From G. A. Warren
Marcus Chown’s article is absorbing, but is it science? Why must the Universe go through an infinite sequence of big bangs/crunches? I understood that at present we only have evidence for one bang, and there may not be a crunch at all. Why this reckless extrapolation?
In Neil Turok’s own words, the new theory is more “aesthetically pleasing” than the old. It doesn’t explain more observations, but he likes it better. So does Chown. So do I. So what?
I have the same queasy response to the debate over “creation science”. Regardless of the quality of the work done, the driving motivation is not to explain the world as we see it, but to validate (or, for its opponents, to invalidate) an ancient religious text. Scientific method is brutally indifferent to both external dogma and personal feelings. What matters is the data.
Newton Stewart, Wigtownshire
