![]() |
Intelligent Design of the Universe — Was nature designed
so it would evolve?
How old is the universe? — Scientific Principles of Astronomy & Cosmology
When you read this page it's important to understand that evolution just
means "developmental change over time," and to recognize
the major differences between four types of proposed developments — in
astronomical evolution (to form stars and galaxies,
planets and solar systems), geological
evolution (to form the earth's features), chemical
evolution (to form the first life), and biological
evolution (to form the diversity and
complexity
of life) — which involve four very different sets of questions and
observations.
Intelligent Design of the
Universe?
If astronomical evolution is to occur, many properties
of the universe must be "just
right." Should we therefore conclude that the universe was cleverly
designed to allow its natural evolution? This theory of intelligent design
is
based on evidence that natural process can produce some features,
so it differs from design theories proposing that natural process cannot produce
a particular feature, as explained in FOUR
TYPES OF DESIGN.
Some astronomers (Hugh Ross, Guillermo Gonzales,...) think
earth has a large number of special life-allowing features, and it would be
extremely
improbable
for all of these to occur by chance for one planet. { But
they don't claim that any individual feature required the detectable design-action
that would be necessary if undirected natural process could not produce the
feature. / a question for
reviewers: Is this true? do all old-universe proponents of intelligent design
think undirected natural process was sufficient for all aspects of astronomical
evolution,
so there was no need for detectable
divine design-action during history? }
These ideas are examined in DESIGN
OF THE UNIVERSE.
Astronomy & Cosmology and Questions about
Age
Why do almost all scientists think there is abundant evidence — from
Big Bang Cosmology, the physics of star fusion, the fact that we see faraway
starlight, and much more — to support a logical conclusion that the universe
is billions of years old? And why do a few "young universe" scientists
disagree?
connections between design and age: Most evidences for a design of nature are due to the many fine-tuned properties of nature that must be "just right" for the natural developments that occurred during astronomical evolution. Ironically, when young-earth creationists argue against age-principles (below) they argue against the strongest evidences for one type of intelligent design (above). { What are the other types of intelligent design? }
This section will help you understand the natural processes that, according to conventional scientific theories, produce astronomical evolution to form stars and galaxies, planets and solar systems. By contrast, most proponents of young-universe theories claim this natural evolution could not occur, and all of them think it did not occur.
Some of the
abundant evidence for an old earth and old universe is in AGE
OF THE EARTH & UNIVERSE — SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE which is based
on this educational philosophy:
"Our
goal is to help you get an accurate understanding,
so we've tried to find the best information and arguments
claimed as support by both sides, young earth and old earth. And
even
though
the
overall
result
won't be NEUTRAL, we will try to be FAIR by letting
representatives of each perspective clearly express their own views and criticize
other views, and by treating their views with respect."
Here are two
parts of
the page (Overviews & Responses, Selected Topics) plus questions about Distant Starlight:
Astronomy — Overviews & Responses
To help you learn quickly and well, here are some carefully
selected
resources:
• explanations of the Big Bang Expansion — a brief
overview and Cosmology
101 (a series from NASA) and Three
Supports (by Perry Phillips) and news
+ FAQ + tutorial (from Ned Wright) — and The
Life Cycle of Stars (and Birth of Planets) by Deborah Haarsma & Loren Haarsma.
• old-universe claims by TO and Hill
Roberts; a good overview of current
young-universe astronomy by Danny Faulkner; young-universe claims by Don
DeYoung and Jonathan
Sarfati (with science plus Galileo). The overviews & responses
above also include some astronomy, especially in Humphreys (topics
1-3), and TO's
Topic-List & Tiscareno (astronomy
plus the final topic in page, Star Distances).
There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang, as described
by Hugh
Ross & TO (brief) & TalkOrigins (in
depth), plus responses to 10
Problems for the Big Bang (Richard Deem) and Astronomical
Complexity & The
Second Law of Thermodynamics. David Berlinski (OE) wonders what
happened before the beginning and Apologetics Press (YE, A B)
describes science history and science. John
Hartnett and Carl
Wieland think disagreements among OE-scientists shows the Big Bang theory
is in trouble, but Greg Neyman (A B)
explains that this is just how science works.
You can also learn about Distant Starlight (which includes subsections for Light Speed Slowdown [c-decay] & White Hole Cosmology) and
more
in ASTRONOMY: AGE OF THE UNIVERSE [which is the page you're now reading].
| • Speed of Moon Recession — a
problem for OE? If the moon had moved away for 4.5 billion years at the current rate, it would be much further away. |
Speed of Moon Recession — an
OE solution? The arrangement of continents has changed, and this changed the rate of recession, so the "if" isn't correct and neither is the calculation. (TO) |
| • Number of Supernova Remnants — a
problem for OE? In an old universe, we would see more second- and third-generation supernova remnants. |
Number of Supernova Remnants — an
OE solution? The YE math is based on wrong premises, and supernovas support OE in several ways. (TO Neyman) |
If you want to explore more widely, additional resources are below.
The Problem (for a Young Universe)
If the universe has existed for less than 10 thousand years,
how can we see light from distant stars, from stars so far away that light
coming
from
them
would
take
billions
of years
to reach
us? Everyone agrees that this is a problem for young-universe theories,
so we'll move on to potential solutions.
Four Possible Explanations (if the universe is young)
The science is simple; the equation we use to find the travel time
for a car trip, distance/speed = time, can also be used to find
the travel time for a starlight journey. If the universe is young, three
scientific explanations are
to claim that
one of the three equation-terms is wrong:
A. Are
scientific estimates of distance (from star to earth) wrong?
B. In the past, was the speed of light faster than it is
now?
C. Is
our concept of "time during history" incorrect?
D. A theological
explanation proposes that starlight was
created "in transit" to earth, so the starlight we see did not really
come from a star, and the distance actually traveled is much less than the
distance from star to earth.
Each explanation (A B C D) is examined more closely, following these overviews:
• Distant
Stars and Time by Robert Newman, explains the scientific problem (for a young universe) and
criticizes
three of the solutions: A,
B, and D.
• Christopher Sharp explains why The
Distant Starlight Problem is not
solved by A, B, or C, and he questions the theology of D.
• Answers in Genesis (AIG) is a prominent organization
for young-earth creationists, and three of its scientists (Ken
Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland) wrote How
can we see distant stars in a young universe? to criticize
a "false
appearance of old age" explanation (so they say not-D)
and evaluate
three scientific explanations; they think the estimates
of distance are approximately correct (not-A) and they reject a claim that
light took a "shortcut through space" on a curved Riemannian
surface (another not-A), and they are pessimistic
about a slowdown of light speed (not-B) but are optimistic about
white-hole cosmology (hopefully-C).
A. Estimates of Distance
If the star-to-earth distances are much smaller than scientists estimate,
all starlight could reach us in thousands of years. But
the estimates would have to be wrong by a factor of a million (to convert billions
of years
into
thousands) and "wrong distances" are rarely claimed by young-earth
creationists. Here
are explanations of how distances can be measured and/or estimated by geometry and
in other
ways (by 26
methods).
B. Slowdown of Light Speed
If the speed of light was super-fast early in history, distant starlight could
reach us in thousands of years, even though at its current slower speeds (after
c-decay) this would take billions of years.
•
The two most prominent young-earth organizations don't promote this idea: AIG
now thinks it is "doubtful" and
in 2001 said "let's
not be too quick to rush to judgement [in claiming support
for c-decay based on new research]" and their 3-author chapter (cited
above) acknowledges that c-decay
would produce "physical
consequences" that have not been observed,
and in 1988 an ICR author analyzed light-speed data and found that support
for c-decay "is
not warranted
by the data" and
neither
AIG nor ICR has any pages
proposing
c-decay in its website.
• But some young-earth creationists, led by Barry Setterfield, continue
to claim c-decay, as in a defense & Setterfield
Simplified & overview.
• The many reasons to reject c-decay (including the
data & constancy
of constants & pre-starlight
irrelevancy) are summarized in compact
overviews (A B)
and in more detail (A B).
C. Distortion of Time in White Hole Cosmology
The 3-author page of AIG describes
the White Hole Cosmology of Russell Humphreys, and explains why they hope it
will provide a solution for starlight travel; according to
the General Relativity of Einstein, "gravity distorts
time" which could produce a "massive
gravitational time dilation" that would allow billions of years
of light-travel time (in space) to occur during a short time (on earth).
•
But
is White Hole Cosmology scientifically plausible? a description and
criticisms (brief and in
detail) plus views from Humphreys (A B)
and his page with
some criticisms and responses (but they omitted this one), plus blogs (begin here and work upward, plus other entries if you're curious).
D. False Appearance of Old Age
This idea is examined in APPEARANCE
OF AGE — THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
If you want to explore more widely,
the Potential
Resources Page for Astronomy
has links for resources to supplement those above (the overviews & responses,
plus pages about moon recession & supernova remnants and Distant
Starlight. The potential resources include these
topics:
distant starlight c-decay white hole cosmology apparent age — astronomy Big Bang red shift CMB dark matter — galaxy shapes supernova remnants star evolution black holes faint sun shrinking sun solar neutrinos — NASA & Joshua solar system origin extrasolar planets planet problems comets astronomical cycles planet magnetism space dust water on Mars earth rotation moon recession moon dust moon craters moon-misc — Big
Bang & Theism
I.O.U. — Other topics (check the Potential Resources
Page above for
possibilities) will
be added to this page later.
| A DISCLAIMER: In this page you'll find links to resource-pages expressing a wide range of views, which don't necessarily represent the views of the American Scientific Affiliation. Therefore, linking to a page does not imply an endorsement by ASA. We encourage you to use your own critical thinking to evaluate everything you read. |
THREE TYPES
OF LINKS in this website for Whole-Person Education:
An ITALICIZED LINK keeps you inside a page, moving you to another part of it. Above, a NON-ITALICIZED LINK is page-adding, opening a new page in a new window. Below, a NON-ITALICIZED LINK is page-replacing, opening a new page in this window. |
This page, written by Craig Rusbult (editor of ASA Science
Ed Website), is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/astroe.htm
and was revised
March 8, 2009
( and all links were checked-and-fixed on July
3, 2006 )
EVALUATIONS OF
FOUR EVOLUTIONS:
Astronomical Geological Chemical Biological
Homepage for ORIGINS QUESTIONS
|
||||||||||||||||||