Basic
Worldview:
103
Science, the Bible,
and Creation
Origins
- Section Three:
Time and Age, Redshift
Origins - Section One: Introduction
and the Basics
Origins - Section Two: Premature
Dismissals
Origins - Section Two: Application
of the Basics
Origins - Section Three: Creation
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Origin of Life
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Environment for Life 1
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Environment for Life 2
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Another Planet
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Origin of Species
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Speciation Factors
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Speciation Rates
Origins - Section Four: Time and
Age, Redshift
Origins - Section Four: Philosophical
Preference
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological
Model 1
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological
Model 2
Origins - Section Four: Dating Methods,
Perceptions, Basics
Origins - Section Four: Global Flood
Evidence
Origins - Section Four: Relative
Dating
Origins - Section Four: Dating and
Circular Reasoning
Origins - Section Four: The Geologic
Column
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric
Dating Basics
Origins - Section Four: General
Radiometric Problems
Origins - Section Four: Carbon-14
Problems
Origins - Section Four: Remaining
Methods and Decay Rates
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric
Conclusions, Other Methods
Origins - Section Five: Overall
Conclusions, Closing Editorial
Origins - Section Five: List
of Evidences Table
Origins Debate Figures and
Illustrations
Section
Four – Focus
on Critical Evidence: Time and Age
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.
“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.
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.
“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.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
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.