biblestudying.net

Printer Friendly Version

The amount of time that has passed in the history of the universe and the history of the earth is critical to both the evolution theory and the creation theory. If the earth, or the universe, is not billions of years old, then there simply isn’t enough time for evolution to occur and the theory is disproved. Conversely, if the earth and the universe are billions of years old rather than simply thousands of years, then the historical records that set forth creation theory are falsified and creation theory is demonstrated not to be the product of reliable accounts and reliable observation. As we noted near to the beginning of this article series, evolutionary scientist do indeed believe that creation theory has been falsified on the grounds that creation’s time claims have been proven wrong by observation. However, this information was covered so close to the beginning of the article series that it is necessary to provide some review, not only of how evolutionists calculate the age of the universe but also how evolutionists consider the creationist age to be disproved by these observations.

First, the assertion and prediction that the universe is only about 6,000 to 10,000 years old is foundational to creation theory, to creationism’s historical origins, and to the reliability of creationism’s record of observations.

“Creationism, I INTRODUCTION – In the second half of the 20th century, the most visible and politically active creationists maintained that the entire universe was created within the past 6000 to 10,000 years…II EARLY VIEWS ON CREATION – Despite mounting evidence of the great antiquity of life on earth (see Paleontology), many Christians continued to accept the traditional biblical account of a relatively recent six-day creation in the Garden of Eden, culminating in the appearance of Adam and Eve.” – "Creationism," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Creationism, Creationist beliefs – Strict creationists take the Biblical story of the Creation literally. They believe that God created the universe just thousands of years ago, and that He created all life forms within six 24-hour days…All creationists believe that each species (type of life form) on earth has remained relatively unchanged since the Creation, and that no species has evolved from any other.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Raymond A. Eve, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, University of Texas, Arlington.

Thus, if the earth and the universe are older than the timeframe of 6,000 to 10,000 years, then creationism’s historical origination is shown to be incorrect, creationism’s underlying record of observations is shown to be unreliable, and creationism itself is shown to be the product of flawed development and unreliable observations.

As stated early on in this study, in evolutionary theory the age of the universe is measured using the following line of reasoning. First, there is a simple, physical phenomenon that the wavelengths of sound or light become longer if the source of the wave and the observer of that wave are moving away from each other. This phenomenon is known as the Doppler Effect and it is occurring with regard to the light from stars. As observed from earth, the light from stars is longer in wavelength, shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. This shift toward the longer, red wavelengths indicates that the star, the source of the light, is moving away from the earth.

“Doppler effect – the apparent difference between the frequency at which sound or light waves leave a source and that at which they reach an observer, caused by relative motion of the observer and the wave source…The following is an example of the Doppler effect: as one approaches a blowing horn, the perceived pitch is higher until the horn is reached and then becomes lower as the horn is passed. Similarly, the light from a star, observed from the Earth, shifts toward the red end of the spectrum (lower frequency or longer wavelength) if the Earth and star are receding from each other and toward the violet (higher frequency or shorter wavelength) if they are approaching each other. The Doppler effect is used in studying the motion of stars and to search for double stars and is an integral part of modern theories of the universe. See also red shift.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

As indicated by the quote above and the quote below, this manifestation of the Doppler Effect with regard to the light from stars is known as “red shift.”

“Red shift – displacement of the spectrum of an astronomical object toward longer (red) wavelengths. It is generally attributed to the Doppler effect, a change in wavelength that results when a given source of waves (e.g., light or radio waves) and an observer are in rapid motion with respect to each other.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Taking note of the red shift in starlight, an astronomer named Edwin Hubble established that the Doppler Effect was occurring in starlight because the stars, the source of the light waves, are moving away from the earth, the place where the waves are observed. Consequently, the fact that the stars are moving away from the earth establishes that the universe is expanding. Moreover, red shift is central to the Big Bang theory, which is based upon the concept that the universe is expanding.

“Redshift – In 1929, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the farther a galaxy is from Earth, the larger its redshift and thus the faster it is moving away. Hubble's discovery indicated that the universe is expanding. The expansion of the universe is a key part of the big bang theory, the modern theory of the beginning of the universe. According to this theory, all space expanded from a hot, dense, pointlike concentration called a singularity.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Wendy Freedman, Ph.D., Astronomer, Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Furthermore, based upon the measurement of the redshift in the light from distant galaxies, scientists have been able to establish a consistent relationship between the distance of galaxies and their speed of movement. This relationship is known as Hubble’s constant and it is designated by the letter “H.”

“Hubble's constant – in cosmology, constant of proportionality in the relation between the velocities of remote galaxies and their distances. It expresses the rate at which the universe is expanding. It is denoted by the symbol H and named in honour of Edwin Hubble, the American astronomer who attempted in 1929 to measure its value.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

This constant rate of expansion, which is based upon the phenomenon of red shift, is then used to determine the age of the universe.

“Hubble constant – Hubble constant is a measure of the rate of expansion of the universe. Astronomers use this number in estimating the age of the universe.” – World Book 2005 (Deluxe)

The quote below from Britannica Encyclopedia mentions the “reciprocal of Hubble’s constant.” “Reciprocal” simply means “inverse” or “opposite.” It is derived from the verb “reciprocate,” which in this sense means, “to move forward and backward alternately.”

“Reciprocal – 1a: inversely related: opposite.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

“Reciprocate – intransitive senses 1: to make a return for something 2: to move forward and backward alternately.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

So, since Hubble’s constant indicates how much the universe moves apart as time moves forward, the reciprocal of Hubble’s constant indicates how much closer together the parts of the universe were in the past. And if we go far enough back into the past, effectively, all the parts of the universe come together around 10 to 20 billion years ago, depending upon the exact figure that is used for Hubble’s constant.

“Hubble's constant – The reciprocal of Hubble's constant lies between 10 billion and 20 billion years, and this cosmic time scale serves as an approximate measure of the age of the universe.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Consequently, the entire age of the universe is calculated according the phenomenon of red shift, which itself depends upon the distance of stars and the speed at which their light travels to the earth. The distance of stars and the speed at which their light travels to the earth are understood to be evidence disproving the Bible’s assertion that the earth and the universe are only about six thousand years old.

From this review, we not only learn the basics of how evolutionary theory calculates the age of the universe, but we can also see how the issue of time is an important piece of evidence capable of falsifying both creation and evolutionary theories.

Ultimately, there are 2 fundamental lines of evidence that deal with the issue of time. In addition to the use of redshift to determine the age of the universe, mentioned above, there is also the use of geologic dating methods to determine the age of the earth. This section will be divided up into 2 main topics, one for each of these 2 lines of evidence. However, the use of geologic dating methods to determine the age of the earth can also be broken down into 2 categories, one concerning relative dating methods and the other concerning absolute, or radioactive, dating methods. Consequently, the portion of this section that deals with the geologic dating methods of the earth will be further divided into 2 subsections, effectively creating 3 total parts for this section: one on redshift and the age of the universe, one on relative dating methods and the age of the earth, and one on absolute (radioactive) dating methods and the age of the earth.

And finally, as indicated during the introduction to our expanded commentary on evolution, the remaining 2 sections of this study will address the remaining 3 definitional points for the theory of evolution. This section focusing on the evidences that establish the age of the universe and the earth will address points 2 and 3. Point 2 will be addressed as we cover the topic of redshift and the age of the universe. And point 3 will be addressed as we cover the topic of geologic dating methods and the age of the earth. Once again, it must be stated that we will establish these definitions to be facts openly admitted by secular and evolutionary sources, not a biased description on our part. Consequently, the quotes establishing these definitions will come from secular sources, evolutionary scientists, and mainstream scientific magazines. This will leave definition point 1 to be covered in the final section of this series, the closing list of all the evidences.

(As a closing note, it should be stated that in all the quotes used throughout the sections to follow, numbers that were originally written in the format of scientific notation, which employs a superscript character, have been converted either to standard numbers or, if standard numbers are too large to be written out, into a designation such as “10 raised to the 35th power.” This was done for 2 reasons. First, to keep such numbers simple and readily apparent for the lay person reading these articles, and second to avoid any unnecessary complications that special characters, such as raised superscripts, pose concerning webpage display and coding.)

Focus on Critical Evidence: Redshift and the Age of the Universe

As we begin this segment on the age of the universe, which will include a look at the evolutionary assertions about the origin of the universe, it is important to note that theorizing how the universe began and formed is essential as a basis for biological evolution. This is stated explicitly in the following quote.

“Cosmos – Events hypothesized to have occurred in the first few minutes of the creation of the universe turn out to have had profound influence on the birth, life, and death of galaxies, stars, and planets. Indeed, there is a direct, though tortuous, lineage from the forging of the matter of the universe in a primal furnace of incredible heat and light to the gathering on Earth of atoms versatile enough to serve as a chemical basis of life. The intrinsic harmony of the resultant worldview has great philosophical and aesthetic appeal and perhaps explains the resurgence of public interest in this subject.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Consequently, it should be noted that although the question of how the universe began may seem not to be essential or even necessarily relevant to the evolutionary origin of life and the evolutionary origin of species, it is in fact an essential underpinning for both. Because the evolutionary origin of the universe serves as the source for the automatic, routine chemical and physical processes that evolution argues produced all the forms of life on earth without any need of foresight and teleology, if the evolutionary theory about the origin of the universe is shown to be invalid or untenable, then biological evolution is deprived of its theoretical basis. In short, you can’t have the evolution of life without the evolutionary origin of the universe. This will be important to keep in mind as we analyze evolutionary theory on the origin of the universe.

As mentioned previously, this segment on redshift and the age of the universe will address point 2 of our definition of evolutionary theory. For review, here again definitional point 2.

2) A special location near the center of the universe would be too coincidental to avoid teleology. In order to construct a universe that is feasibly caused by automatic, routine processes, it is assumed that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, meaning that it has uniform distribution and consequently will appear uniformly distributed when viewed in every direction. The formation and distribution of the large-scale structures of the universe such as superclusters, clusters, and galaxies require that 96 percent of the universe is composed of dark matter and energy, which have not been detected or observed and the properties of which are also not known. Furthermore, although neither detected nor observed, different types of dark matter have been theorized, each possessing different properties that are necessary for the formation and distribution of the universe’s large-scale structures. In addition, the exact proportion of respective speculative types of dark matter required to result in the formation and current distribution of these structures is acknowledged to either not work at all or to be “too ideal” to conform to non-teleological, automatic, routine processes. Despite the lack of even a working speculation for how automatic, routine processes could cause the existing structures and their distribution, nevertheless an automatic, routine process is advanced as the cause and it is hoped that a working scenario can be conceived and articulated at some point in the future. Lastly, when selectively filtered, the observed evidence concerning the phenomenon of redshift can be presented to indicate the 10-20 billion-year age of the universe.

To understand whether or not the observable evidence necessitates that the universe and the earth are 10-20 billion year old, as indicated by the last line this definition, we must first understand the process by which this figure of 10-20 billion years is derived. Along the way, we will cover the all of the other points mentioned in this definition. Specifically, we will establish the definition’s claims that a special location for the earth near the center of the universe is concluded to be too teleological by evolutionary scientists, that the distribution of matter throughout space is crucial to the evolutionary age of the universe but merely an assumption, that evolution once again actually lacks a working theory for how the large-scale structures of the universe formed such as superclusters, clusters, and galaxies, that dark matter and energy have not been empirically detected, that dark matter and energy are simply further assumptions needed to solve the problems preventing the formulation of a working theory, that dark matter and energy have not solved those problems, that in order to work dark matter and energy would have to operate in a proportion so coincidental that it indicates teleology, that the information from redshift has to be “filtered” to create a date as old as 10-20 billion years, and ultimately that evolution simply lacks any coherent, working theory for the formation and age of the universe. In short, evolution is founded on the theorization that the universe was brought about by automatic, routine processes that proceed with no need of foresight or teleology, however, evolution currently has no theory identifying such processes and how they operate. Consequently, evolution is not only without an actual theory on the origin of life and the origin of species, but also on the origin of the universe and its structures. And these claims will be demonstrated not from creationist sources, but from secular sources, evolutionary scientists, and mainstream scientific magazines.

We begin our examination with the simple fact that determining the age of the universe is inherently related to its current structure. Current observations about the structure of the universe reveal one particular phenomenon that takes places as part of the formation of those structures. In turn, this phenomenon that underlies the formation of the universe’s current structure is then used in calculating the universe’s age. The phenomenon is expansion. And the expansion of the universe is understood to be fundamental to how the structure of the universe formed and fundamental to determining the universe’s age.

As explained in the preceding segment, the fact that the universe is currently expanding was first discovered by astronomer Edwin Hubble in 1929. Hubble’s discovery of expansion was based upon his observation of redshift, and so, both redshift and expansion are at the core of the Big Bang theory for the origin of the universe.

However, the Big Bang theory is simply a theory of general assertions. When it comes to specifics, the Big Bang theory is really devoid of an actual theory. Like the origin of life and origin of species aspects of evolution remain without a solution or explanation at the most foundational points of the theory, the formation of the universe also remains without a solution or explanation at the most foundational points of the theory. There are 2 prominent examples of this fact within the Big Bang theory.

The first prominent example demonstrating how the Big Bang actually lacks any real, defined theory or explanation surrounds the need for elements such as dark matter and dark energy in order to explain the formation, or evolution, as well as the structure of the universe. The Big Bang model does not correspond to what is actually observed about the universe. Or in other words, what is actually observed about the structure and content of the universe prevents the Big Bang model from working.

“Astrophysics, IV THE STUDY OF THE UNIVERSE – Thus far, theorists have not been able to establish whether the universe will continue to expand forever. The problem centers on the amount of mass estimated to exist in the universe, because current estimates do not fit in neatly with other predictions of the big bang theory.” – "Astrophysics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

And as we will see, in order to compensate for this disconnect between Big Bang theory and observable reality, evolutionary scientists must hypothesize the existence of large amounts of dark matter as well as dark energy.

So, what is dark matter and dark energy?

First, it is important to clarify that dark matter is not the same as antimatter. Unlike dark matter, antimatter is a substance that has been made in experimental conditions. Antimatter particles are counterparts to ordinary matter particles but they have the opposite charges. For example, the electron found in ordinary matter has an antimatter counterpart called the positron, which has the same mass as an electron but the opposite charge.

“Galaxy, Emissions from galaxies – Electrons and protons are forms of ordinary matter, but positrons are antimatter particles. They are the antimatter opposites of electrons-that is, they have the same mass (amount of matter) as electrons, but they carry the opposite charge. See ANTIMATTER.” – Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

“Matter, Unusual forms of matter – Scientists have discovered an unusual form of matter called antimatter. Dark matter, which may be fundamentally different from ordinary matter, apparently also exists. Physicists do not know what it is made of, however. Antimatter – Physicists can convert energy into matter with particle accelerators. When subatomic particles collide at high speeds, they create new particles. Whenever particles of matter are created, an equal number of particles of antimatter are also made. Antimatter particles are equal in mass to the equivalent particles of matter but opposite in electric charge and certain other properties. For example, positrons, which are positively charged, are the antimatter equivalents of electrons. If a matter particle meets an equivalent antimatter particle, the two particles destroy each other. Both particles are converted into energy.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Robert H. March, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Physics and Integrated Liberal Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

“Astronomy – Antimatter is matter composed of particles called antiparticles. Each antiparticle has the same mass as a corresponding particle of ordinary matter but carries an opposite electric charge.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and Director, Hopkins Observatory of Williams College.

In contrast, dark matter has not been created experimentally but instead is a speculative form of matter that is required in order for the evolutionary cosmology, the Big Bang model, to work. Early in the process of theorizing how the universe could have originated by automatic, routine processes that proceed without foresight, scientists such as Willem de Sitter and Albert Einstein found that they needed to hypothesize the existence of extra matter in the universe, matter which had not been empirically detected or observed. This extra matter necessary to balance the equations for the formation of the universe by automatic, routine processes was termed “dark matter.” As indicated by the next quote, the adjective “dark” is used as an analogy to reflect the fact that this extra matter and energy have not been seen but remain hidden. Specifically, they are hidden because they do not emit electromagnetic radiation.

“De Sitter, Willem – His work also helped familiarize astronomers with the theory of relativity proposed by German-born American astronomer Albert Einstein…In 1919 de Sitter presented an alternate solution to Einstein's field theory equations. His solution took advantage of the very low density of matter in the universe by creating a model of a universe with no mass. The assumption of a massless universe yielded a model that did not exactly match the observable universe. In 1932 Einstein and de Sitter collaborated and refined both men's earlier cosmological theories to create the Einstein-de Sitter model of the universe. This model was the first prediction that dark matter, or matter that does not emit electromagnetic radiation and so had not yet been detected, should exist in the universe. See also Cosmology; Big Bang Theory; Steady-State Theory.” – "De Sitter, Willem," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Electromagnetic radiation is the flow of energy waves in a spectrum that includes visible light, which we can see, as well as radio waves, gamma rays, x-rays, etc.

“Electromagnetic radiation – in terms of classical theory, the flow of energy at the universal speed of light through free space or through a material medium in the form of the electric and magnetic fields that makeup electromagnetic waves such as radio waves, visible light, and gamma rays.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Radiation, General background, Types of radiation – Radiation may be thought of as energy in motion either at speeds equal to the speed of light in free space—approximately 3 × [10 raised to a power of 10] centimetres (186,000 miles) per second—or at speeds less than that of light but appreciably greater than thermal velocities (e.g., the velocities of molecules forming a sample of air). The first type constitutes the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation that includes radio waves, microwaves, infrared rays, visible light, ultraviolet rays, X rays, and gamma rays, as well as the neutrino (see below).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Spectroscopy, Survey of optical spectroscopy, General principles, Basic features of electromagnetic radiation – Electromagnetic radiation is composed of oscillating electric and magnetic fields that have the ability to transfer energy through space. The energy propagates as a wave, such that the crests and troughs of the wave move in vacuum at the speed of 299,792,458 metres per second. The many forms of electromagnetic radiation appear different to an observer; light is visible to the human eye, while X rays and radio waves are not. The distance between successive crests in a wave is called its wavelength. The various forms of electromagnetic radiation differ in wavelength. For example, the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum lies between 4 × [10 raised to a power of -7] and 8 × [10 raised to a power of -7] metre (1.6 × [10 raised to a power of -5] and 3.1 × [10 raised to a power of -5] inch): red light has a longer wavelength than green light, which in turn has a longer wavelength than blue light. Radio waves can have wavelengths longer than 1,000 metres, while those of high-energy gamma rays can be shorter than [10 raised to a power of -16] metre, which is one-millionth of the diameter of an atom.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Thus, the convenient explanation for why we can’t empirically observe dark matter and energy is that they simply don’t emit any form of energy that would allow us to detect them in time or space. And in additional quotes below concerning the properties of dark matter and energy, we will continue to see more support for the fact that dark matter and energy are defined by their lack of electromagnetic emissions. So, for this reason, because they don’t emit any energy waves of any kind along the electromagnetic spectrum, they are called “dark.” Consequently, given this reason, they might just as well have been called “invisible matter” and “invisible energy” but such titles probably come too close to revealing an inherent lack of credibility, in contrast to the terms “dark matter” and “dark energy,” which sound exotic, mysterious, highly technical, and consequently, more credible. In order to remove the mystique surrounding what dark matter and dark energy are, we are going to simply use the terms “invisible matter” and “invisible energy.”

As indicated directly by the quote above, invisible matter started out merely as a hypothetical speculation. It had not been observed or detected at the time it was theorized and this remains the case today. Invisible matter still has not been detected or observed.

“Cosmology, The future of the universe – The universe is presently expanding, but its distant future depends on its present density. Suppose all the matter detected to date is all that exists. There would be an average of about one atom of hydrogen in 1 cubic yard (0.76 cubic meter) of space. The universe would be open. It would continue to expand without limit. Eventually, all stars would exhaust the energy that makes them shine. But suppose the universe contains large amounts of dark matter, material that has not yet been detected. If the average density of matter in space were as much as 10 atoms of hydrogen per cubic yard, the universe would be closed. In perhaps 20 billion to 40 billion years, the expansion would stop. The galaxies would then start to come together again, and matter would approach infinite density.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

Moreover, the undetectable nature of invisible matter is not limited solely to the arena of sight and ability to detect other emissions along the electromagnetic spectrum. According to the next quote, some versions of invisible matter include the idea that although it could be 100 times more massive than ordinary matter, they could literally bombard the surface of the earth and we still wouldn’t be able to touch it or feel it either. We could run right into it or pass right through it and still not detect it.

Consequently, the only reason necessitating the existence of invisible matter is that without it, the Big Bang theory and the prospect of the universe originated by automatic, routine processes doesn’t work.

And not only has invisible matter not been observed or detected, but the properties of invisible matter also remain “un-deciphered.” As stated below the nature and properties of invisible matter are largely a matter of assumption and choice, based upon whatever is necessary in order to make the theory work. The following quote states that “Physicists do not know what it is made of” and that it “is composed of undiscovered particles.”

“Matter, Unusual forms of matter – Scientists have discovered an unusual form of matter called antimatter. Dark matter, which may be fundamentally different from ordinary matter, apparently also exists. Physicists do not know what it is made of, however…Dark matter – More than 99 percent of the visible universe is made up of the two lightest kinds of atoms, hydrogen and helium. It appears, however, that most of the matter in the universe is invisible dark matter. Scientists have detected dark matter only through the influence of its gravitational force on the motions of visible matter. Many scientists believe that dark matter is composed of undiscovered particles.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Robert H. March, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Physics and Integrated Liberal Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

The next quotes states that invisible matter is “exotic forms of elementary particles whose properties have yet to be deciphered.”

“Cosmos, Gravitational theories of clustering, Modes of gravitational instability – Among these assumptions is the choice of the form of the dark matter or hidden mass. If the hidden mass is not ordinary matter but instead is contained in exotic forms of elementary particles whose properties have yet to be deciphered, then one needs to specify if and when this hidden mass decouples from the thermal radiation field.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Furthermore, the quote below (which we’ve already partially seen above) states that invisible matter “consists of exotic” and “hypothetical particles” the mass of which is unknown but assumed to be quite large.

“Cosmos, Other components, Dark matter – Numerous candidates for the dark matter component in the halos of galaxies and clusters of galaxies have been proposed over the years, but no successful detection of any of them has yet occurred. If the dark matter is not made of the same material as the nuclei of ordinary atoms, then it may consist of exotic particles capable of interacting with ordinary matter only through the gravitational and weak nuclear forces. The latter property lends these hypothetical particles the generic name WIMPs, after weakly interacting massive particles. Even if WIMPs bombarded each square centimetre of the Earth at a rate of one per second (as they would do if they had, for example, individually 100 times the mass of a proton and collectively enough mass to “close” the universe; see below), they would then still be extremely difficult—though not impossible—to detect experimentally… Another possibility is that the dark matter is (or was) composed of ordinary matter at a microscopic level but is essentially nonluminous at a meaningful astronomical level…If the objects are only extremely faint (e.g., brown dwarfs), they can eventually be found by very sensitive searches, perhaps atnear-infrared wavelengths. On the other hand, if they emit no light at all, then other strategies will be needed to find them—for example, to search halo stars for evidence of “microlensing” (i.e., the temporary amplification of the brightness of background sources through the gravitational bending of their light rays).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

And finally, the next quote describes invisible matter as “mass of an unknown character” and “of an unknown form.” Yet despite the fact that the character and form of invisible matter are unknown, the quote also concludes that invisible matter affects both the density and expansion of the universe. But how could that be known if the character and form of it is not known?

“Cosmology, IV COSMOLOGICAL EVIDENCE – Huge regions of mass of an unknown character affect the motion of galaxies, because of the attractive gravitational forces this mass produces, and make galaxies deviate from Hubble's constant. Additionally, motions of galaxies within their clusters and the rotation rates of spiral galaxies seem to indicate that much or most of the mass in the universe is of an unknown form. This so-called dark matter affects both the density and the expansion rate of the universe.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

As indicated by the last quote above, invisible matter is directly related to the expansion of the universe. Without invisible matter, models invoking automatic, routine processes for the origin of the universe simply don’t work, even on a mathematical level as indicated by the work of Einstein and de Sitter.

And how much invisible matter and invisible is needed in order for such evolutionary models to work? According to the quote below, about 23 percent of the universe must be comprised of invisible matter and about 73 percent of the universe must be comprised of invisible energy.

“Universe, Changing views of the universe – Studies of nearby stars, distant galaxies, and the CMB radiation give scientists an idea of the types of matter and energy that make up the universe. These studies suggest that the universe consists of about 4 percent ordinary matter and radiation. The matter consists mainly of hydrogen and helium. The radiation includes light, radio, and other waves as well as cosmic rays. The rest of the universe is made up of matter and energy that scientists cannot directly observe. About 23 percent of the universe is dark matter, matter that does not emit, reflect, or absorb observable light or other radiation. The remaining 73 percent of the universe is composed of dark energy. Dark energy is a little-understood form of energy that is apparently making the universe expand more and more quickly.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

This means that the matter and energy that we can observe comprise only 4 percent of the universe. Or to put it another way, this means that in order for evolutionary models like the Big Bang (which rely strictly on automatic, routine processes) to work there has to be 24 times as much matter and energy in the universe than what we can observe and that extra matter and energy must have properties that solve the problems even though we don’t know what those properties are.

It’s hard to overlook the basic reality that is transpiring on this issue. In simple terms, evolutionary scientists are asserting that the universe can come about by automatic, routine processes if 96 percent of the universe is comprised of matter and energy that we can’t detect or see. When asked, “If so much of the universe is comprised of this matter and energy, why can’t we see it?” the explanation offered by evolutionary scientists is simply, “We can’t see it because it’s invisible.” And when asked, “What about this extra mass and energy solves the problems facing the Big Bang theory?” the evolutionary scientists simply answer, “We don’t know. They just do.”

It’s hard to see how such approaches and answers can be offered by the same community that claims creationism theory provides no answers to scientific questions. And it is hard to see how such approaches and answers can be offered by the same community, which criticizes that creationists simply fill in the gap by claiming the existence and work of an empirically undetectable entity (God) without explaining how that entity works to solve the issue. And yet, how can such a criticism of creationism not at least be equally applied to evolutionists’ own hypothesis of invisible matter and invisible energy?

Furthermore, even if we were to grant the existence of 24 times as much invisible matter and energy, which have unknown properties capable of resolving the problems in the Big Bang theory, that’s still not enough. The formation of the universe by automatic, routine processes still does not work. And this leads us to our second prominent example of how evolutionary theory for the origin of the universe really lacks any actual theory.

The second prominent example demonstrating how the Big Bang actually lacks any real, defined theory surrounds the formation of the large-scale structures in the universe, such as superclusters, clusters, galaxies, and even stars, which comprise these structures. Evolutionary theory, particularly the Big Bang model, does not understand or have an explanation for how these structures formed, which comprise the universe. Like the chicken-and-egg dilemmas which face evolutionary origin of life scenarios and which inherently demonstrate the need for teleology, here the Big Bang model faces a chicken-and-egg dilemma of its own. Concerning superclusters, cluster, galaxies, and stars, the chicken-and-egg dilemma manifests in terms of the inability to answer the fundamental question, “Which formed first and how then did they lead to the formation of the others?”

In general, gravity is understood to be mechanism for the formation of these structures. Consequently, the major theories on the structure of the universe are called “Gravitation theories of clustering” as the section title for the next quote indicates.

“Cosmos, Large-scale structure and expansion of the universe, Gravitational theories of clustering – The fact that gravitation affects all masses may explain why the astronomical universe, although not uniform, contains structure.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

But just how gravity brought about the formation of these structures is another point where the Big Bang model remains without any resolved or accepted theory. Two alternative “gravitational theories” have been supposed but, as we will see, neither of them works without invoking coincidence on the level of teleology. As indicated by the first quote below, both alternatives are versions of the Big Bang theory. The first alternative is designated with the title “top-down theories,” which are associated with warm dark matter. The second alternative is designated with the title, “bottom-up theories,” which are associated with cold dark matter. We should notice that the speculative, problem-solving, but ultimately unknown properties of invisible matter continue to form the basis of both alternatives.

“Galaxy, Origin of galaxies – Scientists have proposed two main kinds of theories of the origin of galaxies: (1) bottom-up theories and (2) top-down theories. The starting point for both kinds of theories is the big bang, the explosion with which the universe began 10 billion to 20 billion years ago. Shortly after the big bang, masses of gas began to gather together or collapse. Gravity then slowly compressed these masses into galaxies. The two kinds of theories differ concerning how the galaxies evolved. Bottom-up theories state that much smaller objects such as globular clusters formed first. These objects then merged to form galaxies. According to top-down theories, large objects such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies formed first. The smaller groups of stars then formed within them. But all big bang theories of galaxy formation agree that no new galaxies-or very few-have formed since the earliest times.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

“Cosmos, Large-scale structure and expansion of the universe, Gravitational theories of clustering, Top-down and bottom-up theories – The scenarios described in the previous subsection turn out, in the extremes, to lead to two different pictures for the origin of large-scale structure in the universe, which can be given the labels “top-down” and “bottom-up.” In top-down theories the regions with the largest scale sizes, comparable to superclusters and clusters, collapse first, yielding flat gaseous “pancakes” of ordinary matter (a description coined by the primary proponent of this theory, the physicist Yakov B. Zeldovich of Russia) from which galaxies condense. In bottom-up theories the regions with the smallest scale sizes, comparable to galaxies or smaller, form first, giving rise to freely moving entities that subsequently aggregate gravitationally (perhaps by a hierarchal process) to produce clusters and superclusters of galaxies. Adiabatic fluctuations of ordinary matter tend to yield a top-down picture, and isothermal fluctuations a bottom-up picture. When hidden mass is added to the calculations, warm dark matter tends to give a top-down picture, and cold dark matter a bottom-up picture.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

For reference, globular clusters are different from clusters and superclusters. Globular clusters are smaller than galaxies. Galaxies contain “hundreds of millions” of stars.

“Galaxy, II NTRODUCTION – Galaxy, a massive ensemble of hundreds of millions of stars, all gravitationally interacting, and orbiting about a common center.” – "Galaxy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Globular clusters only contain “thousands to hundreds of thousands of stars.”

“Star cluster, General description and classification – Open clusters contain from a dozen to many hundreds of stars, usually in an unsymmetrical arrangement. By contrast, globular clusters are old systems containing thousands to hundreds of thousands of stars closely packed in a symmetrical, roughly spherical form.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

In addition, as can be seen from the quote above, the term “globular cluster” refers to a grouping of stars. In contrast, the term “cluster” refers to groupings of galaxies.

“Cosmos, Large-scale structure and expansion of the universe – On smaller scales, galaxies tend to bunch together in clusters and superclusters…Clustering of galaxies – Clusters of galaxies fall into two morphological categories: regular and irregular. The regular clusters show marked spherical symmetry and have a rich membership. Typically, they contain thousands of galaxies, with a high concentration toward the centre of the cluster…Galaxies of all types can be found in irregular clusters: spirals and irregulars, as well as ellipticals and S0s.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

And in turn, the term “supercluster” refers to a collection of multiple clusters of galaxies.

“Supercluster: a group of gravitationally associated clusters of galaxies.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

As we can see “bottom-up theories” received that title because they assert that smallest structures of the universe formed first (such as galaxies and globular clusters, which are smaller than galaxies) and then merged to form the larger structures, such as clusters and superclusters of galaxies. Conversely, “top-down theories” received that title because they assert that the largest structures of the universe formed first, superclusters and clusters, and then further condense to form smaller the smaller structures within them, such as galaxies.

As we stated earlier, the unknown properties of invisible matter are simply a matter of assumption and choice in order to meet the unresolved needs of evolutionary theory for the origin of the universe. This is exemplified perfectly in the warm and cold properties assigned to invisible matter in “bottom-up” and “top-down” versions of the Big Bang theory. Since the properties of invisible matter are not known, properties are simply being assumed and these different imaginary properties are further assumed to relate to whether or not the largest structures of the universe or the smallest structures form first.

However, no matter what the imagined properties are, neither top-down nor bottom-up theories work. The problem is that what we know about the universe seems to require both top-down and bottom-up theories to explain its current structures, such as superclusters, clusters, and galaxies. Top-down theories explain what we observe about the spatial distribution of large-scale structures in the universe but require a formation of clusters and galaxies that is too recent to fit with evolutionary interpretations of the evidence that pertains to the age of the universe. Bottom-up theories are necessary in order to yield celestial objects and structures with the mass that we observe, but bottom-up theories (which start with the smaller structures) cannot explain the largest-scale structures. The ultimate problem is that in order for both top-down and bottom-up scenarios to have occurred, it would require a mixture of warm and cold invisible matter that is “roughly equal” and therefore too ideal, too “artificial,” particularly because it is lacking supportive evidence.

“Cosmos, Large-scale structure and expansion of the universe, Gravitational theories of clustering, Top-down and bottom-up theories – When this is done and models are computed, it is found that top-down theories tend to give a better but still imperfect account of the observed spatial distributions (flattened superclusters and large holes and voids) and streaming motions of galaxies. Unfortunately, cluster formation and galaxy formation take place at a redshift z less than 1, too recently relative to the present epoch to be compatible with the observational data…Bottom-up theories that include cold dark matter can yield objects with the proper masses (i.e., dark halos), density profiles, and angular momenta to account for the observed galaxies, but they fail to explain the largest-scale structures (on the order of a few times 108 light-years) seen in the clustering data. A possible escape from this difficulty lies in the suggestion that the distribution of galaxies (made mostly of ordinary matter) may not trace the distribution of mass (made mostly of cold dark matter). This scheme, called biased galaxy formation, may have a physical basis if it can be argued that galaxies form only from fluctuations that exceed a certain threshold level… Unfortunately, counter simulations show that no amount of biasing can reproduce both the large-scale spatial structure and the magnitude of the observed large-scale streaming motions.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Cosmos, Large-scale structure and expansion of the universe, Gravitational theories of clustering, Top-down and bottom-up theories – On the problem of the formation of galaxies and large-scale structure by purely gravitational means, therefore, cosmologists face the following dilemma. The universe in the large appears to require aspects of both top-down and bottom-up theories. Perhaps this implies that the hidden mass consists of roughly equal mixtures of warm dark matter and cold dark matter, but adopting such a solution seems rather artificial without additional supporting evidence.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

The alternative to the joint top-down and bottom-up theory known as “biased galaxy formation” is also described in the second to last quote above. But the quote also states that states that this alternative theory is non-valid as well, because “no amount of biasing” can match the observable structure of the universe either. This leaves the evolutionary view simply without an actual, working theory that matches the observations concerning the formation of the universe. Britannica qualifies this as a “dilemma” that modern evolutionary cosmology continues to face.

Now, as stated earlier, the top-down, bottom-up, and biased galaxy formation theories are theories focusing on gravity as the mechanism for the formation of the universe’s structures. Here the question arises as to whether or not evolution perhaps has any working theories that employ alternate mechanisms other than gravity. The answer to this question is “no.” As Britannica summarizes in the quote below, not only are “alternative mechanisms” to gravity still considered “unorthodox” in evolutionary cosmology, but all other alternatives to gravitational theories are deemed even more problematic than the gravitational theories.

“Cosmos, Unorthodox theories of clustering and galaxy formation – Given the somewhat unsatisfactory state of affairs with gravitational theories for the origin of large-scale structure in the universe, some cosmologists have abandoned the orthodox approach altogether and have sought alternative mechanisms…In summary, it can be seen that mechanisms alternative to the growth of small initial fluctuations by self-gravitation all have their own difficulties. Most astronomers hope some dramatic new observation or new idea may yet save the gravitational instability approach, whose strongest appeal has always been the intuitive notion that the force that dominates the astronomical universe, gravity, will automatically promote the growth of irregularities. But, until a complete demonstration is provided, the lack of a simple convincing picture of how galaxies form and cluster will remain one of the prime failings of the otherwise spectacularly successful hot big bang theory.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Consequently, since alternates to gravitational theories suffer even worse problems, gravitational theories remain the popular view held by the majority of evolutionary scientists despite the fact that they don’t work. Notice that the quote above concludes that gravitational theories are in an “unsatisfactory state of affairs,” are in need of “saving,” and “lack a simple convincing picture of how galaxies form and cluster.” And most importantly, notice from the last line of the quote that this status and problems are regarded as “one of the prime failings” not just of gravity as a mechanism, but of the big bang theory itself.

The following quote similarly concludes that although it lacks an actual working theory and there is “no consensus has been reached” concerning how the universe formed, the big bang model remains the “theory of choice among nearly all astronomers.” Nevertheless, as stated in the quote, “most astronomers” regard the theory as having “shortcomings,” being “incomplete,” and in need of “major modifications.”

“Cosmos, Cosmological models, Steady state theory and other alternative cosmologies – Big bang cosmology, augmented by the ideas of inflation, remains the theory of choice among nearly all astronomers, but, apart from the difficulties discussed above, no consensus has been reached concerning the origin in the cosmic gas of fluctuations thought to produce the observed galaxies, clusters, and superclusters. Most astronomers would interpret these shortcomings as indications of the incompleteness of the development of the theory, but it is conceivable that major modifications are needed.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Given this status, it is not surprising that leading evolutionary scientists in this field admit to the fact that they have no working theory on the formation of the universe’s structures, including even the most central object, the star. Concerning star formation, as indicated in several of the quotes below, the dust and gas clouds from which stars are said to form cannot condense into stars due to several factors, including their “ internal motions and the heating effects of nearby stars,” “the centripetal support due to rotation,” “magnetic field pressure,” and the simple fact that they are too far spread out for gravity to cause their collapse. And even if such a cloud did collapse, the decrease in size would bring about an increase in pressure that would trigger re-expansion, preventing the further collapse needed for a star to form.

“Many aspects of the evolution of galaxies cannot yet be determined with any certainty.” – Joseph Silk, (Professor of Astronomy at the University of Oxford), The Big Bang, 2001, p. 195 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

“Galaxies must have condensed out of the gases expanding from the big bang…Details of the formation of galaxies are still highly uncertain, as is their subsequent evolution.” – The Facts on File Dictionary of Astronomy, 1994, p. 172 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

“The complete birth of a star has never been observed. The principles of physics demand some special conditions for star formation and also for a long time period. A cloud of hydrogen gas must be compressed to a sufficiently small size so that gravity dominates. In space, however, almost every gas cloud is light-years in size, hundreds of times greater than the critical size needed for a stable star. As a result, outward gas pressures cause these clouds to spread out farther, not contract.” – Don De Young, Ph. D. in Physics, Astronomy and the Bible, 2000, p. 84 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

“Precisely how a section of an interstellar cloud collapses gravitationally into a star…is still a challenging theoretical problem…Astronomers have yet to see an interstellar cloud in the actual process of collapse.” – Fred Whipple, The Mystery of Comets, (Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institute Press, 1985), pp. 211, 213 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

“To many astronomers, it seems reasonable that stars could form from these clouds of gas. Most astronomers believe that the clouds gradually contract under their own weight to form stars. This process has never been observed, but if it did occur, it would take many human life times. It is known that clouds do not spontaneously collapse to form stars. The clouds possess considerable mass, but they are so large that their gravity is very feeble. Any decrease in size would be met by an increase in gas pressure that would cause a cloud to re-expand.” – Danny Faulkner, Ph. D. Astronomy (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

“Despite numerous efforts, we have yet to directly observe the process of stellar formation…The origin of stars represents one of the fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics.” – Charles Lada and Frank Shu (both astronomers), “The Formation of Sunlike Stars,” Science, 1990, p. 572 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

“Stars are formed by the gravitational collapse of cool, dense gas and dust clouds…There are problems, however, in initiating the collapse of a gas cloud. It resists collapse because of firstly its internal motions and the heating effects of nearby stars, secondly, the centripetal support due to rotation, and thirdly, the magnetic field pressure.” – Facts on File Dictionary of Astronomy, 1994, p. 434 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

“The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.” – Marcus Chown, “Let there be Light,” New Scientist, Feb. 7, 1998 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

“There is general belief that stars are forming by gravitational collapse; in spite of vigorous efforts no one has yet found any observational indication of confirmation. Thus the ‘generally accepted’ theory of stellar formation may be one of a hundred unsupported dogmas which constitute a large part of present-day astrophysics.” – Hannes Alfven (Nobel prize winner), Gustaf Arrhenius, “Evolution of the Solar System,” NASA, 1976, p. 480 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

As summarized in the last quote above, the lack of a working theory on how stars form by automatic, routine processes is regarded by Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven as “one of a hundred unsupported dogmas which constitute a large part of present-day astrophysics.”

One more specific example of evolution’s lack of a theory on how the universe formed involves spiral galaxies. Like superclusters of galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and galaxies in general, evolutionary scientists still do not have a theory for how spiral galaxies came into being or how it is at all possible that they still exist. As indicated below, the problem is caused by their spiral arms, which rotate around the center of the galaxy in such manner that in less than 2 billion years these arms should have blurred into a continuous mass of stars instead of the clearly-defined arms that we see today.

“Galaxy, Evolution of spiral galaxies – Astronomers do not understand clearly how galactic spirals evolved and why they still exist. The mystery arises when one considers how a spiral galaxy rotates. The galaxy spins much like the cream on the surface of a cup of coffee. The inner part of the galaxy rotates somewhat like a solid wheel, and the arms trail behind. Suppose a spiral arm rotated around the center of its galaxy in about 250 million years-as in the Milky Way. After a few rotations, taking perhaps 2 billion years, the arms would "wind up," producing a fairly continuous mass of stars. But almost all spiral galaxies are much older than 2 billion years.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

Lastly, there is one other major problem that prevents Big Bang cosmology from working and that is the problems surrounding the need for inflation and a “graceful exit” from inflation to the “normal expansion” that we see in the universe today.

Inflation is an added explanatory mechanism, an additional idea intended to support a problem with the original Big Bang theory. On its own, the Big Bang theory does not fit with the observation of isotropy and the assumption of homogeneity. In short, it is perceived by evolutionary cosmologists that the initial explosion would not have produced an even distribution of matter or temperature throughout space on the large scale.

“Cosmology, The future of the universe – Other scientists suggest that the big bang theory is basically correct, but that the universe underwent an early period of rapid expansion called inflation.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

“Big bang – The original big bang theory does not indicate how the temperature of the radiation could have become so uniform. An added theory called cosmic inflation proposes an explanation, however.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

“Astrophysics, IV THE STUDY OF THE UNIVERSE – Most astronomers today interpret their data in terms of the big bang model, which in the early 1980s was further refined by the so-called inflationary theory, an attempt to account for conditions leading to the big bang.” – "Astrophysics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The term “inflation” refers to the theory that the universe expanded extremely rapidly to 10 to the 50th power times its original size in the first micro-fractions of a second after the initial explosion.

“Big bang – An added theory called cosmic inflation proposes an explanation, however. According to this theory, the universe expanded by an enormous amount in the early moments of the big bang.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, E Inflationary Theory – The inflationary theory deals with the behavior of the universe for only a tiny fraction of a second at the beginning of the universe. Theorists believe that the events of that fraction of a second, however, determined how the universe came to be the way it is now and how it will change in the future. The inflationary theory states that, starting only about 1 x [10 raised to a power of -35] second after the big bang and lasting for only about 1 x [10 raised to a power of -32] second, the universe expanded to 1 x [10 to a power of 50] times its previous size. The numbers 1 x [10 raised to a power of -35] and 1 x [10 raised to a power of -32] are very small-a decimal point followed by 34 zeros and then a 1, and a decimal point followed by 31 zeros and then a 1, respectively. The number 1 x [10 to a power of 50] is incredibly large-a 1 followed by 50 zeros.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The rapidness of this expansion is said to explain why matter and temperature became homogeneous. (Homogeneity is the assumption that matter and temperature are virtually uniform throughout the universe.)

“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, E Inflationary Theory – This extremely rapid inflation would explain why the universe appears so homogeneous: The universe had been compact enough to become uniform, and the expansion was rapid enough to preserve that uniformity.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Big bang – An added theory called cosmic inflation proposes an explanation, however. According to this theory, the universe expanded by an enormous amount in the early moments of the big bang. The theory shows that the inflationary expansion would have tended to smooth out temperature variations occurring over widely separated parts of the universe. Small variations in density would have led to the formation of galaxies.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

And furthermore, the addition of inflation theory is necessary in order for the Einstein-de Sitter model of the universe, which is the basic model of the Big Bang cosmology, to work.

“Cosmos, Cosmological models, The very early universe, Inflation – Cosmic inflation serves a number of useful purposes. First, the drastic stretching during inflation flattens any initial space curvature, and so the universe after inflation will look exceedingly like an Einstein–de Sitter universe.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

So, we can see the need for inflation theory in the Big Bang evolutionary model. However, there are 2 important problems that this brings up for evolutionary theory. First, although it is necessary on a theoretical level in order for the Big Bang model to work and many theoretical cosmologists accept inflation for that philosophical reason, many observational cosmologists do not accept inflation because it does not fit with actual observations.

“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Relativistic cosmologies, Einstein's model, The Einstein–de Sitter universe – Because the geometry of space and the gross evolutionary properties are uniquely defined in the Einstein–de Sitter model, many people with a philosophical bent have long considered it the most fitting candidate to describe the actual universe. During the late 1970s strong theoretical support for this viewpoint came from considerations of particle physics (the model of inflation to be discussed below), and mounting, but as yet undefinitive, support also seems to be gathering from astronomical observations.”

On this point, notice that the quote above specifically affirms that the Einstein-de Sitter model remains the longstanding basis of modern cosmology, that maintaining this theory is the result of “a philosophical bent,” that “the model of inflation” is a supportive concept to the Einstein-de Sitter universe, but that actual observations are “yet undefinitive.” In our next segment, we will cover the important role of philosophical preference in more detail, but for now we can simply see that the observations themselves do not define or necessitate the Einstein-de Sitter universe or inflation. And as such, those theories remain the result of “a philosophical bent,” just as the previous sentence specifically states.

In fact, with regard to the actual observations, the following quote states explicitly that cosmologists whose focus is actual observation tend to reject the inflationary theory. The quote goes on to cite that recent studies in the 1990’s show that the predictions of inflationary theory are incorrect.

“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, E Inflationary Theory – Though many theoretical cosmologists seem to favor the inflationary theory, it is not as widely accepted among observational cosmologists. Several astronomers and cosmologists performed studies in the late 1990s that seemed to show that the universe may be decidedly open, and not as close to the boundary between open and closed as the inflationary theory predicts.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Once again, this indicates that Big Bang cosmology relies on theory that simply does not fit with actual observations. Inflation is one instance of this. As we will cover alter on, this section will ultimately present an even more significant observation related to expansion, which critically undermines the Big Bang model, including the Big Bang’s “billions-of-years” age for the universe, and instead dramatically supports the creationist model.

Second, inflation theory stipulates that the expansion that we observe today is drastically different from the expansion that occurred initially as a result of the Big Bang explosion itself.

“Cosmos, Cosmological models, The very early universe, Inflation – Cosmic inflation serves a number of useful purposes. First, the drastic stretching during inflation flattens any initial space curvature, and so the universe after inflation will look exceedingly like an Einstein–de Sitter universe…When inflation ended and the universe reheated and resumed normal expansion, these different portions, through the natural passage of time, reappeared on our horizon.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

In fact, expansion during the inflation period is so different from the expansion that we see today, that the transition between the 2 poses an obstacle to inflation and Big Bang theories. As we can see in the quote below, although inflation is necessary in order to provide the uniform distribution of matter that the Big Bang theory assumes for the universe, is necessary to support the Einstein-de Sitter model, and “has been the guiding modern cosmological thought,” inflation itself “has not resolved all internal difficulties.”

“Cosmos, Cosmological models, The very early universe, Inflation – As influential as inflation has been in guiding modern cosmological thought, it has not resolved all internal difficulties. The most serious concerns the problem of a “graceful exit.” Unless the effective potential describing the effects of the inflationary field during the GUT era corresponds to an extremely gently rounded hill (from whose top the universe rolls slowly in the transition from the false vacuum to the true vacuum), the exit to normal expansion will generate so much turbulence and inhomogeneity (via violent collisions of “domain walls” that separate bubbles of true vacuum from regions of false vacuum) as to make inexplicable the small observed amplitudes for the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Arranging a tiny enough slope for the effective potential requires a degree of fine-tuning that most cosmologists find philosophically objectionable.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Specifically and most importantly, the quote above states that in order for inflation theory to work and transition from inflation expansion to the normal expansion that we observe today, “a degree of fine-tuning” is required that “most cosmologists find philosophically objectionable.” The problem is that fine-tuning is inherently a feature of foresight and teleology. So, once again, Big Bang cosmology does not work without necessitating teleology, the very concept evolutionary cosmology asserts is not necessary. Later on we will see further proof of this in the form of another known observation about expansion, which Big Bang cosmology ignores and which inherently demonstrates teleology. However, this point should not be passed over too quickly but must be emphasized. Big Bang theory needs inflation theory in order to work. The Einstein-de Sitter basis for the Big Bang theory needs inflation theory in order to work. Yet, just as was the case with the need for both top-down and bottom-up theories concerning the formation of the universe’s structure, inflation theory itself requires such a finely-tuned balance that evolutionary scientists disregard it because of its inherent implications of foresight and teleology.

In summary, the Big Bang theory seeks to explain the origin and structure of the universe without teleology. In order to avoid teleology, it is assumed that the universe is homogeneous (the same everywhere). But the model of the Big Bang, which is based on the observation of expansion, is not likely to have produced homogeneity in the universe. So, in order to explain how the universe could be homogeneous, it is suggested that an inflationary form of expansion occurred in the fractions of a second at the very beginning of the Big Bang, which is very different from the expansion that is actually observed in the universe. This inflation hypothesis is of absolute necessity for the Big Bang model as a whole and to its avoidance of teleology. For those reasons is accepted despite the fact that it has internal problems, which haven’t entirely been worked out yet and the fact that it doesn’t fit with observations of the universe.

Thus, as we stated earlier, the evolutionary theory for the formation of the universe, the big bang theory, really lacks any actual, working theory. As we can see, inflation is just one example of this fact concerning the principle elements of Big Bang evolutionary cosmology. Thus, our second defining point for evolutionary theory is right to conclude the following:

2) …Despite the lack of even a working speculation for how automatic, routine processes could cause the existing structures and their distribution, nevertheless an automatic, routine process is advanced as the cause and it is hoped that a working scenario can be conceived and articulated at some point in the future.

The significance of the fact that evolution and the Big Bang model lack an actual theory for the formation of the universe becomes even more apparent when we consider the fact that the actual “bang” itself cannot be studied. In other words, if there’s no working theory regarding the explosion and there’s no working theory for what happened afterward in the formation of the universe’s structure and major objects, then what really is there to the Big Bang theory or the evolutionary model in the first place?

Notice from the first quote that the big bang is the modern cosmology that is based upon the discoveries of Edwin Hubble, Alexander Friedmann, and Albert Einstein. And also, notice from the quote below that, “Most astronomers interpret their data in terms of the big bang model.” But more importantly, note that according to this quote, modern cosmology, which is the Big Bang model, “seeks to understand the structure of the universe.” This is the very topic that we just demonstrated that big bang cosmology has no working theory for or understanding of. So, most astronomers interpret the observable data in light of a theory that does not work in terms of the structure of the universe.

“Astrophysics, IV THE STUDY OF THE UNIVERSE – Cosmology seeks to understand the structure of the universe. Modern cosmology is based on the American astronomer Edwin Hubble's discovery in 1929 that all galaxies are receding from each other with velocities proportional to their distances. In 1922 the Russian astronomer Alexander Friedmann proposed that the universe is everywhere filled with the same amount of matter. Using Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity to calculate the gravitational effects, he showed that such a system must originate in a singular state of infinite density (now called the big bang) and expand from that state in just the way Hubble observed. Most astronomers today interpret their data in terms of the big bang model, which in the early 1980s was further refined by the so-called inflationary theory, an attempt to account for conditions leading to the big bang.” – "Astrophysics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Notice from the next quote that the Big Bang theory makes claims about what happened “immediately after the explosion” and then the Big Bang proceeds to make claims about the formation of the large-scale structures of the universe, such as galaxies, clusters, and superclusters, as well as the formation of stars. Once again, as we can see from this quote, the defining topics of the Big Bang model are in reality topics that the Big Bang model has no actual, working theory for.

“Universe, Changing views of the universe – The big bang theory provides the best explanation of the basic observations of the universe. According to the theory, the universe began with an explosion-called the big bang-13 billion to 14 billion years ago. Immediately after the explosion, the universe consisted chiefly of intense radiation and hot particles. This radiation, along with various kinds of matter and energy, formed a rapidly expanding region called the primordial fireball. After thousands of years, the fireball cooled. In time, the matter broke apart into huge clumps. The clumps became galaxies, many of them grouped into clusters, superclusters, and filaments. Smaller clumps within the galaxies formed stars. Part of one of these clumps became the sun and the other objects in the solar system.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

And finally, notice from the quote below that even though the model is titled Big Bang, it only attempts to explain what happened after the “explosion” that is said to have began the universe. The reality is that the explosion itself, the actual Big Bang, cannot be studied. Instead, “its existence is inferred.”

“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY – Modern cosmologists base their theories on astronomical observations, physical concepts such as quantum mechanics, and an element of imagination and philosophy. Cosmologists have moved beyond trying to find the earth's place in the universe to explaining the origins, nature, and fate of the universe…Current methods of particle physics allow the universe to be traced back to earlier than one second after the big bang explosion initiated the expansion of the universe. Cosmologists believe that they can model the universe back to 1 x [10 to the -43rd power] seconds after the big bang; before that point, they would need a theory that merges the theory of gravity and the theory of general relativity to explain the behavior of the universe. Scientists do not actually study the big bang itself, but infer its existence from the universe's expansion.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

According to the quote above, the current expansion of the universe is thought to infer an initial explosion. This is reflected in the quote below as well, which states that the expansion of the universe is the “immediate” indicator that the universe had a beginning, a big bang, and that since that beginning its structure has “evolved.”

“Cosmos – The observed expansion of the universe immediately raises the spectre that the universe is evolving, that it had a beginning and will have an end.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Both of the next 2 quotes also similarly assert that the observation of expansion is the basis for assuming an initial explosion.

“Cosmos – Cosmology is, in effect, the study of the universe at large. A dramatic new feature, not present on small scales, emerges when the universe is viewed in the large—namely, the cosmological expansion…On cosmological scales, galaxies (or, at least, clusters of galaxies) appear to be racing away from one another with the apparent velocity of recession being linearly proportional to the distance of the object. This relation is known as the Hubble law (after its discoverer, the American astronomer Edwin Powell Hubble). Interpreted in the simplest fashion, the Hubble law implies that roughly [10,000,000,000] years ago, all of the matter in the universe was closely packed together in an incredibly dense state and that everything then exploded in a “big bang,” the signature of the explosion being written eventually in the galaxies of stars that formed out of the expanding debris of matter.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, A The Big Bang Theory – The big bang theory describes a hot explosion of energy and matter at the time the universe came into existence. This theory explains why the universe is expanding and why the universe seems so uniform in all directions and at all places.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

But this raises questions as to whether or not the fact that the universe is currently expanding necessarily indicates that the universe expanded all the way from an explosion. Our intention is merely to point out it is a flawed assumption, a non-sequitur, to assume that just because the universe is expanding, therefore, it must have expanded all the way from an initial explosion. One simply does not lead to the other. Moreover, the fact that the Big Bang theory cannot be derived by simply extrapolating the kind of expansion that we currently do see back in time is demonstrated by the dramatically different type of expansion that the Big Bang theory requires during the inflation time period immediately after the initial explosion. As discussed in depth previously, in order to work the Big Bang cosmology requires the addition of inflation theory, which asserts the need for early expansion so different from the expansion we observe today that transitioning between them has not been possible even on a theoretical level (at least without requiring teleological fine-tuning).

More importantly, however, is the fact that the quote above states that the explosion itself, from which the name “Big Bang” is derived, cannot be studied specifically because, once again, evolution lacks a working theory that is capable of explaining such an explosion. To explain the explosion, evolution would need a theory that merges gravity with Einstein’s general relativity. They don’t have such a theory. And so they can’t study the explosion itself. But most significantly, since they don’t have a theory for how the Big Bang could have occurred, there really is no such thing as a Big Bang theory. There is no theory explaining the explosion called the Big Bang. There is simply the assertion that there was such an explosion, even if there is no theory explaining it. Its hard to see how a theory like this with its lack of explanations to essential questions, assertions contrary to and not supported by actual observation, unresolved theoretical difficulties, and unwarranted assumptions can be said to be scientifically preferred to creationism. It may be preferred because it avoids teleology and therefore, potential accountability to a Creator, but this is not a scientific basis, just a personal philosophical preference. (We will cover the role of philosophical preference more below.)

So, in summary, what we are left with is an evolutionary theory that cannot study the big bang itself and focuses instead on its aftereffects, which comprise the formation of the main structures of the universe as we know it today. Yet the theory is cannot explain those aftereffects either. This begs the question, if not the explosion itself and if not the formation of the universe after the explosion, what does the Big Bang theory does actually explain? And the answer is that it explains nothing.

However, knowing that the expansion of the universe is the foundation and bedrock of the big bang theory will be extremely relevant as we move forward to discuss the age of the universe. Since expansion is the core of the Big Bang model, then the information that we gain from observations about the universe’s expansion are determinant to cosmological reality. In other words, expansion dominates cosmology. So whatever we observe about expansion cannot be ignored when cosmological models are formulated. To formulate cosmologies according to some observations about expansion while wholly ignoring other observations about expansion reveals a biased handling of the evidence.

And this leads directly into our next 3 segments. Ultimately, there are specific observations about expansion that have been discovered by secular scientists, not creationists, and that have been acknowledged and asserted in all of the major mainstream scientific journals and magazines, which are being ignored in order to accommodate the evolutionary Big Bang model and its rejection of teleology. Obviously, this is the crucial point of this section and it will need to be established by quotes from secular sources, evolutionary scientists, and mainstream scientific magazines. But before we can explore those critical observations about expansion, which Big Bang cosmology contradicts and ignores, there are two related topics that we must cover.

First, asserting that known observations are being ignored implies that philosophical preference is interfering with interpretation of the evidence. Although, in general, the suggestion that creation scientists are biased in their interpretation of the evidence is perhaps widely accepted and palatable, to perhaps many people the suggestion that secular scientists are biased by their philosophical preferences will seem impossible. So, to open the door to considering the claim that relevant observations about expansion are being ignored out of philosophical bias, we first need to demonstrate how much philosophical bias plays a role in science, particularly secular cosmology. This demonstration will also be established from secular and evolutionary sources.

Second, in order to understand the significant of the observations that are being ignored, we will need to understand what the Big Bang, evolutionary picture of the universe is and what the key components of that picture are. Then we will be ready to see the relevance that the ignored expansion data has for Big Bang and evolutionary cosmology and, more importantly, on the debate over the origin of the universe as a whole.