professor Dawkins interviewed then read his books, did I realize, many, many people think this way. For some reason, I didn't realize I had a choice, or that I was "allowed" to say out loud I was an atheist. I really thought maybe something was "wrong" with me, I felt like an outsider. In a strange way, the signs posted might free people and offer them comfort to know others feel the same way they do.

I am reluctant to use words such as praise, or to use the phrase "believe in" for me something is or it isn't. I can examine an item, a thought, an idea and I can admit when it is wrong or doesn't stand up over time. I don't want to use words or phrases that religious communities use, it muddles up the waters, so to speak.

Other Comments by cynthia_pismobeach

28. Comment #435844 by eljeffe on November 27, 2009 at 6:55 pm

since i live in albuquerque, gotta say i'm loving these.
the pervasive jeebus element here can be depressing.

Other Comments by eljeffe

29. Comment #435847 by stptrck75 on November 27, 2009 at 7:14 pm

Cynthia_pismobeach @27:

I had very much the same experience of knowing religions were all bs, but it wasn't until I heard Prof. Dawkins speak that it all made sense to me. I think I just needed to hear someone come out and say it. Now I will happily share my views on all claims about supernaturalism (is that a word?) with anyone willing to listen.

p.s. I grew up near Pismo. Great little town.

Other Comments by stptrck75

30. Comment #435849 by TIKI AL on November 27, 2009 at 7:19 pm

"Praise Darwin" translates for the religious as:
"We command thee stoopid godbots to worship Darwin and smarten thyselves up".

Come to think of it, that second one might just work.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

31. Comment #435857 by vaibhav_p on November 27, 2009 at 7:44 pm

atleast this news channel is more accurate and honest than the recent splurge of fox news about the non-religious billboards. Fox did u hear that? A local news channel beats you in news reporting...shame!

Other Comments by vaibhav_p

32. Comment #435858 by Quine on November 27, 2009 at 7:45 pm

I, also, don't like the "Praise Darwin" posting because it puts exactly the wrong thing into the kind of mind that the message should be for. Hopefully, they (the FFRF) will get enough feedback on this one to not make that mistake again, and prevent other groups from doing so. IMO, religion and Evolution should not be mixed in these presentations. We should continue to push to let people know that religion is not based on evidence and that Evolution is known by factual evidence. Each of those can be done without note to the other.

Other Comments by Quine

33. Comment #435863 by bethe123 on November 27, 2009 at 8:20 pm

Asking people not to believe in God, but not wanting to give them the reasons, is insipid.

There are many reasons not to believe in God, evolution is certainly a good one, since it explains the origin of life, which traditionally was one on the roles assumed by religion.

Cosmology is a good one, since it explains the origin of the universe and the formation of the planets, among other things.

Philosophical arguments, such as the existence of evil in the world is not consistent with an all powerful, all knowing, and benevolent being, are good too.

All of these would be valid points on a billboard...hopefully, the FFRF can expand its billboards to include them.

I consider it a form of consciousness raising.

Other Comments by bethe123

34. Comment #435877 by zeerust2000 on November 27, 2009 at 9:55 pm

13. Comment #435775 by seabala
"we need some down here in oz."
Let's first get the Atheist Bus campaign rolling in our cities.

Support the "Atheist Foundation of Australia" and help to get this going.

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/

Other Comments by zeerust2000

35. Comment #435881 by Shuggy on November 27, 2009 at 10:01 pm

17. Comment #435796 by bethe123

Praising Darwin rather than God has a rather blasphemous feel about it. Excellent.

What is the virtue of blasphemy when your insult is directed at a non-entity?

You would have to be stupid to think atheists are worshiping Darwin when the sign is being put up by the people who don't believe in religion, and hence don't believe in worship.

And you think some religious believers aren't that stupid?

Every phenomena, all the mysteries of the world, can be understood by science.

They can? Then why do we still have scientists? I think it is generally agreed that there are some mysteries we will never solve. There always seems to be another layer of unknown. The claim that "all the mysteries of the world, can be understood by science" is certainly an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary evidence.

I have a number of problems with the billboards: "Praise Darwin" is only symptomatic of the generally parodistic (parasitic?) style, with mock stained-glass, illuminated text and all. What's the point of that? Isn't non-believe at least in part about escaping from archaism?

Other Comments by Shuggy

36. Comment #435887 by Jos Gibbons on November 27, 2009 at 10:26 pm

Comment #435881 by Shuggy

Every phenomena, all the mysteries of the world, can be understood by science.

They can? Then why do we still have scientists? I think it is generally agreed that there are some mysteries we will never solve. There always seems to be another layer of unknown. The claim that "all the mysteries of the world, can be understood by science" is certainly an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary evidence.

(A) One must distinguish between whether there are questions which science hasn't yet answered (there being some being why we still need scientists) and there being questions that must always remain so.
(B) It is an interesting question as to whether any questions are genuinely beyond science to answer, and I'm not sure either answer has been given a decent defence. What interests me more are two variations:
(1) Has anyone proposed any question already known to be beyond scientific answers?
(2) Is there any other way to answer things?
Historians answer questions in a way I would consider scientific in the sense that it is a rational use of empirical evidence, so I define "scientific" broadly enough to answer the latter negatively. As for the former, certain prime suspects are frequently suggested such as ethics, but so far I think I'd answer (1) negatively too. (I won't expand on that here though as I've nattered enough.)

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

37. Comment #435888 by LittleFluffyClouds on November 27, 2009 at 10:26 pm

There is only one Darwin, and Dawkins is His prophet.

Slay all who repudiate this sacred truth.

Other Comments by LittleFluffyClouds

38. Comment #435891 by Steve Zara on November 27, 2009 at 10:37 pm

Comment #435887 by Jos Gibbons

I think it is not that controversial to accept that there are some questions that will always be beyond science, as a combination of the work of Kurt Godel and Gregory Chaitin makes it clear that there are countless mathematical and logical truths that can never be known, and the universe probably can never be completely mathematically understood, even if it was fully deterministic.

The real question is whether there are ways of investigating physical reality beyond science. As you say, is there any other way of answering things?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

39. Comment #435892 by csquared1 on November 27, 2009 at 10:43 pm

We need to put up bible passages. The fastest way to create an Atheist is to have them read the bible. Most Christians have never read the bible. Let's show them what is in it finally!

Love this idea.

Other Comments by csquared1

40. Comment #435895 by TIKI AL on November 27, 2009 at 10:53 pm

My college professor friend lives 4 blocks from 1 of these.

I E mailed him to see if he could camp out by it and provide protection from the evil Christian thieves and taggers.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

41. Comment #435902 by Jos Gibbons on November 27, 2009 at 11:15 pm

Comment #435891 by Steve Zara

I think it is not that controversial to accept that there are some questions that will always be beyond science, as a combination of the work of Kurt Godel and Gregory Chaitin makes it clear that there are countless mathematical and logical truths that can never be known

I don't know what Chaitin showed, but I have a standard response to the Godel* argument. It's probably going to sound rather weird to you, especially as you seem on top of all these ideas, but I'll include it FWIW.
It is certainly true a decent understanding of the world must have the very richness which forces it to contain Godel sentences which it can state but cannot decide, thus implying there exist questions it cannot settle, because such questions are included in those it can pose. M-theory, for example, must be plagued by at least one such claim.
Now some theories have the continuum hypothesis as a Godel sentence, for example, but in some sense that's not a question about reality, just a mathematical contrivance. Are "scientific" Godel sentences unavoidable? (What makes a Godel sentence "scientific"? That it "matters"?) I'm not sure the distinction between "mathematical" and "factual" questions has been clearly enough articulated for us to know that questions of the latter type, and not just the former, will always include the unanswerable, so maybe one scientific theory could answer all the "proper" questions anyway. Having said all that, a need to make infinitely many new theories in succession doesn't mean some questions forever evade us anyway.
Now, I admit the distinctions I'm attempting to draw here sound a bit fuzzy; indeed, this reflects my own lack of answers to the questions I'm struggling to even pose. But it is precisely because these concerns I have are unresolved that I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm convinced such real-world corollaries of Godel's work have been shown.
* I have repeatedly attempted to include the diaeresis in his name, but my browser keeps misinterpreting the alt 148 instruction in a way that takes it away from the page.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

42. Comment #435907 by Steve Zara on November 27, 2009 at 11:32 pm

Comment #435902 by Jos Gibbons

That is a good response.

What I was trying to illustrate was that even if our evidence obtained from the physical world could be fully and precisely followed by mathematics, there would be no guarantee that our understanding of the possibilities of the physical world was complete. There would always be potential questions about the physical world that could not be answered, and potential truths about the physical world that we could never discover.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

43. Comment #435908 by God fearing Atheist on November 27, 2009 at 11:37 pm

Perhaps we should rename "God of the gaps" "Godel's God" (with the diaeresis)?

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

44. Comment #435910 by bethe123 on November 27, 2009 at 11:41 pm

Godel is not relevant for science. If I have a scientific theory, the test is experiment, not mathematics and not logic.

So, for example, let us say I have a theory that used a "choice function", and the existence of the choice function, as all students of mathematics know, relies on the axiom of choice which, a la Godel ,cannot be proved. Who cares if I cannot prove it? I use the choice function, and test the predictions of my theory in the lab...

I remember sitting in math class, and at a key point in the lecture where, during a proof, the professor had to invoke the axiom of choice, he asked the class if anybody had a problem with it -- nobody did and the proof proceeded. The AC is not provable, but it agrees with our mathematical intuition.


But again -- back to science -- there is no natural phenomena that science cannot explain. That does not mean the job is finished. It is an ongoing task.

Other Comments by bethe123

45. Comment #435911 by Jos Gibbons on November 27, 2009 at 11:41 pm

Comment #435907 by Steve Zara

I'm glad you considered my response good, considering you started out saying the position to which I was responding was "not uncontroversial". This is clearly quite a progressive dialogue. That is quite typical of a great poster like your self. I agree in turn with the logic of your latest post. So, in short, I guess we don't know whether there are in fact questions that science cannot answer. In that sense my position hasn't changed - I was as unsure before as I am now. But as for whether there are other ways, there we agree there are not. This must be the century to persuade others of that.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

46. Comment #435914 by Steve Zara on November 27, 2009 at 11:52 pm

Comment #435910 by bethe123

Godel is not relevant for science. If I have a scientific theory, the test is experiment, not mathematics and not logic.

Godel and Chaitin are deeply relevant for science, because the way that we build models and investigate the data is through mathematics.

But again -- back to science -- there is no natural phenomena that science cannot explain.

That is a very confident assertion. It reminds me of religious assertions about the limits of science.

We have an incomplete understanding of the natural world, and we know that mathematics - the tool we use to model and analyse the natural world has a fundamental incompleteness. There is no way we can assert that science can understand all phenomena.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

47. Comment #435915 by Steve Zara on November 27, 2009 at 11:58 pm

Comment #435911 by Jos Gibbons

I complemented your response because you picked up on my rather clumsy lack of connection between the incompleteness of mathematics and the limits of science. You are probably right that people are more optimistic than I would be about the capabilities of science.

But as for whether there are other ways, there we agree there are not. This must be the century to persuade others of that.

I do hope so.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

48. Comment #435919 by bethe123 on November 28, 2009 at 12:14 am

I have shown, by example, how Godel can be handled in a scientific theory, and hence is a non-issue for science. If you did not understand, perhaps Bonzai...since he has more patience than I, and is grad student in mathematics so he must be familiar with the concepts. This presupposes that you have more than a casual understanding of mathematics and proof, and are not just misinterpreting something you found on the web.


“Let me say something that people who worry about mathematical proofs and inconsistencies seem not to know. There is no way of showing mathematically that a physical conclusion is wrong or inconsistent. All that can be shown is that the mathematical assumptions are wrong. If we find that certain mathematical assumptions lead to a logically inconsistent description of Nature, we change the assumptions, not Nature.”
--(Richard P. Feynman Lectures on Gravitation, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. New York, 1965 p. 183)

Other Comments by bethe123

49. Comment #435922 by Steve Zara on November 28, 2009 at 12:27 am

Comment #435919 by bethe123

I have shown, by example, how Godel can be handled in a scientific theory,

No, you haven't. Because Godel isn't relevant to scientific theories. It is relevant to the models we build, and the mathematics we use to examine those theories.

I don't even need Godel to show how your position is wrong. Try and solve completely a 3-body problem generally.

Your quoting of Feynman is irrelevant. He is saying that mathematical models need to respect evidence. But that in no way means that there are mathematical models that can describe all physical situations.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

50. Comment #435923 by j.mills on November 28, 2009 at 12:32 am

The anchorman refers to "...the biggest religious holiday in the world." How d'ya measure that, then? In units of devotion? Rosaries? Animal sacrifices a la Joseph?

Woman reporter says freedom of speech is confronting freedom of religion. Er, how are they in conflict here?

Nice to see Quammen's illustrated edition of OoS sneaking into the report though. Lovely book.

Jos asks (#36):

Has anyone proposed any question already known to be beyond scientific answers?

Abiogenesis? We can constantly improve our hypotheses, maybe even one day create plausible conditions in which replicators emerge; but I don't see that we can ever know how they did emerge. Even if you could travel back in time, how could you survey the entire surface of the Earth at a molecular level across tens of millions of years? It's intractable.

And what's beyond the boundary of the observable universe? We can reasonably suppose it's similar to what we can see for some distance, but a thousand Hubble bubbles away? A million? Maybe we'll be able to speak authoritatively on that when we firm up our knowledge about the origin of the universe; but it may remain forever an open question.

And indeed, are there other universes? They would (probably) be as inaccessible to science as 'god', but need not require a new order of physics as a god would: ie. they could exist yet be uninvestigable.

Other Comments by j.mills