We all know what the bible says about the universe — it’s centered on and rotates around the flat Earth. Except for the Sun and the Moon, which orbit the Earth, everything else is imbedded in the dome of the firmament, above which is heaven. That’s about it.
For some reason, the creationist outfits we follow never mention that stuff. We don’t know why — it’s not as if they’re worried about being laughed at. Anyway today we have a rare creationist excursion into the field of cosmology. It’s by Danny Faulkner, one of the creation scientists who work for Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.
Danny’s new article at the AIG website is titled Recent Studies of Cosmological (Cosmic?) Importance. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
Recently there have been press accounts of two new studies related to cosmology. However, before I can discuss this new research, I need to provide some background information.
Then he talks about Hubble’s law. Danny says: “Edwin Hubble is credited with discovering the expansion of the universe in 1929. What Hubble found was a linear relationship between the redshifts and distances of galaxies.” He explains:
The most straightforward interpretation is that the universe is expanding. When objects move away from us, their spectra are shifted to longer wavelengths, producing a redshift. … Keep in mind that universal expansion is the simplest, most straightforward interpretation of the Hubble law. Also, keep in mind that this is an interpretation — there could be other reasons for the Hubble law. For now, I think that expansion is the best explanation.
Danny agrees with mainstream science? Very unusual for a creationist. Then he goes on for several paragraphs, explaining some other principles of cosmology to his creationist readers. After that he briefly talks about the two new papers. We’re skipping all of that because it’s not relevant to what comes next. He tells us:
If you haven’t suspected it yet, much of this discussion relies upon assumption of great age and the big bang model. [Gasp!] We believe that Scripture doesn’t allow for either. [He’s right!] Therefore, we are not constrained to look at this new data in the same way.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He continues:
So, how might biblical creationists view these new studies? That is not clear. [It’s not?] Cosmologists generally assume that for extragalactic objects, redshifts are cosmological. That is, redshifts are the result of cosmic expansion and hence reflect distance. But remember that expansion is an interpretation of the Hubble law. Could there be other interpretations? Yes, but there has been no plausible alternative yet.
In other words, he doesn’t have a clue. Let’s read on:
Furthermore, the standard cosmology is based upon what is called the cosmological principle. The cosmological principle is the assumption that the universe is both homogeneous (appearing the same everywhere) and isotropic (appearing the same in every direction). But is the cosmological principle true?
Well, what’s the answer? Danny theorizes:
If the universe is finite in size with an edge as some creationists suggest [Hee hee!], then the cosmological principle cannot be true, because an observer near the edge of the universe would not see the universe the same as someone located far from the edge. This realization has great implications.
Exciting, isn’t it? And what are the creationist implications? Here they come:
It calls into question whether redshifts are due to expansion. Furthermore, it may undermine the assumption that the Hubble law works for all extragalactic objects. That is the thinking of some biblical creationists.
That’s very exciting, but Danny doesn’t follow through on any of it. Here’s why:
Since the two recent studies discussed above are interpreted through an evolutionary model of cosmology, what is the creationary model of cosmology? Alas, there is no agreed-upon cosmology among biblical creationists.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And now we come to the end:
Without a consensus or even a single good model, it is difficult to say what the implication of the Hubble law is, or what the change in the slope of the Hubble law at great redshift means. Perhaps in time, I can offer a better answer to that question.
In other words, Danny has nothing to say. Now you know all there is to know about creationist cosmology.
Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.