The Faith that is Taught in Our Public Schools and Universities:

The Unfortunate Myopia of a Materialistic Mantra Ingrained In Our Science Education System and College Professors

Executive Summary:

One Thousand Science Professors can say it is not so, but whether they are right or whether they are wrong the truth stands independent. We trust our science professionals to be accurate and up-to-date on points related to their field. But are they ever wrong? What if several or even many of them agree on a particular issue. Is it possible that they could still be wrong? More importantly, how do we approach science? When we model the principles of science to our students, do we approach science as if our science theories are all science facts or do we consider that science is a work in process? Our scientific theories are always open to further refinement even fundamental revision as evidence is discovered that challenges current even long held belief. In fact, that is the foundation of science. Science advances when just one person believes that they can explain a phenomenon better with a different explanation and then they devise and conduct experiments to not only demonstrate but also to potentially falsify the claim.

Further, though science is the study of natural mechanisms, what experiments have been devised to demonstrate that our materialistic explanations, rooted solely in the interaction of matter and energy through the framework of chemistry and physics, are sufficient to explain the whole of our natural world? This has not been done, nor theoretically can it be done. Yet when we teach science, particularly the “science” of our origins, teachers often fall into a mantra that science says “x” came about by the material means of matter and energy. It stands without question, a “consensuses” among scientist. It is statements like these that are science stoppers. Science does not operate via a consensus. Science breakthroughs begin with that one person thinking out of the box.

The first paper encompassed in this document was written to demonstrate this very fact – that material causes, which are all too often dogmatically appealed to in the case of our origins, are not a sufficient cause in and of themselves to explain certain phenomenon. The example considered is the origin of the first stars. More importantly, and in the larger picture, the paper is about how pure faith or belief in this materialism is substituted for actual science and this belief system is inculcated into our young impressionable school children as if pure material causes for our origins were demonstrable science fact.

The story does not end there. This paper, opening with a discussion about the origin of stars, was passed on to a number of astronomers at UVU by a professor, who had faith in material causes, with the intent that it would be discredited. Contrary to the intended outcome, the end result was that the astronomy professors counter assertions only proved the larger point to an even greater degree as other evidence was brought forth. University professors have again demonstrated even in this case that they themselves are ignorant of the fundamental challenges, and that science lacks functional explanations from material causes to account for some of the most basic and essential events from which they allege our origins.

When it comes to the “science” of our origins, the real science is often lost in a mantra of pure faith in materialism and is not founded in demonstration or observation and measurement that we are lead to believe lies at the heart of our modern science.

Skeptical? Read on and see for yourself, but as the response from the astronomers is unedited you must read to the end to understand the whole of the argument. To save embarrassment to some parties, the names of the astronomers have been changed to protect the guilty.

A slightly updated version of this paper with additional references is available on the web site here An example of a current limit of science understanding, and how such issues affect the science classroom. Star Formation:, but less one think that the problem really lies with this earlier version in the way it was written I have kept the original paper that people could see the discussion and that the ideas presented have not changed.

An example of a current limit of science understanding,

and how such issues affect the science classroom.

Star Formation:

It is known through the investigations of science that gravity alone cannot collapse a cloud of gas to form a star, as normal gas pressure can easily overcome the rather weak force of gravity. These gas clouds or nebula appear to have substantial density compared to the emptiness of the space surrounding them. However, these nebula are actually a million times less dense then our best vacuums here on Earth. At a density of one milligram per hundred cubic kilometers, colossal forces must be applied over vast regions of space in which a nebula naturally exist, to generate the extreme density and shear enormity of a concentrated mass, in such condition at which the force of gravity can overcome the powerful dispersing affect of gas pressure. As we consider ever greater masses of gas in a nebula or gas cloud, the problem of the dispersive affects of gas pressure are not decreased. More gas mass brings more gas particles. True, each gas particle does bring a very small amount of additional mass with its associated gravitational affect, but it also brings with it a proportional amount of the far stronger repelling force of gas pressure. It is not that there just needs to be lots and lots of mass collecting; it needs to be a very, very dense mass before gravitational forces can over come the dispersing affects of gas pressure.

Consider the fact that even our Earth does not have a sufficient mass and density formulation to affect the accretion of hydrogen and as we can show that the gas pressure of hydrogen can and does over come the gravitational pull of Earth. We know that we are continually losing free hydrogen from our atmosphere into the vacuum of space this way. As you consider the size and density of Earth, realize our Earth is made up of particles that are very dense compared to hydrogen gas and hence naturally have a far greater density than hydrogen. According to the theories of universe formation, the only thing that existed from which the first stars formed was hydrogen, small amounts of helium and perhaps a trace of lithium – the least dense materials that exist.

Various explanations have been proposed from a purely materialistic perspective to answer this challenging dilemma of star formation from natural processes alone. Most commonly it is said that an existing star exploded (a supernova). However, this explanation requires a star to get a star. The same is true with every other naturalistic explanation that has been proposed. Of this challenge the University of Utah Aspire project commented:

“What causes these 'gravitational centers' to form in these huge clouds? If you knew that, you’d have a Nobel Prize!”

Why such a comment? Because no explanation exists from within our natural explanations of physics, chemistry, etc. This phenomena remains outside of our understating of natural processes – or in other words, it is extra natural or super natural. So how did the first star form let alone subsequent stars?

Nonetheless, when star formation is discussed in the public circles or even in our high school classrooms, almost without exception natural processes only are advanced and gravity alone is the solitary hero that overcomes the natural dispersion affect of gas pressure. THAT IS UNSCIENTIFIC.

One who believes in a divine creator may see such an inadequacy for natural explanations, as a physical manifestation of their creator's hand and as a personal confirmation of their faith. Though such an attribution may be very fulfilling for one's personal faith, that conclusion again is outside the domain of strict, repeatable observation and measurement -- the alleged standard of science investigations.

Those who will accept only natural explanations in answer to our present condition or state of being, and are aware of the paradox regarding natural formation of a star or other such challenges, place their faith in an amalgamation of blind and undirected mechanisms of physical laws, lacking mind, purpose, or supervision, in a hope that at some point their faith in purely materialistic explanations will be rewarded and their irrational conclusions be afforded some rationale from some new discovery, but only if it be from a purely mechanistic cause.

To the religions minded, they believe their faith in the unseen is rewarded with that which is seen. True, they would admit that their theistic conclusions are an extension of their faith, but it is for them a physical manifestation or reward for their belief in the existence of that which is not seen. The materialist clings to his conviction in spite of what is seen; his insistence on the natural comes as a requirement for his faith. The devout finds fulfillment in what is seen; he recognizes what is seen as a commendation of his faith. Both conclusions are expressions of a confidence in the unseen. Neither conclusion is a determination from what has been seen. Yet each is an expression of one's faith and commitment to an ideology.

As individuals, or as members of a formal or informal association who hold a particular set of ideological convictions, both expressions of faith are rightfully protected not only as free speech but are also protected as examples of the free exercise of religion. These actions are part of the “unalienable Rights,” that Jefferson referenced in his formulation of the Declaration of Independence, which rights exist not as a grant from the grace of a mortal sovereign but are part of the “Laws of Nature and of Nature's God” to which men are entitled as a result of an “endow[ment]” of freedom from “their Creator.”

Such professions of historical science conclusions, from either of the perspectives mentioned, certainly fall under the constitutional protections of an individual's or private organization's rights. However, when the State seeks to inculcate those same doctrines into the minds of their citizens, and especially their students in forms of compulsory education, as the only conclusion under consideration, both such dogmas are removed from protected speech and gestures of religious devotion to the establishment of and compulsory enforcement in religious indoctrination.

The historical science propagated in our public science classrooms have come to be laden with many relics of what were previously just conjecture, assumed to be made in good faith, but which have now been felled by the ax of experimental science. Yet the vast majority of these dogmas remain in our public school textbooks and are still found in the speech of popular science pundits, in spite of observation and measurement to the contrary. These assertions persist, at times, from the general lack of knowledge of the current findings of science. After all, evidence contrary to popular, and at times foundational belief, is frequently, but unjustly, swept under the rug in embarrassment. But far more egregious than just a lack of knowledge, is a frequent refusal to acquiesce to empirical findings simply because other explanations from a naturalistic perspective do not exist and the only alternative is to accept what would appear to be the action or influence from an intelligent and often supposed supreme being. Such challenged materialistic beliefs, publicly proclaimed and doggedly promoted as the only consideration in our science classrooms, in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary, is not simply blind faith in materialism, but a failed dogma, a deception and a fraud perpetrated to falsely cast determinism as the only viable and supposedly observationally verified model of our origins. This exclusionary State-directed and promoted doctrine, lies clearly afoul of the word and intent of the

First Amendment to our Constitution, especially when such failed theories continue to be taught in conflict of clear evidence to the contrary.

The effectiveness of such propaganda campaigns is seen in the logos of atheist groups, where they depict theistic religion being vanquished by the findings of science – there they claim justification and solace in their ideology, and this from the assumed empiricism of our science speculations. Example

No, the public science classroom is not the place to dogmatically promote precepts of faith, be they theistic or atheistic in nature, nor is it the place to vanquish sincere student inquiry, investigative thought, or suppress scientific evidence or studies because such thoughts and their implications may counter particular world views, popular opinion, or tradition. I am not anti-science; I am pro-science. I simply seek for truth and an honest accounting of science facts. Let our students be taught in the tools of science: a systematic method of investigation that uses observation, hypotheses, testing, measurement, logical argument, and theory building in the methodological search for truth as it relates to natural phenomenon. Where there is insufficient evidence to support a particular hypothesis or where additional discoveries challenge a particular perspective or theory of science, it needs to be plainly stated, and further, premises that are predicated on such conjecture need to be likewise confessed as to their speculative foundations. Additionally, premises that have been shown to be contrary to empirical evidence need to be expelled from the science classroom. If it is deemed that students need to be conversant with these defunct theories, a separate class could be convened, or a special chapter organized on failed theories, that they may be disciplined in things like the modern myths and legends of our origins and such.

Recognizing that universal proof of the non-existence of anything, especially that of a supreme being, is outside the grasp of our investigative tools of science, we cannot conclude through science that we have not and will not explore phenomenon which are the result of an intervention of intelligence or the action of a supreme being. Just as the mere assertion of the non-existence of a deity cannot be claimed as an outcome of scientific investigation, the insistence that the consideration of only materialistic or deterministic processes are sufficient to comprehend and account for the arrival of all the observed physical phenomenon, is likewise an unscientific proposition.

If truth is to ultimately prevail in our science investigations, and our public science classes be free from unconstitutional dogmatic propagation of doctrine, we must actively expunge the failed theories of the past and clearly define the limits and admit the fallibility of our scientific investigations today.


Vincent Newmeyer

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Astronomers Response

An Astronomer’s Response to “An example of a current limit of science understanding, and how such issues affect the science classroom. Star Formation:” by Vincent Newmeyer

AProf, Ph.D.

BProf, Ph.D.

Utah Valley University

The science of star formation is complex and fascinating. It is true that there are many unanswered questions that remain to be solved. The claims of the document, however, are based on a misunderstanding of star formation, gravity, and pressure at the most basic levels. The theory of star formation is a highly-developed, well-understood model that is widely accepted by scientists around the world because it has been shown to be consistent with hundreds of different observations and experiments; it is in no way considered controversial or speculative because it has been shown to be consistent with all observations to-date. The conclusions of scientific research in star formation and stellar evolution are not in conflict with most religions, and astronomers who believe in a Creator do not have any trouble whatsoever accepting the time-established principles of gravity or gas dynamics. We can see how gravity and gas dynamics work all around us, on earth and in the deepest reaches of space. Indeed, scientists and the public alike usually refer to the theories of gravity and thermodynamics as “laws.” There are no other competing scientific theories of gravity or thermodynamics that would change our understanding of star formation.

Mr. Newmeyer begins with the sentence “It is known through investigations of science that gravity alone cannot collapse a cloud of gas to form a star…” This statement is false. The principle of gravity is well understood, and can be explained in simple terms at the high school level. Since Newton determined the nature of gravity in the 1660’s, we have understood that gravity acts as if all mass were concentrated at the center of mass of an object or cloud. Even though the gravitational force between individual particles is miniscule, the collective gravitational force on any particle is the sum of that of all other particles, which in a typical molecular cloud can be hundreds or thousands of times the mass of the sun. There is plenty of mass to produce the gravity needed to bring together enough mass to form a star! The density of the gas is not relevant, as density does not enter into the equation for Newton’s law of gravity. No extra or external force is needed for stars, planets, and galaxies to form. In fact, we can observe stars and planets forming in many places where external forces are not present. Most star formation takes place in the density waves of spiral galaxy arms, which is a gravitational effect arising from the interactions of myriads of stars, gas, and dust orbiting in the galactic gravitational potential well. Of course, the presence of an external shock can also trigger star formation, such as in the regions around luminous young stars or near a supernova explosion, but those triggers generally only enhance star formation in regions where star formation is already taking place.

The primary (incorrect) assumption of the document is that gas pressure is sufficient to prevent the collapse of a cloud into a star. It is true that gas pressure is a major factor in determining the density of a nebula. Again, in terms of high school-level physics and chemistry, the familiar gas law PV=nRT tells us the pressure associated with a cloud of a particular volume and temperature. The other key variable is temperature. Hot gas clouds do not contract to form stars. Star formation is observed to take place only in the cold cores of molecular clouds, where the temperatures are typically 10 to 30 degrees above absolute zero. That’s very cold! The resulting pressure is very small. The temperature in a molecular cloud core is easily cold enough for the gravitational attraction to draw the cloud into a “protostar.” If the cloud were warm enough that the pressure exceeded the gravitational force, the cloud would not contract. We see plenty of examples of that in the Milky Way, of course, so by studying the distribution of star formation and the properties of the clouds in which they form, we can easily confirm that Newtonian gravity and the laws of thermodynamics apply to star forming regions. Nothing about this part of our understanding of star formation is controversial.

So what happens when the molecular cloud begins to collapse? As any high school chemistry or physics student will know, the cloud will begin to heat up (PV=nRT again). Won’t that stop the contraction? Yes, of course! When the contracting nebula reaches a temperature such that the pressure balances gravity, the contraction will stop. This is a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium. The forming star does not yet have a source of energy, however, and the heat will quickly (in a few million years) radiate away into space, cooling the protostar back down. The cloud will continue to contract, slowly, at a rate exactly balancing the loss of energy to interstellar space (primarily in the form of long-wavelength infrared radiation, which we have detected and studied in great detail). The time it takes a star to form from a molecular cloud will depend on the well-understood conversion of gravitational potential energy to thermal energy (the Virial Theorem, 1870). As the energy of formation is lost, the star continues to contract, until it reaches the point at which hydrogen can fuse to form helium, and a source of energy (and thus heat and pressure) produces a state of hydrostatic equilibrium that can persist for billions of years for a star like the Sun.

In summary, a star does not need an external force or high density to form; it needs a cold cloud of sufficient mass to form. Cold gas is present in sufficient quantities in a galaxy like our Milky Way to form the hundreds of billions of stars that make up our galaxy today. The principles and processes of star formation are not mysterious or controversial.

Why does hydrogen escape from earth? It’s not a function of density; the earth is too hot (300K) to retain atomic hydrogen in the atmosphere (it can retain hydrogen in the form of water, of course). If earth had greater mass or formed farther out in the solar system, it would have retained hydrogen in greater quantities, either as a gas or combined in molecules and ices. Again, Newton’s law of gravity states that the force of gravity depends on mass and distance, not on density.

Mr. Newmeyer cites the website as saying “What causes these 'gravitational centers' to form in these huge clouds? If you knew that, you’d have a Nobel Prize!” That is certainly an exaggeration! That’s like saying “if you could predict where the next cloud will form in the sky, you would get a Nobel prize!” Maybe so, but that does not imply that we have no understanding of how clouds form. We know what causes molecular clouds to form and collapse, even if we don’t know exactly where individual stars will form in any given chaotic cloudy region. They are clouds, after all, and clouds have a chaotic, fractal nature. Just because we don’t know how to predict the shapes of clouds in the sky doesn’t mean we don’t understand the meteorology of clouds, or the principles that describe why and when clouds form. We do not know who wrote these web pages, but the fact that their author made a huge blunder on the amount of hydrogen and helium in the cloud (it should say 98% hydrogen and helium together, 2% other heavier elements and molecules) shows that these web pages were not written by an expert in star formation, and they are probably not a very good source for scientific information. At best, it is a simplified description for children, and is not sufficiently detailed for a typical high school class. When assessing the quality of a scientific explanation, we should teach our children to rely on authoritative sources that have been through a peer-review process. This web page is not a scientific source, nor do I think that the authors intend for us to think that it is.

The remainder of the document is a political statement about the nature of science and religion, and the appropriateness of government-mandated educational standards. While there is obviously room for many perspectives on such issues, it is troubling to us that the Mr. Newmeyer used blatantly incorrect and unscientific arguments to suggest that the science content of the curriculum in one specific area of astronomy should be doubted, when it is in fact quite robust. There are so many fascinating unanswered questions in star formation and astronomy in general (as in all science) that we would like to address. It is essential that we give our children a strong and rigorous background in the established principles of science (like gravity and thermodynamics) so that they can address the truly important unanswered questions without being distracted by false claims of controversy where none exist. We must be careful not to dissuade our students from pursuing truly important problems in science with some false sense of conflict based on misunderstanding or deception, regardless of religious or political opinion.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Revisiting the Limits of Science – Star Formation

Dr T. has enlisted the help of AProf, Ph.D. and BProf, Ph.D. Astronomers

at Utah Valley University to write a rebuttal of my paper:

An example of a current limit of science understanding,

and how such issues affect the science classroom.

Star Formation:

In the beginning of their rebuttal to my paper they state that:

“The theory of star formation is a highly-developed, well-understood model that is widely accepted by scientists around the world...”

Apparently, the “well-understood model” of star formation is not as well understood (especially for stars arriving early in the universe formation) as they would have you believe. At least it does not seem to be well understood by the people at the European Southern Observatory. For example, in an article posted on the European Southern Observatory website we read:

"But how did the first stars then form? Indeed, to describe and explain 'primordial star formation' - without molecular gas and dust - is a major challenge in modern Astrophysics."
Big Stellar Clusters Forming in the Blue Dwarf Galaxy NGC 5253

Star formation just introduced my real topic in my paper in question. However, inasmuch as Dr. AProf and Dr. BProf said “it is troubling to us that the Mr. Newmeyer used blatantly incorrect and unscientific arguments to suggest that the science content of the curriculum in one specific area of astronomy should be doubted, when it is in fact quite robust,” I think this aspect of star formation needs some deeper investigation at this time.

Dr. AProf, and Dr. BProf further said that:

“The density of the gas is not relevant, as density does not enter into the equation for Newton’s law of gravity. No extra or external force is needed for stars, planets, and galaxies to form.”

Actually, density is a relevant factor because Newton's law of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the center mass of two bodies. (Note to those in doubt, I also follow up with quotes from experts in the field of astrophysics that confirm density as a factor in the gravitational collapse of a nebula later on in this text.) Consider, when a particle is found within a body of particles, the sum of the vectored forces acting on that particle is very different depending on where that particle sits in that mass. In the center of mass, no net force by gravity would be experienced. In no case can the sum of the vectored force magnitude (considering for argument essentially a spherical cloud) be greater than the equivalent of all of that nebula mass being point located in the center of the original mass and the particle under consideration existing on the equivalent radius outer surface of the initial sphere. Considering these forces, when these nebula may exist in sizes up to 100 light years, a particle 50 light years out from that center point of mass would have a vastly different vector magnitude then the same particle sitting on the radius surface of a star with all of that mass located only a slight fraction of the same distance away from the particle under consideration (not even a fraction of a light year out). Yet the gas pressure for a given temperature of a gas at the same volume is constant.

Let me explain this another way. Stars give off light. The photons easily escape the gravitational force of the star. Now consider that same mass (ok a slight less mass because some was used up in fusion but similar in mass) collapsed down to a density so tight that it forms a black hole. The mass is actually less than that when the star shown outwardly, but now the photons are closer to this extremely dense center of that mass and no longer have the ability to escape the gravitational pull of the collapsed star. Why? Because of the inverse square law of gravity. This is the same type of issue with gas pressure and the nebula. As long as the gas pressure produced by the heat energy existing in the nebula exceeds the force of the collapsing gravity acting on the nebula, it will not collapse (yes this is modeled by the PV = nRT formula). As a result, the maximum magnitude of the gravity vector acting on any particle which is part of an immense gas cloud of very low density will remain very small compared to the maximum magnitude of the gravity vector for the same particle in a very dense (hence smaller) but equal mass.

It was said by Dr. AProf, and Dr. BProf, that after a period of time the heat will dissipate from a nebula into space and the gravitational collapse of the nebula will continue. This is true. However, when the universe temperature itself is above or equal to the temperature of the gas cloud, there is not going to be any further collapse as the nebula will not be able to radiate heat to an environment that is as hot or hotter than itself. The Universe temperature is currently 2.735K. The universe is cooling because of the expansion of space, but that means that the temperature was higher at the time when it is assumed that the first stars formed which is currently said to be only 400 million years after the big bang event, which increases the challenges. The Jeans Instability equations are used to model these factors. There are other problems too, that I did not mention in my initial paper, such as the problem with angular momentum. Again, though my paper started with the topic of Star Formation, it really was about a bigger issue.

Nonetheless, perhaps a source more experienced than I will help give some additional credibility in relation to the formation of stars. Turning to the book:

Principles of Stellar Structure


John P. Cox

R. Thomas Giuli

Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics and

Department of Physics and Astrophysics

University of Colorado

We can read from chapter 26 titled Survey of Stellar Evolution:

"The very earliest stages in the star formation process must consist of the condensation of a 'protostar' from the interstellar medium. These stages constitute one of the most poorly understood areas in the whole field of stellar evolution, and we shall simply assume that a protostar has somehow formed."


We can read further on pages 958 to 960

“The problem of how interstellar gas and dust condenses to form protostars is one of the major unsolved problems of modern astrophysics. In this section we only mention some of the more outstanding difficulties.

One of the major difficulties in the condensation problem is that a cloud of gas and dust of stellar mass with the density of ρ and a temperature of T typical of gas clouds found in the Galaxy (say ρ ~ 10-22 gm/cm3 and T ~ 100ºK in HI (neutral hydrogen) regions) would have too weak a gravitational field to contract under its own gravity.”


“Another major obstacle to the condensation of gas clouds into protostars would appear to be the angular momentum problem....”

The authors of Principles of Stellar Structure, continue on to a lengthy discussion which I will sum up as this: with the conservation of angular momentum the rotational speed of a collapsing cloud will increase further and further. This is similar to the ice skater who begins a spin slowly but then greatly increases the rate of rotation as they pull in their arms and leg. The faster rotational speed, the ever greater centrifugal force which increasingly works against the further collapse of gravity.

The authors of Principles of Stellar Structure sum up this section on the problems of star formation with this statement:

We do not discuss these problems of condensation of gas clouds into protostars any further in this book. It is obvious that real stars somehow manage to come into being; hopefully, we shall someday understand in more detail how they do so.


I could continue to powerfully defend my paper on the other less important issues that Dr. AProf, and Dr. BProf brought up in their rebuttal paper, but I will save you and myself the bother. In spite of lack of credulity which Dr. AProf, have regarding the problems of gravitational collapse of a nebula, they did mention that “It is true that there are many unanswered questions that remain to be solved.” So regardless of the point at hand, which I believe I have adequately addressed, they did agree on a primary and actually larger issues of my paper which is that we do not have an unquestioned and continuously consistent materialistic yet scientifically sound explanation for our origins. Further, I say, that we cannot claim that materialistic only explanations of necessity hold all of the answers. As a result we must teach our science in the way that science ought to be taught – tentative and critical. There are many, many issues that fail resolution from materialistic proposals now offered. If I could not defend the nebula collapse, we could look at the unsolved mystery of the origin of DNA, the missing anti matter, the faint sun paradox, the regression of the moon, and on and on. Again, I am not anti-science, I am pro-science. I believe our Utah students should be free to hear the full breadth of scientific evidence. Science teachers should not be shackled to sterilized arguments and filtered scientific facts, like some are trying to push, simply because the balance of the science points to what has become politically unpopular conclusions.

This incident does illustrate one of my key points of my paper

An example of a current limit of science understanding,

and how such issues affect the science classroom.

Star Formation;

in that we do not tend to teach our science critically. When science evidence contradicts the materialistic theories, or when they seem to be insufficient in their explanatory power, we tend to sweep those issues under the rug. At times even university professors are unaware of the challenges to what they teach as fact. A metric along these same lines is when gravity waves, an expected artifact of the “Big Bang,” were thought to be discovered and announced in the National Geographic article:

Big Bang's "Smoking Gun" Confirms Early Universe's Exponential Growth

Observations confirm "inflation" of early universe to cosmological sizes in early instant.

The article was shared on Facebook 25,000 times (3 Dec 2014 numbers)

However, when a not so hopeful article was later published also in National Geographic in which significant doubt was cast on the supposed findings in the article:

Grand Cosmological Claim Crumbles?

The team behind the physics find of the year is taking a step back from its confident claims.

It was shared on Facebook only 51 times (3 Dec 2014 numbers).

Again, I highly urge you to reread in detail and in considered reflection my paper and perhaps you will understand its key points – points which none on the Parent Review Committee (nor members of the State Board of Education, or persons of the State Office of Education who have inserted themselves in to the committee's dialogue) have directly responded to in spite of all of the hysteria being generated by those who strangely feel that an objective look at science would threaten a good education.

I agree with Dr. AProf, and Dr. BProf that “It is essential that we give our children a strong and rigorous background in the established principles of science.” I would say further, that that which we think we are so secure in, may not actually be the way things truly are. Therefore, we need to teach our students to also think critically and view even popular theories with a critical eye. Just because one has the letters Ph.D. penned after their name and a number of them agree on the point, they still may get some things wrong. So, in closing, I would like to restate a quote calling attention to the challenges of star formation, from the University of Utah Aspire project, which I believe has been amply defended:

“What causes these 'gravitational centers' to form in these huge clouds? If you knew that, you’d have a Nobel Prize!”


Vincent Newmeyer

More details are available at