I'm no expert on the field of cosmology but I thought that according to Hubble's Law the universe was expanding uniformly such that everywhere was the centre of the universe. So if that is the case then the Earth is the centre of the universe....it's just it's not the only centre. Maybe someone who knows more on the subject could explain that better or tell me i'm wrong.

Why do so many Christians who disagree with everything written here still read the articles and comment? I'm just curious. Posted by kiernan on January 29,2013 | 02:57 AM Kierman, Its because those who agree with certain aspects of this article are most likely NOT Christians. What about death? Is the E.T. dead too? Therefore, the answer to this question comes from the One who Fashioned us for this very purpose: 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 2 Corinthians 5 New International Version (NIV) Awaiting the New Body 5 For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

Darwin? Darwin did you say? Poppycock and feathers, I say. Be off with him already!

E=mc² is from Poincaré

I'd like to think that dark matter and dark energy will, somehow, become sufficiently understood that they can be a solution to some of our problems.

My Question: Will the melting of Arctic ice change the balance of the world? Will it wobble? Will it move? Will the changing of the seasons be gradually altered by this? Will Chinese, Thorium LFTR and Thorium fission technologies really "Alter The Gobal Energy Maps Forever"?

Very interesting piece! However, I must point out that #7 regarding Darwin's evolution theory has yet to be proven as fact and there is much evidence to support the theory that modern humankind was created through genetic manipulation of an earth hominid/ape like creature by advanced extra terrestrial visitors using their own DNA. Ancient records, worldwide creation stories, out of place artifacts and our own unique DNA and chromosomal structures lend credence to this theory. We will never find that missing evolutionary link - there never was one. Also, dire climate change being created by humans (#9)is likely not true either. Ancient historical records, pre- historical stories handed down orally by peoples all over the world and actual geophysical evidence on the Earth point to repeating and regular earth cataclysms every 3,600 years caused by what many believe is either a comet or a planet orbiting our sun's brown dwarf twin that passes close enough to earth for geomagnetic and electrical plasma reactions to occur between them. Keep your minds open and do your own research. I think you'll be amazed.

@Don I wonder why whenever we drill down into ice, to see what the air was like when it was trapped in the falling snow, we always see the CO2 levels have spiked dramatically in the last 200 years. http://zipcodezoo.com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Atmospheric%20Carbon%20Dioxide.asp When you consider that we create about 26 400 000 000 000 kg of CO2 per year that must be a rather large volcano that you are thinking about. Unfortunately for your theory Olympus Mons is on Mars and so probably does not affect our atmosphere. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html While the human contribution to the total CO2 produced per year is not that large when compared with all biological processes. Our little nudge has pushed a stable system 30% further from its balance point than it has been in a half million years. So the question becomes what if we push the system to far and it topples into a new balance point. The problem is that no one really knows the answer. Which is why it is probably a good idea to do some research so we can make a better guess of how much trouble we are in. My best guess is that in the 1st world it will probably only mean a tightening of the belts (both proverbially and figuratively). In the 3rd world where people are living closer to the edge it probably means that lots of people will starve.

I like the article, but I was hoping an organization as vernerable as the Smithsonian wouldn't be ignorant enough to blame climate change on Man. I mean, ONE vulcano eruption releases more Co2 into the atmosphere than man has since he walked upright. At the VERY least, global warming, or manmade climate change, or whatever you call it now to make the facts fit your theory, is unquestionably unproven. It should no tbe presented as fact. WEAK.

I can't help but be amused by the disturbing "fact" that we can see only 4% of the Universe. This may not be the case. Mathematician Donald Saari has derived a model that treats galaxies as though they are composed of rigid bodies (aka stars and planets) rather than as "star soup". This model doesn't account for all the matter we see--but it's likely that we see 90% of the universe, rather than 4%. Of course, this new model is rather controvertial: mathematicians and physicists tend to think it's reasonable, but astrophysicists tend to dislike it.

Why do so many Christians who disagree with everything written here still read the articles and comment? I'm just curious.

According to the scientist in Programming Of Life by the scientist Johnson, Miano and Ortenzi evolution is operationally impossible. "Scientist generally consider anything with a probability of 1 in 10 to the 70 power operationally impossible." "The probability that life, a single cell, evolving by undirected natural processes is 1 in 10 to the 340,000,000 power." That's just one cell, think about it.

#10 is a bit odd, since we can see so little of the cosmos, of course we can't see most of it. If it dosen't glow radiation then it's invisible. I"d suggest replacing it with Hubbles' discovery that they Universe is expanding and the Discovery that it is doing so at an increading rate of speed. Not jsut big discoveries but, they also prove that Einstein's Relativity Theory is wrong, since Big Bangs violate it, and the expanding cosmose provs a Big Bang happend. Also, #9. Henry David Thoreau, was born and grew up during the Little Ice Age. You may hav heard of it, it lasted from approxiamately 1352 to 1855 AD. The COLDEST period of the Little Ice age was its last 60 years [1795 to 1855]. This period is known as the Mauder Minimum. It saw the coldest temperatures in Europe and Nothern America ever recorded by mankind. So yes girls, during the Little Ice Age's coldest period, spring did come later. However, never fear, the Little Ice Age ended, and the earth has gotten back to warming up as our planet gets nearer to the Sun do it it's wobbly orbit. A gift from that asteroid that smacked into the earth 65 milliion years ago and killed off the last of the surface dynosaurse.

There are many eminent scientists alive today who will not and could not subscribe to Darwin's still unproven theories. These are taught in schools as facts. I can tell you why: We have rebelled against our Creator and will do/say/believe anything rather than have Him rule over us. In Six Days is a book I have heard about, love to read it soon, unfortunately haven't got it yet so content myself with the greatest Book of all

Up until 8 some of the facts seemed credible, and plausible and although some of these facts are true, once a problem is found the rest of the hypothesis crumbles down regardless of whether the rest is true or not. " 8. Cultures throughout history and around the world have engaged in ritual human sacrifice. ... after sacred Mayan ballgames, the losing team was sometimes sacrificed." Check your facts here, I was born in Mexico, I was born in a family that travelled a lot in Mexico before traveling outside of it. I have probably gone to 90% of the most common ruins for Aztecs and Mayan cultures, as well as a great amount of non common ones. Ball players in Latin America I.e. Mayans, Aztecs, sacrificed the winners of the ball games. Not the losers. It was a great honor to win and be sacrificed. Your article may have started very nicely redacted with credible facts and to ignorant people it may all be good sport. But this kind of misinformation is what will keep us from ever knowing what is true and what is fiction/lies.

Awful liberal artical

In your article is the phrase "scripture said that the sun revolved around the earth" I possess a Bible, nowhere inside is such a statement made. Of course the catholic church writes it's own scriptures as all true Christians know, Any one who wishes to know the Truth should take the time to see what God says in His word, which is infallible. Man is never infallible, and that goes for the present pope, and all popes who have preceded him. Which is precisely why God had to send His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ to be born and grow and teach and die on Calvary's cross bearing our sin, that all who will believe on Him shall not perish but have eternal life. Simple!

Those are creepy!

nice !!! good jobb !!

Wow, reading these comments with very few exceptions I fear for our country's future and tremble when I consider that our educational system produced the comments below me. Horrifying.

What makes this author so sure that the world will end in a whimper? It may end in a big crunch instead or it may not end at all.

"after sacred Mayan ballgames, the losing team was sometimes sacrificed." this is WRONG. i just returned from Coba. the parks department tour guide stated that sometimes the captain of the WINNING team was sacrificed to the gods. i addressed this to the guide and he posed the question, "What would the gods want?" THE BEST! the Mayans also sacrificed babies from the elite class, and virgins. they wanted the best and/or the pure for the gods.

This article contains erroneous and misleading statements. To begin with, all science is conjecture/theory, supported by the latest evidence. Secondly, the strongest science is confirmed by experiment in which the actual circumstances it involves are reproduced in the real world in real time. You present, for example both evolution and global warming as truths. They are simply conjectures like all other science. Secondly, they are not on the same level as physics and chemistry because they are not open to the same experimental verification. (Models are notoriously unreliable.) Some of the more astute evolutionists, for example, view evolution as more akin to history, in which events from the past are used to construct explanations. You also make the logical mistake of the false dilemma, comparing creationism with Darwinian evolution, as though these were the only two alternatives.

Oh, gripe, gripe, gripe. =P

Wait, the Earth's NOT flat?!? Gravity is a theory. Check out inner earth theory (that the Earth is in fact an oblate spheroid, but we're on the inside of the shell instead). Instead of gravity, we are held by centripetal force. The atmosphere inside the shell distorts measurements making space appear to fold the other way. The closer you go to the centre, the more condensed you become, but of course so also do your measuring devices, so it always appears "normal". If nothing else it is an fantastical reminder to keep an open mind, especially about things you "know" to be true.

"As to the theory of evolution and creationism, why does everyone seem to assume that either one or the other is correct? According to this way of thinking one theory is right and so the other must be wrong, but you can't believe that both might be true - which in fact, may well be the case. Can I have my cake and eat it?" Nope. You've invented a new "creationism." The present "controversy," manufactured by the Christian Right, involves Biblical Creationism. Creationism isn't even a theory; it's a hypothesis, one that has been disproved time and again. The creationist hypothesis and the theory of evolution attempt to explain different issues, with the former addressing the origins of the universe and the latter explains the process through which life on earth has become so diverse. It does not address the origin of life, but the origin of SPECIES. Creationism is contradicted by evolution insofar as creationism claims that all animal life was created fully formed in a single day. Evolution, supported by our modern understanding of DNA, genes, and Darwin's "descent with modification," clearly contradicts the Genesis description of creation, so you can't have that particular slice of cake and eat it, too. Of course, other branches of science contradict the other claims of Genesis. If the earth formed over the course of 4.5 billion years, then it wasn't formed in a single day by a deity. If the universe is 14.5 billion years old, then it wasn't made in a single day. Believe science or believe magic, but don't pretend they are somehow complementary.

A little clarification: We don't have an ape ancestry; we are apes. We share with the other apes a common ancestor, a lot of DNA, and the inability to make vitamin C in our bodies. Its why we need fruits and veggies, whereas a wild predator makes the vitamin C it needs while eating nothing but meat. Our evolutionary line branched off from the common ancestor we share with chimps, our closest relatives, somewhere around 7-10 million years ago. Other ape lines branched from the chimp line later. Too often we imagine evolution as a tree or a ladder or a linear progression; it's more like a dense shrub, with multiple branchings from the main trunk, and each branch having multiple branchings. Of course, it would be a very large shrub . . . .

@Joe: Care to explain through science how everything started? Oh right, the big bang. That explains it all huh. Ever stop to wonder why we are the only spiritual beings out there? If we get all our ideas from what we perceive, what emotions we feel, and our imaginations (imagination is limited to only what we have experienced before i.e. we can't think of a new color). Where does this idea of infinity and perfection derive from?

As to the theory of evolution and creationism, why does everyone seem to assume that either one or the other is correct? According to this way of thinking one theory is right and so the other must be wrong, but you can't believe that both might be true - which in fact, may well be the case. Can I have my cake and eat it? Yes I can, as long as I assume that the 'god' who designed Adam and Eve was himself created by the Universe and was himself the product of long evolution. Adam and Eve were man-made creations, brought about by genetic tinkering; other humans who were not designed by this 'god' were products of natural selection. God commanded his creations to fill the earth, multiply, and hopefully, to wipe out the humans who did not come from his genetic stock. So can I believe in both creationism and evolution theories? Of course I can.

As to the theory of evolution and creationism, why does everyone seem to assume that either one or the other is correct? According to this way of thinking one theory is right and so the other must be wrong, but you can't believe that both might be true - which in fact, may well be the case. Can I have my cake and eat it? Yes I can, as long as I assume that the 'god' who designed Adam and Eve was himself created by the Universe and was himself the product of long evolution. Adam and Eve were man-made creations, brought about by genetic tinkering; other humans who were not designed by this 'god' were products of natural selection. God commanded his creations to fill the earth, multiply, and hopefully, to wipe out the humans who did not come from his genetic stock. So can I believe in both creationism and evolution theories? Of course I can.

Georgio - Do you believe in the "theory" of gravity?

You made two mistakes relating to the greatest martyr of science--Galileo. First there is and never was such a thing as a scientific revolution which Galileo supposedly started. His controversy with the Church centered on the authority to interpret scripture. Second, he didn't have proof that the earth was not the center of the universe. That proof did not come until the late 18th century. Most, if not all, recognized historians and/or philosophers of science will most likely be able to attest to that fact.

@Georgio: "You may be an ape, but not I." Of course not; you were Created! And you weren't "born" with all the pain and labor that the scientism-types try to feed us in their "Theory" of birth. You were found under a perfect cabbage leaf wrapped in snow-white swaddling cloth, lovingly placed there by a kindly stork while the pretty angels clapped. It feels good, so it's true!

You may be an ape, but not I. The last time I checked it was still called the "Theory" of Evolution. You treat it as scientific fact.

re #9 - As addressed already by others, climate changes naturally and the effect of CO2 on climate has been grossly exaggerated by the IPCC. But also the statement that CO2 lingers for centuries is nonsense. The half-life of ocean-atmosphere CO2 imbalance is of the order of 3-4 years.

This is a thoroughly ridiculous article, superficially researched and mis-titled, and not at all scientifically compelling or innovative in its point of view...yawn. More apropo for USA Today, not the Smithsonian.

"Scripture said that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and the Holy Office of the Inquisition found Galileo guilty of heresy for saying otherwise" Actually scripture didn't say anything at all about geo or heliocentrism (the versus in Psalms and Chronicles were sometimes egregiously misquoted), and the Catholic church at that time certainly wasn't above twisting scripture to say anything it wanted. The problem for Galileo was twofold; On one hand heliocentrism defied the consensus held by the scientific establishment of the day in the Ptolemaic system, espoused by Aristotle (not God) and widely accepted (And a better fit mathematically than heliocentrism, until the discovery that orbits were elliptical rather than circular). The other was that Galileo had been extremely insulting to his old (ex) friend and biggest supporter, Pope Urban VII, in his attack on Aristotelian geocentrism. He created a character called "simpleton" in his book, thinly disguised as Urban, who argued for geocentrism in a buffonish manner. The Pope didn't enjoy being mocked publicly by his old pal and sicced an inquisition on him. The idea of Galileo facing religious ideologues for 'science', is a modern myth like the whole "flat earth" nonsense.

Perhaps most distressing of all is an observation that a very large fraction of the comments come from people who make it very clear they reject science in favor of their own belief systems. This situation is part of the reason we as a society are unable/unwilling to deal with the facts pointed out in the article.

Alright everybody... I think both the Earth AND the humans are to blame for atmospherical changes, humans are practically apes, and i agree that we are microbes

For many people the most disturbing scientific discovery is the fact that everything can be explained by science, with no need for the supernatural influences our ancestors invented for that purpose.

For many people the most disturbing scientific discovery is the fact that everything can be explained by science, with no need for the supernatural influences our ancestors invented for that purpose.

This is nonsense.

The fact that we're all apes isn't intuitive. Really? Have you ever seen a gorilla or a chimpanzee? How can anyone not recognise the physical similarities between them and us? Even if you don't accept evolution, you have to accept that human beings resemble apes very closely. The word orangutan is Malay for "old man of the forest".

#7 & #9 are blatant OBVIOUS lies! 1st off their is NO EVIDENCE to support darwins THEORY. The head of the WORLD evolution society admits they have no evidence! #2 We have nothing to do with climate change,the military industrial complex is to blame if anything. The real climate change is directly from a planetary bodies effect other planets & our suns solar cycle, in addition to the coming pole shift( which is related to the "planet" coming back around to effect everything once again)This is the semi-covered up explanation!

Uh news for you, the Earth is as much as the center of the universe as anyplace else!!

big surprise, humans are responsible for everything bad and there is no god. blah blah blah. enjoy your grants smith.

I believe the winning teams leader in the Mayan ballgame was sacrificed... this may seem absurd today but it was a great honor to be the one whom provided a good harvest or kept the sun shining.

You say the microbes are gaining on us. We're starting to realize that the microbes are us.

Now this is more like it-up to the standards of the great Smithsonian Although I am Christian (Episcopal), I never thught that the earth is 10,000 yrs old--way too much evidence against that.(or 3000 + yrs ago--absurd) I do, however, believe in an Afterlife....

News for you, Alan (6/04): The earth is not round. It's not even a sphere. It's lumpy and bumpy and lopsided. See: http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/02/22/our-lumpy-earth-graceful-gravity/

Sorry to burst the bubbles, but climate change is normal. Meteorologists have known the climate was warming through the 20'th century. The real argument is over what has caused this warming. There is ample evidence that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have less to do with this than most people think. After all, the climate was just as warm as today about a thousand years ago, when CO2 levels were about half of today's values, then it cooled a little bit before warming again in the 20'th century. Anyway, a warm world is a lot easier to deal with than a cold one. If anyone doubts this, they can move to Greenland and find out how harsh a cold climate really is.

global warming human or otherwise is an elaborate hoax. the hoax is being foisted on gullible public to enrich people like algore and scientific frauds interested only into raising funds to perpetuate their research.. the avg. temp. of the earth hasn't raised enough to measure in the last 100 years.

Take a deep breath, folks. Yes, we have affected climate since before the Mediterranean was deforested to a desert climate millennia ago. We all need to zoom out, and realize changes on a decade, century or even a millennial scale are utterly trivial. We are actually still in an Ice Age. We are now in what is called an interglacial period. That means, a new ice age could begin at any time. The earth is NOT a thermos, wherein CO2 inhibits the earth from releasing energy into space. Actually, the warmer we get, the faster the earth re-radiates it (study physics). In the meantime, biosphere rapidly incorporates excess CO2 before you can write your next doomsday column. At WORST, if all ice on the planet melted, as it was during the Mesozoic Era (dinosaur days, when CO2 levels were FAR higher than our worst nightmares) the seas would rise about 500 feet from now. That would take thousands of years. The earth will yawn once again and rebound, with us or without us.

"# 10 states Earth will end in a whimper. This assumes we have all data and know all that will happen in days to come. What if we as a planet are run into by some Hammer from space. No whimper there in my view." No--'world' in the article means universe. It's implicitly quoting T.S. Eliot: "This is the way the world end: not with a bang, but a whimper." The Earth will end in conflagration as Sol goes to red giant status--unless something really rare happens first. But the odds are against that.

# 10 states Earth will end in a whimper. This assumes we have all data and know all that will happen in days to come. What if we as a planet are run into by some Hammer from space. No whimper there in my view.

In response to Red Beard, "release" is probably more accurate, yes, but one could argue "create" as long as you can "destroy" mass. The two conservation laws, mass and energy, had to be combined with the understanding and implications of nuclear reactions. Your resultant mass is lower than your starting mass, and your resultant energy is higher than your starting energy. So, you can either call it releasing energy that was tied up as mass, or you can call it creating energy by destroying mass. Either way, the mass-energy is constant.

"the earth will end in a whimper." I love that

From the article: "...to create enough energy to destroy a city." Energy is never created or destroyed. Did you mean "release"?

Wow. I guess the fact that the earth is round is thought to have been less disturbing than all of these others.

I love this site! It is very educational for the whole family. Thankyou Smithsoniam!

We are already fighting political and military wars over fossil fuel. Oil is running out rather quickly. There is no such thing as "clean coal" - (where's the Carbon?) Ethanol has no net BTU gain - (basically just repackaged fossil fuel). Biodiesel has an excellent energy return and Carbon cycle but we can't produce enough. Laws of physics - conservation of matter, conservation of energy. There is no free lunch. God is not going to come down from the heavens to make more oil or lower gas prices. This manmade problem has been developing at a very fast pace since the industrial revolution. If there is a solution out there, we had better explore all options - NOW!

Point #8 states that Mayan's used to sacrifice the losing teams of ball games, but I read somewhere that it was actually the winning team that was sacrificed. Does anyone have more information on this? I'm very curious now.

But, but, but, how can this all be when the earth and the universe is under 10,000 years old?

Don't worry if any of the science conflicts with your current beliefs. As #6 states we have an amazing capacity to find evidence that supports our existing beliefs and also to deny evidence when it conflicts. Just review the comments to see this in action. Makes me wonder why some people even bother but then I realize that we all have our own reality to make. Good luck to the human race because no one will be around to add us to the extinct list when the time comes. Behold the void that awaits you. LOL!

What is one evidence that evolution is a scientific fact? Again, nothing but contentions.

It is a shame that our Government chooses to lie to it's citizens through it's organ The Smithsonian. The economic results of global warming treaties are designed to hurt the third world more than developed nations. These treaties are political in nature, designed for the control of target populations. One thing the New World Order's Al Gore doesn't mention is that the warming is taking place on the other planets of our solar system as well, the result of a cyclic increase of mean solar output. Carbon dioxide is good for the biosphere. The New World Order is not.

I find the knee-jerk rejection of human causes of global warming here disheartening. To agree it is simple science on one side of your mouth while arguing there is no evidence for it on the other- your argument only serves to sow the seeds of doubt in science among laypeople. Worse, it makes the more ideological among us feel off the hook; it's "not proven," so they just ignore the stories of polar bears running out of habitat and mass die off and movements of animals to cooler areas, and early flower blooming, or write it off as some temporary natural cycle that we just need to ride out. EVEN IF THAT WERE TRUE, MEN OF CONSCIENCE SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO LIMIT OUR EFFECT ON THE CLIMATE ANYWAY. Stop arguing endlessly about whether it is manmade or not and do the right thing by your home planet, you cowards.

Intelligent individuals cannot argue that man is not contributing to global warming. The thermodynamics of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are trivial to understand. However people can discuss the DEGREE that carbon dioxide is causing the planet to warm. That the planet is warming has been confirmed to 3 sigma. Only with more data can the degree of certainty be increased to 6 sigma, and by that time we may all be dead.

Evolution is an endlessly confirmed scientific FACT and manmade Global Warming is settled science (not to mention the continuing destruction of our ocean and the current man made great die off of the Earth’s fauna). Science is consensual and its findings are not subject for review or modification by credulous, incurious believers in invisible, mythological beings. Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.” - Friedrich Nietzsche.

It's true, the mechanics of climate change are not that complex, nor is Chess. It is not the knowing of the mechanics (rules of Chess), it is knowing what pieces are on the board and what they do! The writer of this article knows of only one piece, man made carbon dioxide. that is NOT the only piece, nor is it the most important piece. We can explain only 48% of the heat that exists. We don't know a lot about climate on this planet. Though reporters refuse to report it, the claim of man made climent change has never been accepted by those working in climate studies. The most common critique is that these people do not take into account the cooling effect of human civilization. This HAS BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN, while man made warming has not been! Carbon in the atmosphere is one piece in the climet puzzel, Water Vapor and Methane gas are two much more important pieces. Trees are a major source of water vapor on this planet. The Americans, Europeans and Africans, have devistated the masive forests that used to cover our continents. This deforestration has cuased a significant decrease in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere cooling the earth. Also we've exterminated massive numbers of methane producing animals like the buffalo further cooling the earth. No one has yet to accurately predice global warming. After 50 years, they have always been wrong. The earth is getting closer to the Sun, it has been for 45,000 years. As such, the earth has been getting warmer. If not for the Little Ice Age (1353-1855 A.D.), 80% of the ice on Greenland would have already melted. The Little Ice Age gave the melting of the glaciers on earth a repreive but not a commutation. For the next 15,000 years or so, the earth will continue to get closer to the sun and we will get warmer. The sea will rise 15-20 feet during this time (it did so the last 4 times so it will this time too), and there is nothing we can do about it. That is what scence knows.

> Creationism is a purely American evangelical phenomenon

Creationism is a LOT older than the United States is.
The Greeks were the first to go on record as not believing in G-d, and that was after creating and believing in the most well known set of supernatural characters that have ever existed. All earlier ideologies believed in at least one creator.

> To those here who claim that the Bible doesn't say that the sun revolves around the earth: without that belief, Joshua could not have ordered the sun to stand still for 24 hours (Joshua chapter 10).

Once someone has accepted a belief in G-d, they have also accepted that he can stop the spin of Earth [without causing mass havoc], can stop the orbit of the entire universe, or can do any sort of optical illusion. The verse speaks in a practical manner - would you expect it to say instead "And G-d caused the myriads of the stars to cease their orbit while in relation to earth..."?!

Whether someone has found a way disprove G-d's existence or not is subject to another discussion, but try to keep the arguments logical.

"The climate is changing, it's a fact, we can observe it. We think we're the ones causing that change. ... Even if that were wrong, we would need to make the EXACT SAME CHANGES."

First two sentence are good (but stress that word "think" -- some humans THINK (or more accurately "believe") that we're causing it. And (they can't prove it and) many of them have an ideological axe to grind -- and are trying to "fix" something unrelated to climate: working for rampant socialism, anyone?)

The last sentence is completely and dangerously wrong: 90% of solving a problem is CORRECTLY identifying the problem and solving the *real* problem. Making the "exact same changes" to try to fix a problem those changes WILL NOT FIX is both stupid and wasteful! If the SUN is heating up the Earth (as, apparently, it is also doing to Mars: same temperature rise over the same time -- or do you think we're doing that too?), then cutting back on fossil fuel use will do NOTHING. (It may do other useful stuff -- but quit lying that it will stop "global warming"!)

The biggest problem in the climate-wars is the "scientists" and academics (and politicians) who are pushing for their pet "solutions" are SO far out on their side of the 'risk seesaw' (See Peter Sandman's work: "Games Risk Communicators Play: Follow-the-Leader, Echo, Donkey, and Seesaw"), that they push people who see the *science* on the NON-human-caused "warming" farther and farther out on their side of the seesaw!

All the screaming about "we have to stop human behavior" (but they rush to add: "in SOME countries but not in other countries") to try to prevent what is clearly UN-preventable leads to us "climate-deniers" fighting against idiot actions trying to solve the WRONG problem!!

Let's spend our time and resources figuring out how we're going to adjust, not try to prevent the unpreventable!

(Bravo to the Framingham study *correction*!)

the world is vastly changing into the unknown.

All True! And very frightening. I have grandchildren that I wonder if they will be alive in 2050, and if so, what their lives will be like.

Obviously all the comments thwarting these very succinct and proven scientific facts are having a hard time understanding reality.

Science is not taking sides, only the fools who don’t understand how the scientific methods works have an axe to grind.

Uhmmm...Nazis were mostly Christian (see Pope et al.) but that doesn't mean that all Christians are Nazis.

Evolution is absolutely a farce. The microbiology associated alone with that makes it completely impossible. Check this book out: "Creation vs. Evolution: NO CONTEST!"

Why am I not surprised that you couldn't go three pages without shoving some AGW nonsense down our unsuspecting throats?

Man-caused "warming" has *NEVER* been "settled science" - and given the ongoing revelations of just how FILTHY the whole mess has become - deliberate falsification of data, the destruction of conflicting data, deliberate collusion to be sure all are telling the same lie... DISGUSTING!

Whatever "Global Warming" there is has been clearly proven to be a result of the interreaction of the sun, its magnetic field and cosmic rays which drive cloud formation and thus moderate the absorption and/or reflection of solar energy.

Just Google"cosmic rays clouds global warming" if you want to know more - or just keep drinking the kool-aid...

To those here who claim that the Bible doesn't say that the sun revolves around the earth: without that belief, Joshua could not have ordered the sun to stand still for 24 hours (Joshua chapter 10).

The story makes absolutely no sense unless the writer(s) of the book of Joshua believed that the sun revolved around the earth.

Grady, I've never read anywhere, in 60+ years, that Galileo was imprisoned because he was a jerk. Even the Catholic Church now admits as much. Heliocentricity got him there, nothing else.

Your points #3 & #4 go against what 98% of all peer-reviewed scientists with Ph.D.s have empirically verified and believe is true. Glad to know that you are smarter than all of them. I would venture that you have spent little time studying the evolutionary sciences (listed under #7 in the article) which all demonstrate consilience for the truth of evolution.

Regarding your statement that the bible is not stating fact, but expressing a perspective, I totally agree. But most Christians use the bible as a scientific reference book and an accurate historical narrative, and it is neither one. It is, in fact, an attempt by ancient, ignorant people to explain the mysterious, complex, and (seemingly) arbitrary nature of the world around them.

At the risk of restating the obvious, the scientific method is the most sophisticated way we as humans have of understanding the world/universe/life and of building the best knowledge base possible. Anyone who claims that reference to old historical documents is a more reliable and better source of knowledge is naive and ignorant of how the scientific method functions. A scientist researching something takes all available knowledge into account and if the historical explanation is valid, the scientist would happily confirm and use it. If a more reliable explanation is discovered, by definition that would supercede the historical.
Its a pity so much time is wasted by ignorant (which means 'not knowing') people on outdated theories and ideas that have long been relegated to history...time that would be better spent looking ahead from the base of our best knowledge TODAY!

Creationism is a purely American evangelical phenomenon. I went to catholic school for a few years (6th-8th grade) and we were taught that Evolution was absolutely real, and that anybody who said that the bible contradicted with evolution needs to realize that the work was originally written thousands of years ago and that many portions of the old testament are not not a historical account.

Letter to the Smithsonian editors: please proofread your writers' works for editorializing before you publish.

As a mid-life student of environmental science, mother, and wife, I'm defeated by the knowledge I gain regard to the state of our planet. It seems as though that "tipping point" is well-passed and we are plunging to an awful future. Scientifically, is there really any room for optimism?

To Swede:

"I suppose your school system may be to blame. It's a good thing for all Americans that they have an institution like the Smithsonian to turn to when they haven't learned enough in school."

The American Education system emphasizes creativity and problem-solving in comparison to the European and Asian education systems that emphasize rote memorization.

America will continue to confound the Europeans by having lower test scores while producing the most innovative products.

I see four major problems with this article:
1: Point #1 has already been addressed - Galileo was placed under house arrest for being a jerk, not for claiming heliocentrism.

2: Point #4 is called a "discovery", but even the heading is a generalization and opinion statement. "Things that taste good" is a non-factual and subjective phrase - making the entire paragraph subjective, and thus neither disturbing nor a discovery.

3: Point #7 is factually incorrect, and perpetuates a common myth concerning evolution.

4: Point #9 is, like #4, neither a fact nor a discovery. While it is very possibly - even probably - true, it is not a discovery: one cannot "discover" the future until it is the present. It is also not fact (in the normal scientific sense) for it cannot be replicated, but only predicted.

Poster "Actually" - your link is broken, so I can't address it specifically, but the most common verse used to make this charge is Psalm 19:6. The problem is, the entire passage is a poetic simile: the Bible is not making a claim of fact, but describing a perspective. Thus, the charge that the Bible states that the sun revolves around the earth is specious and misleading - and ultimately deceptive.

What of G.Bruno, burned alive at the stake by that church because he believed in the solar system?

There are rational arguments against saying that global warming is caused by man's polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. There are studies of heating and cooling degree days that suggest there hasn't been any significant statistical change yet. The ocean acidification studies in the North Pacific have different results than those in the South Pacific. Cuban coral reefs, where pollution is much less, seem to be doing fine. (And I'm still in favor of more "green" energy.)

To those who want to say that religion has caused a lot of deaths, I'd say that is true, but it might be less misleading to say that mankind has caused a lot of deaths. A religion is just a set of beliefs. Nazi beliefs and communist beliefs are every bit as much a "religion" as Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. If a religion teaches people that God or Allah is Mercy and Compassion or focuses on a similar idea, then it has probably done more to prevent murder: How many more killings would there have been had not so many people understood Mercy and Compassion well enough to not start killing?

"Scripture said that the Sun revolved around the Earth" - no, that is what man thought was their interpretation of the Bible's teachings. Obviously the interpretation was wrong. There is a significant difference. This article is amazingly inaccurate. As "Brian" stated eloquently, there are theories and suppositions that are assumed to be fact throughout this article.

Let add another disturbing discovery: the rise of Humanism caused the rise of the most lethal desots that have ever existed.

The "Big Bang" theory was first proposed by the Catholic scientist (and Jesuit) Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître.

The most common theory is that the universe came to life by itself, and after that, evolved life on Earth started to appear little by little. This material-based view entails the idea that time and materials are the only prerequisites needed in making something possible – the possibility of a Creator is not even considered.
However, the essential point is that the universe must have had a beginning and that it cannot be eternal and infinitely old. Even the theories of different scientists indicate this. When they speak about the “big bang,” the birth of galaxies, stars, the solar system and the Earth, they presume that they must have had their beginnings. They are aware of the fact that they have not always been around, even though they do not believe in a special process of Creation. They do not take God into account, but base their theories however on the fact that everything began at once.
Furthermore, we can also see in practice that there has been a very first special moment. The so-called second main rule of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is going towards a heat death – towards a condition in which all differences in temperatures have disappeared and in which the amount of useful energy will decrease and finally expire. In principle, this decrease in energy can be compared with wood burning in a campfire. When the wood has been burned, it cannot be used again – it becomes useless. It indicates that the amount of useful energy decreases all the time.

The source: http://www.jariiivanainen.net/beginning1.html

I wish to be much enlightened about your discoveries

I love Christian logic:

The Bible says it, so it must be true.

Why think at all, hey?

So many new discoveries are happening everyday in the study of the Universe. As Dr. Micho Kaku has stated, " String theory may be proven to mesh with Realativaty as never before thought possible. When L.I.S.A. is lanched and ready to go. The four lasers will be able to look back to the actual beginning of time. The time of the the first mili-second of the great expantion. He is betting that we will se an umbilical cord of are Universe stemming from another. This Multi-verse theory makes a lot of sense when you consider how most of the known Universe is now known to be Dark matter as opposed to matter. So think of a black hole sucking in all the white matter it can. Where does it go? To noware? Or to a Universe that is mostly white matter? Dark matter has to exist in different dimentions since it never colides with other masses of Dark matter. They simply pass through each other. I don't believe in God and quite frankly Religion has done far more harm than good for this Planet. All you have to do is study history. So many men and women have died in the the name of their GOD! Billions over thousands of years. We will probally all be in need of food and water well before we ever use up are planetary resources. I don't think are technology will save us? Think about it? We have had solar power since I was in High School. Do we use it? No we stick with oil and other fossils, which we will run out of. It is sad for me to say but I feel sorry for the kidds out their. They are the ones who are going to say "What were they thinking?" as are planet slowly dies off. As Dr. Carl Segan said" Were all star stuff" I do believe nothing in the universe is wasted. It is simply recycled in one way or another. Peace to all.

aww, man... this whole article is full of lies and inaccuracy.

No WONDER kids are falling behind in the sciences if this is the kind of garbage that is taught.

Okay, quick history lesson.
Galileo was NOT found to be a heretic for thinking the earth circled around the sun. He was found a heretic for writing a book containing thousands of theories published as 'facts', publically humiliating the pope by calling him a simpleton, and humilitating, abusing, and verbally berating allof his fellow scientists at the time as 'idiots'.

Yes, he thought the earth circled around the sun. That fact was public knowledge at the time, (Proof provided by OTHER people than Galileo) and there was already a catholic church inquest being held to determine the validity of the evidence... Galileo, despite being asked several times to wait for the results of the inquest (Which declared, a year or two later, that the earth did indeed rotate around the sun!) published several humiliating and scathing papers insulting the pope, the papal board, and several other major church figures currently on the inquest for stupidity.

Part of the problem with the book, entitled 'dialogues', was that he ALSO included many unproven, ridiculous, and patently untrue theories that he ALSO put forth as being directly based on these 'discoveries' that 'HE' made, including the fact that tides were caused by the axial tilt and orbital motion... a theory that he never once used scientific methods to determine. In point of fact, he was well known for 'twisting truth to fit theories' and throwing fits at church-sponsored scientists (Many of whom made some of the most pivotal discoveries during the renaissance... in contrast to established propaganda, the catholic church at the time was actually the most scientifically active establishment on earth)

Karen, it is possible that the orange light you were wondering about is a distress flare, normally used on the open seas by ships in distress.

Such a flare is a rocket like those used for fireworks, but instead of exploding in bright colors, it ejects a single, slowly burning orange light, attached to a little parachute. Normally it slowly floats to the ground, so slowly that it seems to be hovering in place for quite some time, but in your case, it seems like an upwind took it upwards until it went out.

To the rest of you, I'd like to say that Europe is filled with good Christians who still take science and evolution seriously. Creationism seems to be a purely American phenomenon. I suppose your school system may be to blame. It's a good thing for all Americans that they have an institution like the Smithsonian to turn to when they haven't learned enough in school.

and what of the primum movens?

Although it would seem more rational that the losing team in the Mayan ballgame would be sacrificed, there is a strong probability that the individual winner was actually the one to "lose his head."
How grateful would the gods be for the slaughter of the weakest player?... or worse yet, for the sacrifice of someone captured from another group who meant nothing to the spectators?
Human sacrifice was regularly an offering to request a good harvest for the year. Any self-respecting god would be most pleased by the offering of the best the society had to offer.
Even Biblical stories of animal sacrifice are always of the best and purest. Concening human sacrifice, Abraham is even at the verge of offering Isaac.
Finally, men who have been raised from birth to consider "death for a cause" as the highest calling would be (and are today) honored to be the one who makes the ultimate sacrifice.

the good thing about climate change is that true or fancy, we will never know as the very climate that is changing will probably make us extinct too. It's a moot point...doesn't matter. Fossil fuel companies have too much power for anything to change enough for us to even TRY to control the trajectory of climate. So, we'll pass from the scene with all the other organisms that are going before us! We'll never know!

Yes the bible does say the sun revolves around the earth.
http://www.godvsthebible.com/chapter03

It's too bad the monkeys writing responses to the contrary don't recognize themselves as true apes. Enjoy the coming new deserts and jungles as the earth warms beyond recognition. Record global temperatures, while meaningless by themselves today, are indicative of things to come. The deniers rely on the myth of a god who will not let the earth change because he would not destroy man again. My aching .... Good luck as the world changes around you and you wait in vain for the mythical man to save you.

i don't know which is more unbearable.. the 'logic' of the deniers - or the smugness of the adherents ..

I think it's quite funny how people say that some scientific theories are wrong. Because that's what it is about. Science deals in falsifiability. The idea of science is to prove things wrong, not right. So, in essence, by proving things wrong, you have successful science and in turn this raises more questions. Good points on some of the things about why some theories may be wrong. But, instead of getting self righteous keep in mind that at least in science we are trying to find answers to questions. For those of you who believe in the bible, it would be appreciated if you actually try to bring some evidence to the table of why you may be right. Bashing science and providing provocative arguments to show that some theories may be wrong is one thing. But, I have never seen or heard any sort of evidence to prove the existence of God either. Mostly your answers are, "since science can't prove it wrong it is" I say, until you can prove it is it also isn't. I guess that's what we call a conundrum?

We should all respect each others opinions and stop bashing. In many respects there are things that can neither be proven nor disproved. To try and say something is right merely because that is what you believe is the inherent flaw in man. It's called pride... or ego... I believe this is what ultimately will be the downfall of us all. So use that brain wisely. Logic over emotions my friends.. logic over emotions.

Biblical use that has incorrectly been assumed meant flat - the "four corners of the earth" = north, south, east and west.

There are a great many statements in the bible offering a glimpse at the genesis of this world that are right there but mostly over looked.


People are now claiming to find missing links only because truth in science is no longer required.

Both this article and the comments that follow demonstrate to me that in spite of all the progress we have made, and in spite of all the resistance to that progress by forces of denial, we are yet infants in knowledge.

There is much about Earth and the surrounding Universe that we have yet to learn; much of what we 'believe' we are just guessing at or approximating. Just as much of what we currently deny is simply because we have not yet developed the tools to understand.

If history is any indicator, I am certain that fully half of our accumulated wisdom will be overturned and replaced by more sophisticated models within the lifetime of our youngest members.

Live, and learn.

When "scientific discoveries" are used politically, they become "disturbing."

Number Eleven.

Empty space contains more energy than mankind has used in recorded history.

Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when devoid of matter (known as free space). The vacuum energy is deduced from the concept of virtual particles, which are themselves derived from the energy-time uncertainty principle. Its effects can be observed in various phenomena (such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, the van der Waals bonds, or the Lamb shift), and it is thought to have consequences for the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales. The energy of a cubic centimeter of empty space has been calculated to be one trillionth of an erg [1], based on the upper limit of the cosmological constant. However, in both Quantum Electrodynamics (QED)and Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), consistency with the requirement of Lorentz invariance and with the magnitude of the Planck Constant leads to the much larger figure of 10^107 Joules per cubic centimeter or 10^113 Joules per cubic meter.

Race and Intelligence is the Most taboo scientific study of our time.

Fun article, thanks.

It has possibly been demonstrated here that there is a sort of inverse relationship between knowledge and disrespect. The comments which seem to come from those with the least degree of apprehension are also the most dismissive, featuring the greatest frequency of denigration and name-calling. Those coming from folks who appear to know what they're talking about seem, in contrast, to be the most tolerant, even conciliatory. Fascinating.

Religion and Science serve different sets of human needs from one another, and these two disciplines are not an either/or selection; neither intellectually nor spiritually. Most of the people commenting here, whether people of faith or materialists, seem not to realize this.

Even in ancient (predating the Roman empire) times, human beings seem to have understood very complex concepts, such as the precession of the equinoxes or the mathematical relationship known as The Golden Mean. At the same time, human beings (not necessarily the same individuals) also believed all kinds of things that we now consider pathetically dimwitted and breathtakingly ignorant. Generally speaking, the second category vastly outnumbered the first, and in many cases the ignorant majority carried out vicious attacks on the informed minority. Not much of anything has changed in the last 2500 years or so. Maybe longer.

Lastly, judging the intelligence of a group of people as numerous as we "Americans" are by the comments relating to one article published on the internet is not exactly a stellar methodology, if one seeks a meaningful result. If it were, we could also accurately judge the intelligence of other English speaking cultures by indicators like David Icke or Kevin "Bloody" Wilson. Fair enough?

WOW! Yes it IS! NO IT IS NOT!!! LOL! How can I possibly add a unique observation to this comment conglomeration?

The article is extremely flawed and biased, but no more so than those making the comments. Evolution is certainly not proven, and does not address the actual creation of life anyway. Explain how life began, and how it could possibly grow more complex rather than submit to entropy and then I might be impressed. But you can't. What we know about life is that it is passed on from another living creature - period. We cannot prove panspermia, spontaneous generation, alien scientists or God saying "Let there be Life", so all is speculation.

EVOLUTION: Life started somehow, and turned into all you see by chains of random accidents without any input from external intelligence or design? Yeah, right.

Intelligent design is apparent in life, but who or what the designer is, and where did the designer come from are ideas beyond our comprehension or ability to answer, thus we have the arguments at hand.

The Bible does NOT teach the Earth is the center of the universe, the verses quoted may lead some to suppose such, but The Bible does not teach that idea. The Bible is not a scientific treatise, it is the Word of God to lead man to salvation.

Man made global warming is nothing but a myth by which to control us. Carbon dioxide is no pollutant, ask all the plants that need it to survive.

Now, pillory away boys. Just another Yank making you feel superior in your elite, monkey ways! Lord, Help us!

The universe is not an infinite space....

"Climate-Gate" is over. Many scientists have looked over the data and found it to be sound. The English profs sounded bad, but thier data (aside from the doctored tree ring chart) was solid. The only Phd levels scientists or above who do NOT believe in climate change are almost always getting grants from high polluting industries or are heavily invested in oil or mining. So far 99% believe it is happening. All the junk science in the world won't give us our glaciers back or save us from the release of methane when the Arctic Ice melts. There very little grant money available these days that are not attached to finding outcomes favorable to business.

This article is full of propaganda and lies. What a waste of time.

The hype about global warming could be resolved with the simple act of moving all the monitoring stations away from the cities, which are artificial heat sinks, and put them out in the normal, natural environment. Of course it will be hotter by a concrete and blacktop airport than out in a forest or a grassy meadow.

They forgot #11: That science itself has been devolving from discovering facts, to simply making them up data support political ideologies at an alarming rate.

By 2012 the same people who write this article will be claiming that giant rock monsters will rise from the earth and eat our children unless Obama is reelected and more funding grants are passed.

A fine example of politically progressive science is Global Warming or Climate Change. We should smell a rat the instant a group of people screaming “scientific fact” are also screaming about the closed debate and hurling ad hominem insults at those who disagree with their branded conclusions. What else can paint such an obvious picture of intellectual insecurity/dishonesty?

We can read the replies here and see the examples of those who disagree and make a plausible case and bullies who disagree and resort to insults about people being apes who need to go back to school and pay better attention. Some of us did pay attention in those childhood science classes where the first rule of scientific observation is an open mind.

In seeking truth it is important to remain "open to evidence" no matter what "side" you are on (I hate to put it that way, but many comments posted demonstrate angry competitiveness). There is no place in scientific study for judgemental name-calling and "know-it-all" attitudes. I observe that we humans need to step up to our "intelligent" responsibility to be good stewards of the rich resources our earth provides us. No other species, yet, has the capacity to make decisions based on knowledge acquired leading to consequenses with such global importance. I have relished perusing the comments made with thoughtful provocativeness, but nastiness from some certainly overpowered whatever clever point was attempted. As with politicians, I request you promote your point without debasing your opponent's position.

The level of c02 has gone up in my life time. So some one said ( maybe he said ) it has not gone up at all in thousands of years? A lot of scientists are said to have said things about global warming. Only they say they never said that there was not global warming. Someone is lying, MANY SOME ONES! WITH LOTS OF MONEY!

An interesting article that took fact and sewed it together with doomsday rhetoric with a thin thread of truth.

Too bad scientific fact and theory were not differentiated taking an article which could have been an entertaining "opinion" piece on several scientific facts ( as I hesitate to say they are all actual discoveries as some are merely theories) and turned them borderline irrelevant by making them fantastical and sensational.

Still I read it, which either says a lot for you or against me. :)

#11

If people's comments online are in ANY way a representation of the how the human race truly is, we are doomed.

People start attacking other people unprovoked in comments on a Smithsonian page? Jesus.

"Concubines were sacrificed in China to be eternal companions" Or perhaps to eliminate any possible claims to the throne by the sons of former concubines.

Reading all these irrational criticisms of the above article just proves to me how true #6 really is...

"...Our cognitive failings are legion: we take a few anecdotes and make incorrect generalizations, we misinterpret information to support our preconceptions, and we’re easily distracted or swayed by irrelevant details."

Science vs Christianity?
What of the other Abrahamic religions such as Judaism, Coptics, Muslims & Mormons?
Not to mention the Bhudists, Hindus, Taoists, etc?
OK - so I win no spelling bees either.

Where do you get your information? Numbers 9 and 10 totally contradict each other. You say we've already changed the climate for the rest of this century and then go on to say the universe is made of stuff we can barely begin to imagine. If it is then how on earth can you say WE'VE created global warming and changed the climate. What a bunch of bunk! I thought the Smithsonian was supposed to be a trustworthy source of information. I'm beginning to believe what everyone says - scientists will say anything to receive more funding! Shame on you Smithsonian!

Did the smithsonian post this artical to test us??? dont always believe in what you read!

For all of you fevered bible thumpers who feel the need to post, please. We know you believe in your powerful imaginary friend. We know that belief makes you "explain" evolution or climate change away with wild conspiracy theories about fabrication of evidence (though, evidence doesn't mean very much to you anyway, does it?).It's just easier to convince yourself that all these wicked athiestic scientists are out to conspire with their "theories", just to get your goat (why, one can only speculate).

But deep down...come on, deep down, you know this is bunk, and your ideas have been debunked. But, I realize it's hard to accept a harsh reality where mankind is not (if not the geographic, at least the conceptual) center of the universe. I know because I was there myself as a child. I know it's easier to stick your fingers in your ears and wish it would all go away. But the world is awesome. The elegance of natural selection is awesome. The improbability of life on this particular sphere of rock is awesome. Your relationship to the other species (and yes, other primates) is awesome. Don't blow it off - embrace it and consider it for all its wonder. It's much richer than the alternative, and has the additional advantage of being reality.

I agree with what is been said here, except for #7. From what I read in cutting edge science literature, there is more and more evidence that random evolution can not explain the evolution of the cosmos within the current time frame. Some suggest that the energy that gave birth to the big bang constitutes a "potentiality" -- which is still a mystery, just like "dark energy" is still a mystery. However this potentiality, which manifests according to conditions, would represent the part Darwin called "evolution." In any case, without falling for "creationism," it is considered arrogant in a post-modern world to state Darwinian evolution as factual knowledge. A "source" of potentiality and its manifestation through "evolution" are not two contradictory notions. They are complementary.

The great thing about being a sceptic is that you don't have to pass any exams. I doubt that most of these commentators could survive any undergraduate upper division class in the hard sciences.

Do we have technology , I guess we do(?), that hovers silently in the sky as a bright orange light and then moves up into sky on a diagonal line fast and disapears. The object then comes back with in about 30 seconds and does this again? Any answers Definitely intelligent not a natural phenomenon

Bible?

"In the beginning Man created God"
That's all you need to know.

All you over-educated types with huge egos explain this. Supposedly all our solar syatem was created from one source. How come only this planet has myriads of life forms, an eliptical orbit, and huge amount of water, seasons and a rather stable temperature. look at the rest, poisonous air if any, horrible heat or terrible cold, little water or frozen solid, and no life of any kind seen so far. To think this just "happened" all by itself shows ignorance and arrogance. Because most animals have similar skeletons proves nothing. Like begets like, something that cannot be denied. The so called "missing link" will never be found because it does not exist. Some have used various animal bones along with human ones to construct and present to children their "theory" as fact. Desperation !So we are to believe that black people, white people, asians, all came from some mutated ape. This planet is unique because it was made to be that way, and our eco system is always changing. Dinosaurs were quickly removed from Earth because humans could never have survived otherwise. Changes had to be made. It has been already stated after much calculation, that if we humans parked every car and truck, it would have less that .o4% difference to warming or cooling.

SARS came from fruit bats. NOT from eating civets. Displaced fruit bats from the great fires on Java and Sumatra in the late 90s ended up in SE Asian agricultural areas where their guano was consumed by hogs and chickens. This has been establshed by several independent sources. The original finding by New Zealand researchers.

The war between scientists and believers is an unnecessary contrivance. Feel free to lament the feebleness of my feeble mind as I pray for you. I am unbothered.

Wow!!! The article was certainly very appropriately titled...

After being fascinated by reading through the comments, it is hard to add anything more. I do enthusiastically commend those people who made rational, fact based arguments and raised valid points about the facts cited in the article.

However, I do feel that ignoring the overwhelming evidence for global warming and it's effect on climate or the fact of evolution of microbes and their effect health and not think through the implications for our children and grandchildren is grossly irresponsible for us as citizens of this planet.

It is also important to remember that the Holy bible is not a scientific text...

People that do not or will not understand science should never, never comment upon the findings of science.

There is no reason to get blue in the face because we share a commnon ancestor with other creatures. It is a scientific CERTAINTY, not a matter of faith.

For those of us that respect faith, and share the need to reach toward God, and desire to touch that Mystery, have a little humility......you seem to find in your Biblical prophecies more reason to hate than to walk humbly with your God.

However, pardon us if we get a bit blue in the face at the kind of wilful ignorance that continues to deny the increasing scientific CONCENSUS that human activity is causing possibly catastrophic climate change. For those of us that are not in thrall to right wing ideologies or "scientists" concerned with the welfare of oil/coal/gas corporations, we know that your wilful ignorance is blocking the path to change and that ALL our children and grand-children, indeed all life on earth, will pay the price for humanity's stubborn wilful greed & stupidity.

I already knew when reading the article what the comments would mostly be about: evolution. The blissfully ignorant persistently denying any evidence of it, while sticking to a 2000 year old book based on fictional figures... deal with it! We're all descendants of apes and we should be proud to have made it this far!

What? How come everyone is bashing and arguing over this? I believe all of this is true and if you don't I feel sorry for you. Some people are saying certain things are impossible... since when?
I don't know, maybe it's good to argue. It might help us evolve. As long as you don't fear. We may all die tomorrow but do not fear.

What, no quantum mechanics?

It is frightening and stupid, blinkered and backwards Americans are.

I find it quite shocking that this article is on a website of this nature. Whilst all of the items have some measure of accurate theory to them, this is seriously sensationalized.

And then:

"..—a smidgen of plutonium is plenty—to create enough energy to destroy a city..."

Energy cannot be created! You learn about this in junior school science class. How in the name of hell can you publish a comment like that on a supposedly scientific website?

I'm incredibly disappointed!

In the Bible it says: God Knows All!
The World will always will be the same, people how-ever will change or leave as the world goes on and on into the future as it's self and just doing what it naturally does, something to that scenario! The prophecies though are very much coming true. I would suggest reading what the Indians have said about our future and what some of our great seekers of the future have also talked about...Almost all that they spoke of is happening, but people won't see this, they just ignore the Truth.In the Bible it says the water will turn red..Well, The B.P. Oil Guys did just what it is prophesied!Oh yes!...The Pole Shift!...well That last earthquake we had moved that city some ten feet! Yep, I would say it's the beginning of the Pole shift and who is going to be next?Also The Ring of Fire is also doing what was said also....Oh yes and greed and control well!...You know that is here and is not going away! Yep! Stuff is happening, so open your eye's folks and yes!... somewhere over that rainbow out there, we have friends?Enemies?in space or maybe visiting us and that truth will also be told too maybe!

Well...don't believe everything you read...Global warming is really about global control instead of climate. Man is nowhere close to apes...I'm not a monkey's uncle and never will be! There's no proof at all for evolution and is the "great Lie", in fact in direct violation of the 2nd law of thermal dynamics! I'm fearfully and wonderfully made...but I think God I'm not a Liberal socialist atheistic Over educated moron than must light a match to the the sun, or the son! That's the problem with too much education...The more degrees you have the dumber you get and then you want others to pay you a salary for it! Gp get a real job and learn to work...don't sit around and think stupid thoughts and try to convince the rest of the world how smart you are....I love the smithsonian, but I hate the evolution lesson they keep forcing down your throat!
Gee Get a life and grow up!!!

And what is this about 'Darwin died a christian'?

"Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_religious_views )

Why is it that the so-called christians can never seem to be honest in their cites and quotations? Why do they constantly make claims that can be show to be false with a couple of minutes Googling of the current scientific consensus - On practically any and all matters they bring up?

'By their fruits ye shall know them', and it was those very-visible fruits that showed me the way out of religion and superstition. Their shining example has been just what I needed to show me WHY science is so much more trustworthy and efficacious than religion and superstition, and for that at least, I have to thank them all.

Whew! The amount of ignorance shown here is *scary*. The -willful- ignorance is the really ugly part to me. These people could learn the reasons for the scientific consensus with a simple Google search, but they prefer to wallow in their ignorance rather than face the unpleasant ideas.

Yes, The Theory of Evolution is a theory - A 'theory' is the best you can get in science! It is also the ONLY theory that aligns with the millions of individual bits of evidence that the scientific establishment has collected over the last 200 years. 'Creation' is NOT a theory. It has been soundly falsified many times, unless you want to be so wishy-washy as to say that God 'created' in a manner indistinguishable from the Theory of Evolution. Sorry, you don't get to call Creation a Theory. It ain't!

I can't believe that people are still harping on 'Climategate'. Absolutely NOTHING that came out of those emails put the slightest doubt on any of the extensively-documented studies that make up the scientific consensus. There's no there, there, and to see people STILL trying to make it look like some sort of revelation.. Well, I suppose that the comments are proof that at least SOME people will listen to even the most obvious of lies if they align with what they WANT to believe.


If we agree with the scientific consensus on AGW, we should get ourselves sterilized? So anyone who's managed to educate themselves enough to understand WHY the scientific consensus is what is is, those educated people should be sure not to reproduce, rather than trying to fix the problem or create a legacy for their offspring - nope, they should all just die! That'll solve everything! - Until the increasing climate change starts to cause enough trouble that even the willfully ignorant can't ignore it anymore, but by then it'll be too late, all the educated people will have died off, and THEN where will the rest of you be? Who cares about the future, right?

Humans are not apes. We are primates.

Before we are humans, we are monkeys, we should all behave like monkeys, then humans. Money has no meaning to a monkey. It has all the meaning to humans. All the conspiracies lead to one thing the loss of monkeys.

The 'theory'of evolution is that, just a theory, no proof available, just as creation is a theory (if you have poor understanding of the chicken or the egg thing)? I don't understand how evolutionists can discount creation so readily. How did the evolution cycle start? Is it just a never ending circle. I really don't get it, everything had to start somewhere.
Please prove me wrong, don't give me the atom turned into this and that etc...where did the atom come from..there's no answer.

I do believe in evolution, but no where does it claim that we are descended from apes. Even the big bang theory claims something was created from nothing. The only supposition here I would put money on is #6. Memories, like history, are subject to interpretation.

Don't usually comment, but some of this is incorrect or the author has demonstrated limited understanding.

Most of the comments here are, to put it mildly, goofy as a cross-eyed git. Amazing how many people think the duty to question means never facing any fact that challenges their bizarre prejudices. And evidently a lot of folks only read sites like this in order to work themselves into a frothing snit. Dare I suggest they also find Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck worth their attention?

Re #5 E=mc^2. Citing a number like 34,700,983,524 without units is meaningless. In this case the units are miles^2/sec^2. If you chose your unit of distance to be one hundred million meters, the speed of light would be 3 and the multiplier would be 9.

MODERN THEORIES ON THE UNIVERSE REST ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT IS NOT TESTED MUCH LESS PROVEN: NAMELY THAT ELECTRO-MAGNETIC RADIATION (LIGHT FOR EXAMPLE)DOES NOT LOSE ENERGY (WHEN VIEWED FROM ITS ORIGINAL FRAME OF REFERENCE) AS IT TRAVELS FOR MILLION OF YEARS. THE RED SHIFT IS ATTRIBUTED TO VELOCITY OF THE EMITTING SOURCE. EXACTLY THE SAME RESULT OCCURS IF THE PHOTONS LOSE ENERGY. I FIND IT STRANGE THAT THE LIMITATION OF THE THEORIES ARE NEVER MENTIONED.

Wow,
This is the first time I'd ever surfed over to Smithsonianmag.com. The replies to this article really disturbed me; until I realized that at the Nations museum one was probably going to get a broad representation of American opinion; and many Americans are rather undereducated.

I suppose I'll surf back at least few times more, to get the lay of the land. I just won't read the comments. In this way I can pretend that my fellow citizens understand simple things like relativity, cause and effect, and natural selection i.e. sixth grade science.

if you feel like these type of scientific observations are ridiculous or even insulting to your personal intellect, then the real question is why are you even reading this article?

Look around evolutionary is still taking place, and some are barely out of the trees. China is the biggest nation and polluter. Do you think we can get a third world country to get on board with cutting down on carbins??? Doubtful.

After 80 years, maybe my observation is dimming, but I have traveled much of our globe, camera in hand. I went back to Glacier Park two years ago, and it had 25 fewer glaciers than it did when I was there as child. This year the businessmen in the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization published a report available to you, as a plea for mankind to treat global warming seriously, since the Park’s glaciers are fast melting and the organization fears loss of its tourist business. I went to Patagonia this year, and the guides all commented on the melting glaciers of the Andes, and we saw the retreats, and learned how the melts adversely effecting fresh water. I live in Florida, where the water levels of our Withlacooche Preserve on the Gulf are rising ever so bit, but enough to kill the root systems of the Red Cedars and the trees. I could go on with other experiences. This month’s National Geographic’s feature story is about the warming of Greenland. We can hide and not believe any of this is happening. It probably won’t affect our lives. But I am reminded of the admonition, we didn’t inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. That’s a bid debt.

I've been impacted by evolution in my short 40 years of life. At one time there was a tour available at Mammoth Cave (Kentucky) that allowed you to take a mini cruise on the lake in the 'basement' of the cave. The blind fish were one of the attractions but since we can't see in the dark, the tour was lit with artificial light. They no longer offer this particular tour because the fish's eyes started growing back. I'm no scientist, but this was proof enough for me.

We have lost a great deal of integrity in the scientific community as science today is not governed by my lifelong desire to find the truth even if it means living in a shack and eating beans and cornbread. Today's scientific work is so dependent on millions of dollars of grant funds that expecting the truth to come out is like expecting a politician to vote his heart instead of selling his soul to the highest bidder. We live in a world of sell-outs, some to religious dogma, some to the dollar and some to the latest craze in movie stardom. It seems no one has integrity anymore to search for the truth even though it may be uncomfortable. For the most part this article and the comments are both hogwash. Oh for the days of a simpler life.

Fewer humans, Sam, not less humans. Let's add cows, too. Fewer cows = less methane and Co2. Some things about climate change we know as fact: the oceans are warming, coral reefs are dying, and the glaciers and arctic ice cap are shrinking. If we can help by passing less gas, I'm all for it.

Very interesting comments. As for the case for climate change by man produced CO2, the believers are not making their position very well. If they trust the fact that man has created such devastation, they they should get sterilized. After all, less humans equals less emissions.

Thank you so much for reminding us that these ideas are indeed "disturbing" - and let's not forget it. And yet some modern readers find them to be no longer disturbing, but ordinary and obvious. That is what they have become over time, and we forget the effort and struggle that went onto the forging of the great ideas.
So just think of it: a generation from now, some other facts, such as global warming and evolution-based medicine will be seen as obvious. And folks then will be very superior and smug when they remember the old denials. Like Galileo's critics, the past deniers will seem laughable and futile. But now there will be a new dimension - the denials will have brought tragedy upon our descendants, because we waited too long to do the only right thing. "If only the ship had slowed down in those conditions, but they were all having a good time, etc." So future people may well despise us, as blind greedy beasts low on the evolutionary ladder. Ironic, because we think we are smart and know how to party with no consequences. Of course, many alive today will never experience them, human lifespan being what it is. Whether this matters to you depends. . . . . . ..

I think that the argument about climate change is not about whether it is happening or not, but about whether it is man made or not, and that is still not a FACT, and I am not even sure if I would classify it as a theory, since there is too many disturbing incidents that have tainted the so called evidence. A person can be Christian and still not deny the theory of evolution, since it does not contradict anything that we hold to be truth. Since evolution only is an observation of the evidence for change and does not have a way to answer WHY there is change and WHY we are, Who we are ETC. This is the realm of Theology and not biology. The two can be held to be true without contradiction. As to Galileo his censorship by the Catholic Church, the Church only would not declare that his conclusions were true, which they were not, since there is no evidence that either the Earth or the Sun is the center of the UNIVERSE. There was definitely more to it than that and personal problems that should not have been included in the judgement he received, but this is only a discipline issue with the Church and not a dogmatic proclamation as is always inferred in the attacks from those who want to attack the Church.

Climate change may be due to human action, or it may reflect natural changes that have occured over the past many millions of years. Many people prefer to believe that it we cause it - because then we can hope to cure it; others prefer to belive it is natural - because then it's not our fault and we don't have to be guilty.

Either way - the cause is not the issue.

What is the issue is that it is happening. The world is getting warmer. The change in global climate will have a huge impact on the world - in terms of species extinctions, in terms of food production, in terms of flooding (New York, Washington, London, almost the whole of Holland, lots of Denmark, Bangladesh, etc etc. - and countless millions of human lives are under threat.

We seem to spend all of our efforts in trying to rebottle the genie - that may help if it's our fault, but our best efforts are going only a very little way, and if it's natural then our efforts won't help at all.

What we need to do is to work out how to respond to what is pretty much inevitable. How do we cope with the results of a warmer climate, what plans are in place to deal with mass migrations of people displaced by starvation and flooding, how to we minimise disruption to food supplies.

The governments of the world do not seem to be addressing these questions, perhaps they should?

Some thoughts:

For certain disregard all comments with misspellings...those who comment should know better, where have these people been!

Several comments have indicated the thoughts of many are widely divergent and that is fine.

Many have suggested some of your comments engendered by this article are lacking in the schooling necessary to form a cogent opinion about anything. I agree!

Give me science over religion, always!

Comments decry the reality of dire, human-caused climate change, insinuating cynical political agendas. Yet there is no reason to believe Earth's rising temperature will drop in the future, and the current CO2 level is correlated with and caused a vastly different climate in the past.

"You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science. "Prior to the Industrial Revolution [and over the last 800,000 years]... the carbon dioxide level was about 280 parts per million...But since the Industrial Revolution, the carbon dioxide level has been rising and is likely to soar unless action is taken to reverse the trend...
"'The last time carbon dioxide levels were...as high as they are today...global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher..., there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,' said the paper's lead author.
"'Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history.'"
--http://www.physorg.com/news174234562.html Oct 8 2009

The content (more explanation at the link) and source here should give any person cause for grave concern about consequences for all life on Earth given current and ongoing human activities. Ideological or emotional disbelief does not refute compelling scientific findings or suppositions about what humans ought to do now.

What a disappointing article.

When I'm at the supermarket I sometimes pick up tabloids and magazines at the checkout to read the silliness for a chuckle. But I don't want smithsonianmag.com to publish the same kind of thing.

I come to this site to learn and get information. I'm not here to read drivel.

An example

>> There have been mass extinctions in the past, and we’re probably in one now. <<

Is that fact / opinion / conjecture / speculation?

Most of the people posting here have a pretty poor understanding of science, including Aaron (close but no cigar). All seem to see the adjective 'scientific' as a label of authenticity. Please remember that science is a method by which you avoid fooling yourself. It will not stop someone from conning you.

When you do investigate the science behind AGW you quickly encounter huge flaws. Climatology is a new scientific discipline that many older Atmospheric Physicists have serious contempt for, and sends most geologists running for a bucket. AGW is far from a scientific fact.

This brings me to Evolution. Please just shut up about it! Charles Darwin died a Christian. The Catholic Church proclaimed (in the 19th century) that his work showed the how wonderfully complex Gods creation was and most protestant priests agreed. The only issue has been atheists trying to use science to debunk God, without which I doubt that there would have been such a backlash against Evolution.

Evolution is the construction of a theory that is still in progress. There is so much evidence for it that there is no scientific alternative, but its not without flaws. I can see myself as more than an animal without going feral at the thought of a distant cousin in a zoo somewhere, so can you.

Which brings me to my last point, which is that atheists are as religious as anybody who believes in God. Please do not get fooled into thinking science is a substitute for religion. It is such a clumsy way of working out the truth that despite all the advances in technology derived from science, you can not equate science with fact. It doesn't work that well in any science other than Physics, and completely useless for everything else.

I find all comments interesting at least we are exercising our muscle between the ears and not sitting and watching TV.
I'm a little disappointed in some of the people that think they are superior to everyone else, I have found that the people that think they know it all in reality know far less than they realize.

Saying something is true doesn't make it true. A large, large majority of this is based on hogwash and unproven science. Why would Smithsonian put their name on such garbage to besmirch their own name and credibility? This should be in snopes. Or is it already there? It's good for a laugh, but that is about all.

According to modern cosmology, the universe has no center. A useful analogy is that our 3 dimensional universe is like the 2 dimensional surface of a balloon. Draw the universe on the balloon and then inflate it. The galaxies get further apart. This is the expansion of our 3d universe. The surface of the balloon has no center. All points on the surface of the balloon are the same and are getting further apart from all the other points on the surface.

First of all, to the hard-core science types above, the Smithsonian is not known in my academic circles as an authoritative scientific force, it is an institution that tells the story of America and does so from a specific perspective, to a specific audience. It is no less biased than any other state-run museum. However, it fulfills an important role in interpreting to a generalized audience, and it tends to do that job well even if they aren't good at spelling out all the details. Their job is largely to tell a narrative rooted in something approaching accepted facts and make it accessible and acceptable to the audience.

Secondly, I want to second the post by Ian above. "Theory" is not (or at least should not) be used lightly in science. If it is referred to as "theory" then there is no competing hypothesis that does a better job at explaining specific observations.

Thirdly, I would like to the "Climategate" folks out there that in report spanning thousands of pages, a handful of facts were incorrect. I guarantee you that I can pick up a textbook and find a dozen factual errors in there. And yes, the scientists involved were concerned about where to publish their articles. Science is incredibly political, I've heard of fistfights at certain conferences over bruised egos.

In addition, I know from the time I spent on several listservs with some of those doing environmental studies that the published reports are often far more conservative than what many investigators believe to be the case. Environmental change and climate change are very real, driving one another and becoming increasingly destabilizing in the geopolitical realm. At least three countries I know of have censored information by visiting scientists, threatening them with arrest and barring all further field work if they publish what they actually observe.

Thanks for the article and the commentators for ample proof that many of the discoveries are indeed disturbing. Predictably the most disturbed are those whose belief systems have been challenged. Sensibly we aren't commenting on our human sacrificing/cannibalistic ancestors. We are tactful when it's needed.

Some of us, in defending the science, have used the word "stupid", i.e., "lacking intelligence or common sense". If true of some please be kind... they can't help their affliction.

It's probably more accurate to describe the comments/commentators as "ignorant". A responsible person can fix ignorance.

Echoing HughMcB & Deb: people observe facts and science attempts a meaningful explanation (theory) as to cause. They are always a work in progress. Newton and Darwin proposed elegant theories explaining the facts of gravity and evolution. Their theories have since been refined in the light of new discoveries/facts. To my mind Darwin's theory explains evolution at a deeper level. It describes an underlying process. Newton's theory merely quantifies the macroscopic effects of gravity. We still don't have a tested theory explaining how gravity works.

I have sympathy for those beholden to a religion which forbids them thinking outside the scope of their chosen sacred text. Should these people appreciate the real world they are at risk of losing their social and family context as "unbelievers". They are also risking the wrath of God in that they are willingly denying the facts of His creation in favour of books written for/by people who had yet to discover most of what we now know. Even worse is that they are teaching this blinkered faith to children which implies (according to Jesus) they would be better off in a mill pond with a millstone around their neck. It takes true courage (or ignorance) to live this way.

Hmmm. And I thought intelligent people would be reading the Smithsonian site. Based on some of these addled comments, that does not seem to be the case at all.

What surprises me about the climate change deniers is that they don't seem to realize that every time they start up their car they contribute to pollution, that the smokestacks they see spew pollutants into the atmosphere, and that the so-called "climategate" nonsense is being propagated by the National Chamber of Commerce, members of Congress who represent energy producing states, and a whole host of organizations that are backed by energy companies. An investigation by the British House of Commons has concluded that the scientific data supporting climate change is valid. Surely by now, it would seem that some of the deniers would ask themselves about the motives of these front groups, and whether these groups have the deniers best interests at heart. Industries will invariably place profits above everything else. We only have to look at what has happened recently with coal mine disasters in West Virginia and China, at the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the effects of mountaintop mining in Appalachia to see evidence of man's impact on the earth and/or its' effects. Our continuing greed and demand for power through mining and drilling for oil will eventually be our downfall, unless we begin developing alternative sources of energy in the present. If one wants to look at it from the POV of Christianity, one could conclude that God gave us only one planet on which to live, and we are its' caretakers. Where will the billions of earth's residents go if we sit idly by and let life on our planet become inhabitable?

Interesting article. It should inspire genuine humility. Although evolution seems to be factual, and religion has generally been an evil influence I still believe in God based on scientific evidence. The evidence is the writers who claimed to see miracles including the raising from the dead of various individuals. I guess one might choose to believe it was only hallucination or pure deception, if you wish.

I'm not disturbed by any of this. If anything this guy is just showing how little we actually know and how little control we actually have in the grand scheme of things.

However, I do think it's funny how this guy claims man made global warming is now a "scientific discovery" while the people behind this argument are making a fortune off of this kind of ignorance.

the ignorant comments here are hilarious. reality wasn't made for humans. that's probably hard for some people to accept

John, the trolls lurking in the comments section of the Smithsonian provide a much-needed counterweight to rational thought.

Or at least a counterweight.

What's unfortunate is that they ruin the discourse over at Scientific American as well! (Or maybe it's just one troll with multiple aliases.)

Speaking as a scientist, educator and someone who has read the whole bible and studied it, what is most disturbing here is the number of people that are collasally ignorant of the contents of the Bible, science and math.

Yes, evolution is real. Yes anthropogenic climate change is real. Yes, the Bible does make statements that directly lead to the conclusion that the earth is flat, at the center of universe, and the the sun and stars travel around it. It also says many other things that are clearly factually wrong and only a perosn ignorant of science or the Bible or both could think otherwise. The Catholic Church, Martin Luther and John Calvin all condemned copernicus as blasphemous. While Saint Augustine thought it was biblically impossible for people to live on the other side of the earth even if it was round.

If you don't know who these people are. If you don't know the history of the reaction of various churches to scientific discovery. If you have not read the Bible cover to cover and thought about what each verse says and its implications. If you have not passed college level courses in biology, cosmology, or climatology. If you have not read the Bible from cover to cover. Your opinions are uninformed and you need to realize you are babbling nonsense. Go back to school and stop pretending your know better than the experts.

@B. J. Sims

You asked where in scripture an earth-centric view is mentioned. While biblical interpretation can (and does) vary, these references were the ones used against Galileo:

Biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text (depending on the translation) stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" etc.

From the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei


Personally I find the microbes to be one of the most disturbing. Given the speed of global travel, the rate of evolutionary change in bacteria and viruses, and enough time, it adds up to an equation that almost guarantees a new disease emerging which will cause a catastrophic death toll sometime in the future.

Since no one seems to care about our ancestors being cannibals and ritual sacrifice, I submit another disturbing scientific discovery to replace it: the Yellowstone supervolcano! (& the recent series of miniquakes the past few years) Sure, it dwells on a geologic time scale, but it's still a massive time bomb that will someday destroy most life on the planet, with nothing we can do to stop it.

This is a very superficially researched article for mag with as strong a reputation as Smithsonian's. (No mention of those little things called parasites nor, for instance, of the fact that DNA 'evidence' can be manufactured.) Here are a few contributions I can offer from my browser's Bookmarks list:

- The flawed human body - http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/research/New_book_examines_the_flawed_human_body.asp

- Several other animal species (including non-mammals) have been found to have what were formerly considered uniquely 'human' traits - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13860-six-uniquely-human-traits-now-found-in-animals-.html

- Most life forms on Earth may be ultimately nonsustainable - http://www.nytimes.com/projects/magazine/ideas/2009/#k

- In the wake of the hype about cloning animals, the scientists doing that work remark that a human clone would be "uglier, sicker, and dimmer" - http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=18319

- Primitive life forms were merely self-sustaining energy-transfer entities - http://www.physorg.com/news148050302.html

- Among all known living things, only a jellyfish is truly 'immortal' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula

Nice article! I gave up on the comments after about the first 25 or so... The willingness of religious misguided people to open their mouths in the US is amazing - in Australia they generally talk only amongst themselves because they know they'll get laughed at. And you can tell how entrenched their thinking is. What are they doing on the Smithsonian website?

I wish I was smart enough to know which bits of science are correct.

Hmmm... Digital computer? Cool. The cancer treatment that saved my loved ones? Cool. The technology that kept my Boeing in the air? Cool. Evolution? No way, stupid scientists!

The most unsettling discovery here is the fact that most people who comment on these pages are terminally stupid. Go away and learn why a scientific theory cannot be described as 'only a theory'. A scientific theory is as a working model constructed with the very best available data. It isn't a hypothesis. It isn't a guess. You can't disprove it by saying, 'I don't believe in it' or by stating that an ancient manuscript said it's not true. You must provide a better model or valid evidence as to the original theories shortcomings - valid evidence, not silly stories about rocks and watchmakers, or stupid jokes about whether your granddad was a monkey.

The word 'fact' is an absolute, science doesn't deal in absolutes because, in the real world, they don't actually exist; that's the only reason scientific statements don't use the word 'fact'. Only religions talk about absolutes, i. e., 'this is so because scripture says it is.' Look at the trouble that attitude has led to in history each time it was discovered that something in scripture was discovered to be dead wrong.

I apologise if this comment appears inflammatory, but it's time people woke up and smelt the coffee.

The title is a bit sensationalist, but the responses are even more so. Evolution is a fact until you find a better explanation - and prove it. You can't? Then I guess evolution is it.

And "Joseph on May 14,2010", your supposition "For instance, Lets say the universe exists within an infinite space" is inevitably incorrect. The universe is the be-all and end-all. There is nothing outside it. It stretches as dimensions do. And for there to be a 'centre' of the universe, there would have to be something there holding it together. That would be impossible. The universe isn't a bubble, it is an amorphous shape. etc etc etc.

Please research your theories, everyone, and don't rely on the Bible. It isn't a definitive source. When you do, come talk to me.

I am amazed that the Smithsonian, a publication that I always considered to be very reliable, would print a list with so many fallacies.

Some months ago my wife and I were in New York City and visited several museums including the Rose Planetarium of the New York Museum of Natural History. We saw the incredible presentation explaining the earth, our universe, and the unknown number of other universes that exist "out there". Our universe is a piddling little thing occupying a trivial amount of space in our universe. Out there in space there are no dimensions. No up, no down, no east, no west, no beginning, no ending

ad infinitum!

No matter who or where you are you are as infinitely far frmom the edge of your universe as anyone else.

The only thing that disturbs me about this article is the responses to it.

How can humanity be smart to figure all these things out, and yet morons have access to computers and (presumably) some sort of credibility in society?

If the author believes that the "Bible teaches the earth is the center of the universe," why not cite the chapter and verse?

Glaciers have melted, then advanced and covered the top third of the globe, then retreated and advanced again -- many times in recent geologic time -- without the intervention of man. They will continue to do so, regardless of what man does or does not do. Global warming advocates have lied, cooked the books and left out important evidence (like the medieval warming period and the little ice age.) Their credibility, and yours, is highly suspect.

Hey, we could just say, "It's all a lie!" But, that would not be any fun. Pondering the mysteries of the Universe is one of the most satisfying and fulfilling activities of Humankind. Thanks for an article (and all the commentary) that made me stop and "ponder" about all these issues for awhile. For most of them, the final word has not been said. Let's all keep the dialog coming.

I totally agree with Tenebras' comments on May 17, above.

Since when has the global weather conditions on earth ever been static?

I do believe in one constant for the past millions of years is the earth has either been entering an ice age or leaving one.

So now some claim we had global warming, the solution: socialism and the Government take over the economy.

...now we have global cooling, the solution: socialism and the Government take over the economy.

Hrmmm.

Nice collection of facts. But some do not fit the scope (like sacrifice/cannibalism) and many other are left. But still a very good article.

On dark matter, dark energy, I'd like to educate the readers here that this is not science yet, the hypothesis is at a very-very early stage. A Wisconsin based scientist already found answer to some of the dark matter; it is nothing but black-holes that are small and do not form centers of galaxies. The discovery is confirmed but it is not clear yet how much dark matter can be accounted for from this. Perhaps there are multiple explanations for dark matter. And one of the explanations could also be our incomplete understanding of gravity itself which gave the reason to believe there is more matter. Similar goes for dark energy. Being unexplainable force doesn't necessarily mean it is a new force. Incomplete understanding of gravity plays a role here as well. And also the possibility of a known force at unexpected place and in unexpected form. Basically scientists are using dark matter and dark energy as umbrella terms for unexplained phenomenon. Just like 1000 years back we would blame every unexplained mystery to GODDIDIT, and some people still do. Not implying that scientists are superstitions, just an analogy how today's mystery is tomorrows science.

In short we are not sure that the known mass of the universe is only 4% of the total mass, and probably it isn't, but if we apply our today's knowledge that is what it comes out to be mathematically, perhaps because the knowledge is incomplete.

Those who deprecate the fact that humans descend from creatures of lower intelligence such as apes further illustrate that we have a long way to go. However, as a childless woman I have less concern than my friends who have grandchildren. I attempt to live one day, one moment at a time and honor the human brain who understands zen.

I am very glad to see the rebuttals to your 10 Scientific discoveries. It is great to see the intelligence of your readers. It is sad to comment that the readers seem to be better informed between the differences of fact and theory.

Let's not forget all the amazing discoveries that religion has given us. Oh, right..there aren't any. Does science get it wrong sometimes? Sure. But science continually questions it's prevailing theories. Religion questions nothing and has a history of fighting new knowledge and discoveries. How many people has science put to death because someone didn't have "faith" in their "beliefs"? I'll take science thank you.

It's very disturbing to read a piece like this and then see all the ignorant, angry commenters thumping their chests and trying to assert their dominance. More evidence that we're in the ape family, eh?

The climate is changing, it's a fact, we can observe it. We think we're the ones causing that change. But guess what? Even if that were wrong, we would need to make the EXACT SAME CHANGES. Why? Because what we think is causing climate change - fossil fuels, using too much and recycling too little - is not sustainable. Eventually the oil will run out, eventually there won't be room for all the garbage, eventually there will be too many people and we will no longer be able to squander as much per person as we do now in the richest countries. We have two choices; one is to keep chugging away right up until the end, then watch society fall apart when everything's used up. The other is to work hard now, make some minor sacrifices, and get ourselves into a sustainable society that can afford to grow. Getting mad because you have an emotional investment in being anti-environmentalists is just irrational and self-destructive; it's the kind of thing I expect from my eight-year-old, not adults. I don't care how much Al Gore makes you mad - I don't like the guy much either, but I don't use that as an excuse to ignore reality for a comfortable fantasy. I'd rather not have to do the work to wean us off petroleum and our wasteful lifestyle, but sometimes you have to quit whining, roll up your sleeves and get to work!

And the same goes with evolution - you're getting all worked up over an imaginary man in the sky. Worse yet, he's a character in a book written thousands of years ago by some primitive folks living in a desert! It's time to let go and face the facts, folks. We don't really have time for you to indulge in these satisfying personal fantasies - we've got work to do!

Overall an excellent article, although I think I would have listed #8 on a separate list of the 10 most disturbing human behaviors. As to the comment by another reader that global warming stopped 11 years ago, that isn't supported by the evidence. 1998 was a very warm year (there was an El Niño), but the long-term warming trend is "catching up" again ... just look at the latest NOAA report about the warmest April on record!

Anyone notice that the climate deniers now have exclusively adopted the techniques of the religious fundamentalists?

The "arguments" against climate change are identical in form and content to the "arguments" against evolution and cosmology.

There are what, a total of one response that might point out a potential factual error in an item in the list (i.e. it would require some research to determine if it were true or false).

In the rest of responses criticizing items in the list, you could pretty much substitute "climate change" for "evolution" or "big bang" and they'd all still read the same.

It's an interesting progression where a potentially legitimate question like "how do we know this?" or "what evidence is there for this?" becomes phrased as "it contradicts our religious or political dogma and is therefore a de facto falsehood".

I thought the list was interesting only in its ordering. The fact that climate change, the only item in the list that is potentially a grave threat to our species, is listed near the bottom after many discoveries of only philosophical or personal consequence.

That's a really sad indicator of the state of "modern" society.

Roz, Beth,et al.

We are not descended from monkeys or apes. We are one species of ape, descended from a common ancestor with other species of apes. Our common ape ancestors are descend from a common ancestor with monkeys (they took two different evolutionary paths), they are descended from a common ancestor of prosimians, who share a common ancestor, with a common ancestor, with a common ancestor, and so on and so on, back to the primordial soup, back to the formation of the earth, back to the formation of the solar system, back to the formation of our galaxy, back the the formation of the universe, back to the Big Bang, and before that? who knows, but it had nothing to do with a god, or higher power, or aliens, or a giant flying spaghetti monster (well possibly the last one). As for proof and facts. There are libraries and museums full of them. You should go check them out, take some classes, and actually educate yourself.

One point about the earth, or at least our galaxy, being the center of the universe. If the Big Bang expanding model is correct the same conclusion could be made by observers on any other galaxy even one billions of light years away. Most people don't realize how truly strange the universe really is.

Thomas Jefferson relied upon direct observation to conclude that mastodons roamed the frontier.

Did he directly observe mastodons roaming the frontier?

Very interesting article and discoveries. They make you think: which are true, which are theorical, and which are false? Just thinking about the universe being infinite (which is my belief) can be mind-boggeling. If you just stop and think about there being no end to whichever direction you go leaves a very intense feeling inside. Makes me feel like my mind is tiny and not capable of processing such information. And also shows me that we are a lesser being, with God being the Creator of All.

I thought this was an interesting article in fact, that takes a look at some discoveries that disturbed the contemporary society - may be we are not "disturbed" by the story of Copernicus, but global warming is a controversial issue for us, whether it exists or not. The drawback of the article is that the author has taken a somewhat easy layman approach (sometimes fanciful - "...everything in the universe will ... a whimper") to scientific issues that deserve a more critical and analytical style of presentation. But I suppose some discoveries enumerated here do justify the title. On the whole an entertaining article, but not accurate scientifically on all the points.

Thank you Mike. Very glad to see another person trying to get traction against the dietary nonsense that gets spouted out on a consistent basis.

Smithsonian - Deeper research is always appreciated. A number of other studies on diet that are held in high esteem have either been debunked (e.g. the seven countries study - exposed as selection bias) or have such weak statistical correlation (e.g. nearly all of the current dietary studies) that sending the data and conclusions to any statistics professor would have them rolling on the floor in stitches. Please be an advocate for actual science, not a supporter of cheap statistical studies that, in the end, are just observations.

Well then how come we don't just face it and do industries and decisionmaking to support both the earth and ourselves as she changes, soften the fall, rather than hasten it exclusively like we do. Isn't there a way we can just do something instead of watching it all slip away in slow mo? Put away the devices and get our hands dirty. Environmental Battleship Admirals, Global Earth Healthcare professions, whence graduate students like this? Should I take a more activist role or keep my day job so to speak...

wow

do you know how fast the speed of light is? trying to go that speed squared IS impossible. there is no way on earth it can be done

While there isn't much hard science, or "proof" of any of these topics, obviously that isn't the intent.

Each of these topics are the prevailing theories from the scientists of today in their respective fields. Evidence of how much they disturb people is obvious from the comments section.

Naturally, some refinement of these theories will take place as time goes by. However, they chances they are flat-out wrong are very slim indeed.

In a few more centuries it seems the people of today who deny climate change, evolution, and science in general, will get lumped into the same category as Pope Urban. What is fiercely debated today will turn into tomorrow's common knowledge.

These comments prove that these discoveries are disturbing. The vast majority of people are too indoctrinated by religion or other dogmas to want to accept evidence so far removed from what they've been raised to believe.

"we misinterpret information to support our preconceptions"

The author was right -- for some of us, at least.

As soon as I read something in a piece decrying man (Mann?) made climate change I tune out. A year ago the global warming priesthood merely seemed naive, but after the CRU e-mail revelations, it's remaining members have passed naive and are now simply foolish

In the human lifespan, some 70 to 80 years, does any of this really matter?

It would seem many insecurities have been exposed. People seem to be focusing on specifics of what may be incorrectly worded, worded differently than they would word it or may be against their beliefs. Yet they seem to be missing the sutble point of the article. Knowledge, though empowering, can and usually does, cause us to question our selves and our beliefs.

I'm going "Duh!"

(Why are consequences always disturbing for some types?)

@Beth Rowell

Gravity IS a FACT despite Newton's THEORY of gravity being superseded by Einstein's THEORY of gravity. This does not (or would not ever) mean that gravity is not FACT (i.e. does not occur), merely that our understanding of HOW it happens was incorrect.

Similarly, evolution IS a FACT. If Darwin is ever proved wrong (which seems highly unlikely, far less likely then our understanding of the mechanisms of gravity, for instance), all that would imply is that evolution occurred by SOME OTHER mechanism, as evolution DID happen. It's the HOW it happened that's the THEORY, not the FACT that it DID happen.

There is as much proof supporting evolutionary theory as there is supporting electrodynamic theory, aerodynamic theory, atomic theory, the theory of heliocentricity, cell theory, germ theory, musical/acoustic theory, spherical Earth theory etc. etc. etc. etc.

If you would like to dismiss evolution as being "just a theory!", or perhaps "it's hasn't been proved!" then I suggest you also discard all of these above THEORIES.

Which would mean; no electricity or electrical appliances whatsoever, no planes/race-cars/high speed trains, no computers, no nuclear power, no modern medicine/anti-biotics/modern hygiene, no songs/guitars/pianos/violins, and what's more we would believe that the Earth was flat and that the sun revolves around it (presumably the ancient Egyptian god Amon-Re out for a joyride in his chariot of fire).

In fact to dismiss any scientific theory as "unproven" you can pretty much leave your house right now in nothing except your birthday suit and perhaps a small stick for poking grubs out from bark, go live in a cave and use some nice dry leaves as toilet paper for rest of your life. Perhaps then, and only then, you wouldn't be outing yourself as being a giant hypocrite and scientifically illiterate, by claiming that something was "just a theory".

The FACT of the matter is; you're an ape, I'm an ape...

... DEAL WITH IT.

Bad article, even worse comments.

The universe is not infinite, it is infinitely expanding. If you can't tell the difference between the two, please go back to school and try not to fall asleep during class this time.

Humans ARE apes, whether you willfully ignorant, arrogant, religious nutcases believe it or not. In fact, your behavior only reinforces the notion that you are apes.

I don't know how many photos of the Arctic icecaps disappearing it will take before the deniers realize that the climate IS CHANGING. They'll probably still have their fingers firmly shoved into their ears when Antarctica becomes habitable to humans and the equator no longer is.

In short, the only people who would find the items on this list disturbing are the people who were ignorant, arrogant, or stupid enough to believe otherwise in the first place. The rest of us are going "Duh!" And as long as the majority of humanity falls into the ignorant, arrogant, or stupid category, we are ALL royally screwed. Thanks guys!

I think this is amazing. I like that Smithsonian is branching out and offering people the choice to decide what is disturbing and what is not. As far as science goes, I don't know anything about it, I'm still a teenager, so I've got plenty of time. Who am I to say it's wrong or right? For the most part I believe everything here, but that's because of what I see with the media and everything. This is good. :) And I prefer to not be too disturbed by everything here. My life will end eventually, and while I prefer it be later rather sooner, I know there's nothing I can do to stop it. So just enjoy what we have now, and don't worry about disturbing issues that rarely affect you personally anyways. :)

Ridiculous article, fraught with stupid science.

Regarding #7.....you may consider yourself to be descended from apes, but I do not. You, nor I nor any other human is a descendent of apes. "Everything we've learned....supports his great insight"----no proof exists. Evidence can't be found for something that is untrue.

And its all will go on for ever. That;s life.

Referencing #10, Newton's gravitational constant G is equal to the speed of light squared divided by the linear mass of the universe. If the universe is expanding, meaning that the radius is increasing, then the linear mass is decreasing. If the linear mass decreases, the gravitational constant increases so that the universe will have more gravity and hence be pulled together. This is similar to the tornado where there are environmental oscillators with a range of temperatures and frequencies. This changes Planck's constant so that space-time moves out of dimension. This brings in low density, low-speed-of-light hyperspace energy into the tornado such that the light speed is 1 meter/second with a .078 kg/m linear mass. Thus G goes from 6.673200002*10^-11 to 12.8. This increase in gravity pulls the tornado in to create a tighter spiral giving the tornado its characteristic funnel shape. The same should happen to the universe which means that the universe will not become cold and desolate, as suggested by the author above.

None of the Ten disturb me i enjoy the gift of life and take one day at a time.

It is disappointing that Smithsonian would run an article which offers theory as fact.

In the case of the Earth’s location in the universe, the scholars of the day used direct observation of the passage of the sun, moon and other heavenly bodies to theorize that we were the center. Copernicus challenged the majority opinion and offered proof that Earth revolved around the sun, yet most scholars insisted his ideas were absurd.

Thomas Jefferson relied upon direct observation to conclude that mastodons roamed the frontier.

The assumption that humans are, have or are capable of changing the climate comes from a consensus of ‘experts,’ based upon direct observation. These scientists offer charts to show how temperatures rose as the industrial age began and keeps rising. And they’re right, or were. It is, or was. Until eleven years ago, the temperature was climbing. Then it stopped and has dropped. Global Warming quickly became Climate Change. Same game, different name.

The Copernicus of the 21st century have found proof that when the time period was increased to millions of years, instead of a couple centuries, high CO2 levels occurred often over the millenniums and during ice ages, too. The idea that CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere has been changed since scientists uncovered evidence of a process that sequesters the excess before it causes the atmosphere to overheat. Others discovered that the amount of solar radiation is the primary determining factor in the Earth’s temperature.

Like the consensus in Copernicus’ day, today’s Climate Change scientists have their reputations, their professorships, their research grants at stake. It may take several generations for the truth to sink in

#1
"Scripture said that the Sun revolved around the Earth,..."

No it does not.

Copernicus & Galileo proposed that the earth is not the center of the SOLAR SYSTEM, & they were right.

Modern science has no idea where the earth is located in reference to the center of the universe.

#7
I'll believe that when I see evolution actually produce a higher form of life from a lower form. Prokaryotic cells have a generation time of 20 minutes, so using selective pressures over a few years to turn them into eukaryotic cells should be both easy and cheap.

#9
Climategate - most evidence was either fraudulent, or built on fraudulent evidence.

Those are disturbing, unless of course they are not true.

For instance, Lets say the universe exists within an infinite space. How far to the edge in any direction is it from the earth? The answer would be infinity. Since the distance to the edge of infinite space is infinity in all directions, the earth is the center of the universe. Of course more precisely so are you.

Forget how far to the edge of matter comprising the visible universe that is a limited question. I say, how far to the edge of a PLACE TO BE. How far can you travel before you cease to be? Can you travel far enough from the light of the visible universe so as to look at it and see only the twinkling of a star? Or even not be able to see it at all. Get back to me with your disturbing news when you know the answer to that one.

The Framingham Study does not prove what you say it does, and your entire paragraph for item number four sounds like it should come from a tabloid instead of the Smithsonian Magazine.

The original Framingham report states in part:

"In undertaking the diet study at Framingham the primary interest was, of course, in the relation of diet to the development of coronary heart disease (CHD). It was felt, however, that any such relationship would be an indirect one, diet influencing serum cholesterol level and serum cholesterol level influencing the risk of CHD. However, no relationship could be discerned within the study cohort between food intake and serum cholesterol level.

In the period between the taking of the diet interviews and the end of the 16-year follow-up, 47 cases of de novo CHD developed in the Diet Study group. The means for all the diet variables measured were practically the same for these cases as for the original cohort at risk. There is, in short, no suggestion of any relation between diet and the subsequent development of CHD in the study group…"

And:

"With one exception there was no discernible association between reported diet intake and serum cholesterol level in the Framingham Diet Study Group. The one exception was a weak negative association between caloric intake and serum cholesterol level in men. [As to] coronary heart disease–was it related prospectively to diet. No relationship was found."

What a load of utter rubbish. This is hype/spin to get more taxes out of people for those who are already richer than most people imaginings will ever take them...