ICR Ridicules Cosmology — for Good Reason?

A recent article in Astronomy has creationists running wild. It’s titled Is the Big Bang in crisis? The first two paragraphs will introduce situation:

A series of powerful observations has made it clear that our universe has expanded for billions of years, emerging from the hot, dense state we call the Big Bang. Over the past several decades, new types of precise measurements have allowed scientists to scrutinize and refine this account, letting them reconstruct the history of our universe in ever greater detail. When we compare the results from different kinds of measurements — the expansion rate of the universe, the temperature patterns in the light released when the first atoms formed, the abundances of various chemical elements, and the distribution of galaxies and other large-scale structures — we find stunning agreement. Each of these lines of evidence supports the conclusion that our universe expanded and evolved in just the way that the Big Bang theory predicts. From this perspective, our universe appears to be remarkably comprehensible.

But cosmologists have struggled — if not outright failed — to understand essential facets of the universe. We know almost nothing about dark matter and dark energy, which together make up more than 95 percent of the total energy in existence today. We don’t understand how the universe’s protons, electrons, and neutrons could have survived the aftereffects of the Big Bang. In fact, everything we know about the laws of physics tells us that these particles should have been destroyed by antimatter long ago. And in order to make sense of the universe as we observe it, cosmologists have been forced to conclude that space, during its earliest moments, must have undergone a brief and spectacular period of hyperfast expansion — an event known as cosmic inflation. Yet we know next to nothing about this key era of cosmic history.

That’s a fair summary of where things are today, and it presents an opportunity for creationists — such as the brilliant article that just appeared at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits, the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. It’s titled Astronomy Magazine: Big Bang in Crisis?

It was written by one of ICR’s top creation scientists — Jake Hebert. They say he has a Ph.D. in physics, and joined ICR as a research associate the same year that degree was awarded. Here are some excerpts from Jake’s article, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

The May 2020 issue of Astronomy magazine asks what might have once been seen as an unthinkable question: Is the Big Bang in Crisis? [Gasp!] The article cites four major problems with the model: 1) that the Big Bang implies that 95% of the universe’s content is unknown to us, 2) the inability of the Big Bang to explain the enormous matter/antimatter imbalance in the universe, 3) the nature of cosmic inflation that was “tacked onto” the model years ago, and 4) contradicting values of the universe’s inferred expansion rate.

Wowie — scientists are actually admitting that they don’t understand the universe! Jake is all excited. He quickly mentions the evidence that supports the Big Bang theory, and then he lovingly recites the issues that are not yet resolved. Near the end of that recital he says:

Moreover, Big Bang theorists acknowledge that, by their own reckoning, they do not know the composition of 95% of the mass/energy of the universe. Or to put it another way, they don’t know what the universe is composed of. [They’re fools!] This one simple fact demonstrates the absurdity [Absurdity!] of their claim that they know how the universe came to be.

Their ignorance is so obvious! Then Jake tells us:

A 2004 open letter published in New Scientist had this to say about the Big Bang:

[He quotes the first paragraph of Open Letter on Cosmology:] Big bang theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities — things that we have never observed. Inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

That’s quite an open letter! Jake is excited and ends his article like this:

Creation scientists heartily agree. [Hee hee!] The scientific problems with the Big Bang model are so great that it should have been abandoned by theorists long ago. What is truly perplexing is why so many Christians insist that the Big Bang was God’s means of creating the universe, when it clearly contradicts the Genesis account in so many ways. [It’s blasphemy!]

While we’re on the subject of articles ending, here’s the end of the article in Astronomy — the one that got Jake all excited:

Scientific revolutions can profoundly transform how we see and understand our world. But radical change is never easy to see coming. There is probably no way to tell whether the mysteries faced by cosmologists today are the signs of an imminent scientific revolution or merely the last few loose ends of an incredibly successful scientific endeavor.

There is no question that we have made incredible progress in understanding our universe, its history, and its origin. But it is also undeniable that we are profoundly puzzled, especially when it comes to the earliest moments of cosmic history. I have no doubt that these moments hold incredible secrets, and perhaps the keys to a new scientific revolution. But our universe holds its secrets closely. It is up to us to coax those secrets from its grip, transforming them from mystery into discovery.

Well, dear reader, who is right? The folks at Astronomy, who seem to suggest that we’re well on the way to understanding the universe, or Jake and his fellow creation scientists, who say that only Genesis tells the true story?

Copyright © 2020. 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

17 responses to “ICR Ridicules Cosmology — for Good Reason?

  1. The biggest puzzle is why the YECs
    are so worried about the Big Bang. After all, it replaced the idea that the universe is without a beginning. From Aristotle to Einstein, the assumption was an infinitely old universe.
    The last holdout to the Big Bang was Continuous Creation (without a creator).

  2. Michael Fugate

    How exactly does the big bang differ from the biblical account? Is there a biblical account?

  3. Ah, everyone really should read the article in Atronomy.com. Because the answer is so obvious; still these hellbound naturalists are so blind that they don’t see it. I quote:

    “We know almost nothing about dark matter and dark energy, which together make up more than 95 percent of the total energy in existence today.”

    “scientists have designed and built a series of impressive experiments — yet no such particles (dark matter – FrankB) have appeared.”

    Of course scientists won’t find dark matter and dark energy via experiments. The fools! Dark matter and dark energy are the natural apparition of ….. the Grand Old Designer (blessed be MOFO)!

    “But lately, it seems the more we study the universe, the less we understand it.”
    Again, exactly what we should expect! The Grand Old Designer is and remains uncomprehensible for simple mortal minds.

  4. @Michael Fugate
    Everybody knows about the proof texts that mention dark matter, dark energy, anti-matter, amount olf hydrogen, helium and other elements, distribution of galaxies.

  5. Michael Fugate

    Ahhh… the oft overlooked appendix….

  6. Now let’s see what My Brother Jake squeeze out of the article.

    “Not a single one of these is an unqualified success”
    BWAHAHAHAHA!
    Yeah, ICR’s Young Earth Creacrap totally is. Not.

    “Astronomers have inferred that other galaxies are receding away from our own,”
    BWAHAHAHAHA!
    Yeah, like we infer that ambulances and police cars first drive towards to us and then recide away. It’s called the Doppler Effect.

    “and they believe this is an indication that space itself is expanding.”
    BWAHAHAHAHA!
    As if Jake should believe that our Universe is deflating when almost all galaxies are moving away from us.

    “Big Bang theorists assume that this inferred expansion can be “rewound” backward in time to the supposed birth of our universe.”
    BWAHAHAHAHA!
    Yeah, when I see a tire or a balloon inflating I also assume it was smaller in the past.
    Ah, enough crapola for today. I’m not even halfway. Let me infer something: the rest of Jake’s “analysis” if anything only will get worse.

    “things that we have never observed”
    BWAHAHAHAHA!
    Yeah, Jake observes supernatural entities creating natural things at least six times before breakfast.

    “In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation.”
    BWAHAHAHAHA!
    Jake totally is not familiar with superconductivity at relatively high temperatures and the amount of hypotheses (several of them quite wild) that try to bridge “the gap between theory and observation” in this field.

    “raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory”
    BWAHAHAHAHA!
    That’s exactly what the article at Astronomy.com does.

  7. @TomS: “The biggest puzzle is why the YECs are so worried about the Big Bang.”
    Not at all. The reason why is in the name YEC – they accept archbishop Ussher’s calculation or some variation (fun fact: late Harold Camping proposed 11,013 BCE as the year of creation – so much for YEC consensus on their core tenets).
    The Big Bang only makes sense on a billions of years old universe. That contradicts their particular theology and as we all know: theology is the Queen of the sciences.
    IDiots don’t have a problem at all with the Big Bang. In this context it should not be forgotten that Paul Nelson, like WL Craig a fellow of the Discotute, is a YEC too.

  8. “In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation.”

    examples:
    Atoms
    Neptune
    Helium
    Germanium
    Neutrinos
    etc. etc. etc.

  9. Theodore Lawry

    @TomS more examples:
    quarks
    color (of quarks)
    virtual particles
    gravitons
    zitterbewegung
    the cosmic neutrino background

  10. Dave Luckett

    Of course I don’t pretend to understand a single equation of it. I have not yet been able to wrap my head around the concept that light approaches at the same speed, no matter whether one is moving towards or away from its source.

    As with relativity, so with the Big Bang. My limited understanding is that the evidence is unequivocal. The Universe expands and has expanded. This expansion began at a point of singularity, infinitely hot and infinitely dense, and at zero time and space. That no matter what the common-sense, instinctive, intuitive objections there may be to this fact, the iron laws of thermodynamics admit of no other explanation. Now all we have to discover is how exactly that expansion happened, and what happened in the tiny sliver of Planck time immediately after it began.

    I don’t know. I know I say that a lot, but I don’t. There may be a place there for a Word, an act of creation, and for a Creator. If there was once no time and no space, for all I know there can be something that is present in all time, and all space, and outside both as well. Why not? It’s no more crazy than any of the other quantum conundrums that have been presented to me as cold, hard fact. Particles that can be in two places at once. Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance”. A state of non-space and non-time. A cat that is neither dead nor alive until you open the box. Numbers that are both real and imaginary, both at once. It all beats me. It seems that aspects of the expansion of the singularity beat everyone. There’s still plenty that isn’t known by anyone.

    But I’ll tell you what also beats me, and I suspect everyone else: I can’t imagine why Jake Hebert thinks that if nobody knows, it’s a reason to think that he does. That smells awfully like hubris to me. When faced with the awesome facts and the awesome gaps, I think a little humility is in order.

  11. @Dave Luckett
    Yet the YECs don’t have a Bjblical description of what happens so that, for example, it looks like the universe is billions of years old. The concept of radio background having a temperature of a few degrees is so alien to the Bible. Or that most of matter is hydrogen. What can ñ

  12. Eddie Janssen

    Dark matter is not only related to the Big Bang. Vera Rubin showed in the mid 1950’s that the orbital velocity of stars in galaxies (around the center of the galaxy) could not be explained by the observable amount of matter in that galaxy.
    So either Newton and Einstein were wrong or there had to be some other matter in or around the galaxy.

  13. @EddieJ: Newton was right to recognize YHWH’s hand. Dark matter and dark energy are his manifestation.
    Checkmate, athiest darwinist nazicommie!

  14. @Frank B
    And, of course, the Bible tells us about the rotations of galaxies being more than what the gravity of observable matter can account for. The secular astronomers are just making up the Big Bang in order to deny the clear Bible teaching about that.

  15. docbill1351

    I seem to remember a conjecture that the answer to any creationist question is “No.”

    Is the big bang theory in crisis? No.
    Is *blank* in crisis? No.
    Should we “teach the controversy?” No.

    Not as much fun as ridiculing creationists, but saves time.

  16. @docbill1351
    Betteridge’s law of headlines – see Wikipedia
    If a headline asks a question, the answer is no

  17. docbill1351

    h/t TomS