Re: YEC attack Big Bang from NY Times
George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Wed, 20 Oct 1999 07:33:52 -0400
Bill Payne wrote:
......................................
>
> 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.
A full discussion of modern cosmology should include the arguments of
Arp (which he has been making for ~30 years) and those who place a good deal of
weight on them like Hoyle & oppose the overall big bang model. The fact that
they're in a minority doesn't prove them wrong - though I think they are. But it
would be misleading to suggest that their claims give any support to YEC ideas.
None of these people deny that the light we're seeing has been really (not "apparently")
travelling for millions & billions of years, & the modified steady state theory of
Hoyle et al is even more discordant with a classical creationist cosmology than is the
big bang model. Opposition to big bang cosmology is not necessarily (& in these cases
isn't) the same as support of a YEC cosmology.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/