Re: YEC attack Big Bang from NY Times
mortongr@flash.net
Wed, 20 Oct 1999 05:59:06 +0000
At 10:52 PM 10/19/1999 -0600, Bill Payne wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:29:23 +0000 mortongr@flash.net writes:
>
>>So, we find a gulf in Christendom which is difficult to span. On the one
>>hand the YECS cling to a false science in order to save the Bible and
>>people like George, Howard, etc who understand science very well and
>know
>>that the YEC view of Genesis can't work, never offer the YEC anything
>real
>>to hang on to.
>
>Quoting from the NY Times article:
>
> "Among the most striking changes was the removal of passages in the
> original standards dealing with the Big Bang. Cosmologists see
>ample
> evidence for that explosion in the present expansion of the
>universe, in a
> diffuse afterglow in space called the cosmic background
>radiation, and in
> the precise abundances of light elements like hydrogen and
>helium that
> were left over from the cataclysm.
>
> Cosmologists have also calculated the way in which stars,
>galaxies and
> clusters of galaxies coalesced from slight ripples in the
>primordial soup
> that emerged from the Big Bang. To date, the results of those
>calculations
> match the precise observations of such structures in the
>heavens. Of
> course, for all its success in accounting for observations, the
>Big Bang is
> indeed just a theory, although it is one with few scientific
>dissenters. "
>
>I recently finished _Seeing Red_ by Halton Arp. Arp presents evidence
>that quasars, thought to be near the edge of the observable universe
>because of their high red-shift, are actually connected to nearby
>galaxies by luminous filaments. Apparently the quasars, if I understand
>correctly, were shot out of the galaxies along "jets" which originated at
>the center of the galaxies. Arp presents evidence that the Big Bang
>never happened. His book is reviewed by Tom van Flandern at:
>
> http://www.metaresearch.org/mrb/SeeingRed-Arp.htm
>
>The (to me) more interesting point is the reaction Arp has received from
>his peers in the scientific community. Van Flandern quotes Arp as
>follows:
>
> When presented with two possibilities, scientists tend to choose the
>wrong one.
> The stronger the evidence, the more attitudes harden.
> The game here is to lump all the previous observations into one
>'hypothesis' and then claim there is no second, confirming observation.
> No matter how many times something has been observed, it cannot be
>believed until it has been observed again.
> If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best
>possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an
>academic who is completely impervious to reality.
> When looking at this picture no amount of advanced academic
>education can substitute for good judgment; in fact it would undoubtedly
>be an impediment.
> Local organizing committees give in to imperialistic pressures to
>keep rival research off programs. "It is the primary responsibility of a
>scientist to face, and resolve, discrepant observations."
> Science is failing to self-correct. We must understand why in order
>to fix it.
>
>Too bad the NY Times didn't discuss the scientific dissention against the
>Big Bang, instead of making it a "YEC vs science" issue.
And this is a prime example of what Lakatos discusses. Arp does not explain
what makes the redshifts so discrepant (assuming they are actually
discrepant), so he offers no better idea for the history of the galaxies
than the present view does. That is why he is not listened to. And it is
why YECs aren't listened to also.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution