ICR: Science Is Always Changing!

We found a splendid example of the advantage of creation science over plain old yucky science at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in this new article: The Ever-Changing Big Bang Story. It’s by Jake Hebert. Jake is an ICR Research Associate who received his Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Texas at Dallas. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Some say that Christians should re-interpret what Genesis states about the origin of the universe to match the claims of the Big Bang model. But which Big Bang model are they talking about? Several versions have cropped up since Georges Lemaître suggested the idea in 1931. Although these versions all say the universe expanded and cooled over many billions of years, they differ significantly in the details of events.

That’s the big problem with science — it keeps changing to accommodate new evidence. Creation science, on the other hand, is timeless! Jake’s article continues:

In 1979, physicist Alan Guth envisioned a major modification to solve a number of serious difficulties. He posited that shortly after the Big Bang, the universe supposedly underwent an enormous but extremely brief growth spurt called inflation. After this brief inflationary period, the universe continued to expand but at a slower rate. Inflation became an essential part of the Big Bang model.

He’s talking about cosmic inflation. See what we mean? Science is never the same! Skipping some speculation about the multiverse, we come to this:

The current version of the Big Bang model involves a number of quantities (such as “dark energy” and “dark matter”) that earlier versions did not have.

There are good reasons for that, but Jake doesn’t bother with them. It would ruin the narrative. Let’s read on:

Furthermore, the bizarre logical consequences of inflation theory are now leading some theorists to propose another version of the Big Bang called the Ekpyrotic Model. They speculate that the Big Bang was caused by a collision between two 3-D worlds (called “branes”) moving along a fourth hidden dimension.

Ooooooh — this is so confusing! Why would anyone want to abandon the timeless comfort of Genesis?

By the way, the ekpyrotic universe is currently a contender, but it’s a minority view. It’s the latest version of a cyclic model in which the universe oscillates between expansions and contractions. Jake continues:

Is there a lesson here? Secularists have long pressured Christians to compromise with these origins tales, yet the secular theorists themselves eventually abandoned them.

Hey, that’s right! Why abandon Genesis for the latest science, when before you know it, whatever new theory you’ve adopted will soon be abandoned! That’s crazy! Here’s how it ends:

Instead of trusting the changing, fallible stories of sinful men who were not present at creation, how much better it is to trust the written record of the One who knows all things, who never lies, and who was there — creating.

You gotta admit, dear reader — Jake has a good point!

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

12 responses to “ICR: Science Is Always Changing!

  1. I’m getting the impression that Hebert is recycling what is essentially the same article every month under a new headline. He really doesn’t like inflation…

  2. Some say that Christians should re-interpret what the Bible states about the motions of the Heavens to match the claims of the heliocentric model.
    But which heliocentric model?
    Of course, others say that we shouldn’t bother with re-interpreting the Bible: We should just recognize that the Bible is not a reliable source about such things.
    Which approach should I take?

  3. Ceteris Paribus

    Jeez, just a few posts back, ICR guru John D. Morris, Ph.D., noted Ark hunter, was discussing the dimensions of Noah’s Ark: “By any estimation , the building of Noah’s Ark was a monumental task. Assuming an 18″ cubit, the Ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. [emphasis added]”

    So why an 18″ cubit, when historians have turned up many other mentions of cubits of different lengths? And how did Noah know that his cubit was going to need to come out in exact feet thousands of years later?.

    Hey, Hebert and Morris need to schedule a meeting to get their creation models straight.

  4. Actually, it was a Russian, Alexander Friedmann, who first suggested what would become “the Big Bang” theory. Unfortunately, Friedmann died he saw his ideas bear fruit. Fortunately, Lemaitre was persistent, funny in this context considering he was a priest.

  5. It always seemed odd to me that creationists would object to the Big Bang theory, given that the alternative Steady State theory postulates no beginning to the universe.

  6. Spectacularly missing the point there. The point isn’t to accept the big bang per se but to accept science. Don’t dogmatically cling to another idea but understand why it is accepted, why it may be abandoned and why the replacement is better. Then you can look back at this article for the foolishness it really is.

  7. Adam, the /sarc tag is always understood around here.

  8. Charles Deetz ;)

    So Hebert is all twitchy about committing to a new scientific theory, but doesn’t want to be seen as mistaken if he picks the wrong one? Even in a God-centered view of the world, we need to let go of our egos a bit, don’t you think? Sheesh.

  9. I think we could take a few lessons from this. We shouldn’t abandon our old scientific theories just because new data and experiments contradict them, we should hold on to those beliefs. Creationists have been the scientists for centuries before Darwin ruined everything, they should know what they are talking about.

  10. Of course science is always changing! Duh! Everyone knows Big Science is merely a front for Big Textbook_Publishers!

  11. So, we should reject science in favor of Genesis? Which interpretation of Genesis? Flat earth? Geocentric? Young-earth creationism? Old-earth creationism? Gap theory? Day-age theory? Metaphorical? Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are parallel accounts? Chapter 2 explains chapter 1? Contradictory accounts? Different accounts written by different groups at different times for different theological reasons, put together by a redactor in the time of King Josiah? These “differ significantly in the details of events,” to quote one little-known fatuous blowhard. I don’t know which one to pick. I think I’ll stick with science.

  12. how much better it is to trust the written record of the One who knows all things, who never lies, and who was there — creating.

    That might be an unchanging model, but it is missing a key supporting piece of evidence – the “One” who created the universe. Not to mention it is also unable to explain any of the facts that we can observe.