I read articles every now and then about science and our universe. The more I read the more I chuckle at what scientists tell us about our world.

For example, this is what I read last week in the March issue of Scientific American:

"One hundred years ago a Scientific American article about the history and large-scale structure of the universe would have been almost completely wrong. In 1908 scientists thought our galaxy constituted the entire universe. They considered it an 'island universe,' an isolated cluster of stars surrounded by an infinite void. We now know that our galaxy is one of more than 400 billion galaxies in the observable universe."

The one thing that strikes me most about what I read is, "We now know…" Oh! Really. Do we in fact, "now know?"

How many times has the consensus of scientific knowledge changed? More times than most of us can count. Examples abound of this, but the latest is that now evidence of the big bang is disappearing. Consequently, according to the article, scientific observers of the future might predict a big crunch rather than the eternal expansion of the universe initiated by the big bang.

I was pleased when I got to the final paragraph of the article to read this:

"Perhaps someday we will find that our current careful and apparently complete understanding of the universe is seriously wanting."

Considering the fact that some Southern Baptist ministers have recently changed their views regarding global warming [as if their views really matter], perhaps we should all humbly admit that we really "know" very little in the whole scope of things.

Jack Rollins is the managing editor of the Daily Dunklin Democrat.