The result was redirect to Physical cosmology. Kurykh (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Fashionslide (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cosmic Evolution is the title of a 2002 new-age/religious book by Eric Chaisson, an astrophysicist at Tufts, where he is director of the Wright Center for Science Education. User User:Wrightcenter, who appears to be affiliated with Chaisson's Wright Center, has participated in editing the article and in defending it on its talk page. The article presents cosmic evolution as "the scientific study of universal change," but cosmic evolution is not a recognized or widely discussed scientific theory, it is an attempt at a spiritual synthesis with input from science. Chaisson does not describe it as a scientific theory. He describes its purpose as "to sketch a grand evolutionary synthesis that would better enable us to understand who we are, whence we came, and how we fit into the overall scheme of things." The article attempts to puff up the ideas in Chaisson's book into a scientific theory, and into one that is widely discussed, by giving a long list of references. Nearly all of these references are to books that came out before Chaisson coined the phrase "cosmic evolution" in his 2002 book. For example, there is a reference to the 1980 popular science book Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, who died six years before Chaisson published his book. There are references to a long list of new-age/religious books by Frederick Turner, most of them predating Chaisson's. The body of the article also freely invokes the authority of various academics as supporters for cosmic evolution, without citing any verifiable source to show that those people consider themselves supporters. For example: "The emergentist psychology of Clare Graves, which sees the human mind and societies as co-emerging into more complex levels, also fits well into the cosmic evolution paradigm." Although Chaisson's book has been reviewed favorably by noted scientists such as G.F.R. Ellis and E.O. Wilson, (a) they reviewed it as religion and philosophy, not as science, and (b) a favorably reviewed book is still just a book, not a notable field of scientific study in its own right. --Fashionslide (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]