Answers in Genesis: Creationist Cosmology

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.

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

20 responses to “Answers in Genesis: Creationist Cosmology

  1. Progress.
    Now if only they admit that they have no alternative to evolution.

    BTW, doesn’t Genesis 1 say that the Sun and Moon and stars all hang on the firmament? And people in the days before light pollution were familiar with the motion of the stars throughout the night.

  2. Karl Goldsmith

    The have a wierd situation where the big bang isn’t correct, but then neither is the previous solid state theory, so that leaves them with nothing.

  3. “We are not constrained” – That’s the best part.

  4. Dave Luckett

    This is the most abject surrender I have yet seen from any professional creationist. Danny admits that there is no alternative to an ancient Universe that can stand a moment’s enquiry. Does it bother him?

    Plainly, clearly, it does. Parse his words. Underneath that facade, one can hear groans and cracks, as the ice-dam starts to break apart. Danny is a frightened man, and it’s starting to show through. That’s a conscious intellect struggling to free itself, there.

    Will it break out? It’s no better than an even-money bet, so powerful are the bonds tied by nurture, so difficult is it to say, “I am wrong”. And even if it does, and Danny privately admits to himself that he’s peddling tosh, there is the purely sordid difficulty that he’s making a living by doing it. Science, real science, is hard mental work, and emotionally bruising to boot. Writing puff pieces about nothing at all for an audience that doesn’t question anything they’re told is laughably easy by comparison, and the money (for Danny) is good.

    Many of the woo merchants – Geller, Hydrick, Popoff, Sylvia Brown, many others – know what they’re doing is fraud. Many of the TV Bible thumpers couldn’t give a real hoot about their own probity or that of the customers as long as they keep the dollars flowing in. Danny, I think, is a class above those bottom-feeders, but nevertheless will descend a level in the bathyscape the moment he realises that he’s shilling lies for a living. So my bet is he won’t actually admit that, not even to himself. He’ll develop – if he hasn’t done it already – the fractured consciousness which allows him to think that even if something is not true, one must believe and act as if it were, because it should be true.

    Ah, the boxes within boxes of the mind! If he ever becomes aware of that effect, Danny will face a further dilemma, and some further shift will become necessary. It reminds me of the Ptolemaic model of the Universe, where the apparent paths of the planets had to be explained by ever more complex systems of epicycles. But I suspect that Danny is no Copernicus.

  5. “We don’t know why”
    Of course you know. Their target audience loves to hear “we are no kin of no monkey”, but doesn’t buy “the Earth is flat”. Had the Flat Earth Society been much more popular Ol’Hambo would have been an ardent advocate.

    “Alas, there is no agreed-upon cosmology among biblical creationists.”
    There is no creationist consensus on anything but “I ain’t no kin to no monkey” – and apparently prominent creacrapper Michael Behe even accepts that one.

  6. @TomS is an optimist: “Progress.”
    Absolutely not. Creationists have happily disagreed on everything and anything but common descent of man and chimp (and wasn’t it you who pointed out that Behe accepts it?!). So they equally happily will keep on disagreeing. Dannyboy will jump a hole in the sky when someone thinks up some nonsense. Until then it’s “ah, only YHWH has a perfect mind, we cannot expect to understand everything, so we must accept the TRVTH of the Bible.”

    @KG: The steady state model is unacceptable if only because it was defended by an atheist.

  7. I’m not sure who commented under ‘Anonymous’ — perhaps Dave Luckett?– but that was pretty much my impression of where Danny is at, too. The cognitive dissonance is proving a strain.

    As for Danny’s entire article itself? As Bill Bailey once put it: “That was a long walk down a windy beach to a cafe that was closed.”

  8. BTW, the interpretation of Hubble’s observations was not cavierly adopted. There were several competing proposals. Expansion of the universe won out as no other explanation worked. And it continues to work. Remember that the Big Bang implies that there was a finite time to the existence of the universe, contrary to the conventional expectations, going back at least to Newton.

  9. Dave Luckett

    Yes, that was me.

  10. What happened to the waters that are above the firmament? Or were they all used up in the Flood?

  11. And of course AiG has suppressed mention of Lemaitre, whose priority is now belatedly recognised by the cosmological community

  12. Eddie Janssen

    @Paul Braterman
    “What happened to the waters that are above the firmament? Or were they all used up in the Flood?

    Isn’t there a theory that Earth got its water from comets raining down on earth in the first billion years of its existence? One wonders why Ham never uses that idea.

  13. Paul Braterman asks: “What happened to the waters that are above the firmament?”

    I forgot about them, and creationists never mention them. Someone needs to reveal The TRVTH about the firmament and the waters.

  14. How long has it been possible to detect water in nebulae? I seem to recall that creationists were thrilled when this was announced, as confirmation of the waters above the firmament. This would, I think, require radio astronomy spectroscopy, maybe 1980s?

  15. Danny says “This realization has great implications.” Yes it does. It implies you’re a scientific illiterate incapable of rational thought. By observing your other creationist writings, that implication is confirmed. La La Land Danny.
    You live in it.

  16. Dare I suggest that Danny knows deep down that creationism is total nonsense, and this realization is starting to seep into his public writings? He’s basically making a total honest admission here that creationism has nothing to offer in cosmology. A self-critical tone of voice like that is very atypical in creationist polemic.

  17. With articles like this Danny could soon be out of a job. He concedes too much. But, however low the probability, let’s hope his crack in the biblical lens expands.

  18. Eddie Janssen

    Creationist explanation what happened to the waters above.

    Although the Intelligent Designer seperated the waters from the land early on in creationweek he didn’t say how much land and how much water there was originally on earth. As the Intelligent Designer wanted life to florish on earth, there was a lot more land than today. But then life got wicked, the waters above fell on earth (as comets!) and for extra punishment 70% of Earth remaind ocean after the Flood.

    That’s what happened to the waters above.

  19. It isn’t often mentioned, but the beginning of the Bible tells us that when God first created things, there already was a wind blowing over deep water. It doesn’t say anything about where the water came from. For all we know, it could have been the product of the Big Bang and nucleosynthesis and such. Or just always was.

  20. Techreseller

    Is Danny forging a path for himself to switch to the other side? To go over to the evil side of true science? If not, why take the time and the risk to even write and publish this piece? Hard to understand creacrapper thinking. Or rather what passes for thinking in their realm.