RE: YECs and the Big Bang.

From: Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM (Norm.Woodward@robins.af.mil)
Date: Mon Apr 08 2002 - 11:16:36 EDT

  • Next message: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: cosmology & polygamy"

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Glenn Morton [mailto:glenn.morton@btinternet.com]
    Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 11:26 PM
    To: Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM
    Cc: Asa
    Subject: YECs and the Big Bang.

    Hi Norm,
    You wrote:

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM [mailto:Norm.Woodward@robins.af.mil]
    Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 1:30 PM

    >I am surprised that everyone here seems to have forgotten (or never
    learned)
    >that throughout the period between the observation of the "red shift" in
    the
    >cosmos, and the confirmation of Gamow's predictions by the Bell Labs radio
    >engineers, it was the Humanists who had resisted, and, to some extent,
    continue
    >to resist, the Big Bang Theory the strongest, due to the theological
    >implications of a finite universe.

    Many Christians have also 'resisted' the Big Bang.
    Well, duh! Of course young-earthers could not accept such an event
    occurring "...bilyuns and bilyons..." of years ago. But those of us who do
    not need such a security blanket for our faith could openly grasp this
    notion of an expanding universe with a singular origin.

    <YEC snips>

    "Hugh Ross has a 'Christian Ministry' he calls 'Reasons to
    Believe.' What many do not know is that, as many 'accept the
    Lord Jesus,' Ross 'accepted the Big Bang' and began evangelizing
    for it when he was a teenager. Ross's pride apparently precludes
    considering that he might have made a youthful mistake, as even
    many atheist 'big bangers' have done, such as Britain's Sir Fred
    Hoyle (a much more accomplished astronomer than Ross). Today, the
    best description of Ross might be 'quasi-creationist, sounds-like
    evolutionist-to-me, big banger." ~ Glenn Kailer and Tom Willis,
    "Dr. Hugh Ross Magician Extraordinaire" CSA NEWS, 13:3, May/June
    1996 p. 2

    In a display of historical ignorance, Henry Morris claims:

    <yadda yadda>
    "Historical ignorance..." was more clearly displayed in the previous quote
    from CSA NEWS: "...atheist 'big banger'...Britain's Sir Fred Hoyle..."
    This it yet another fine example of spin doctoring. While it was
    appropriate for the recent obits to laud Sir Fred's contribution to our
    understanding that all heavier elements trace their origins to the
    byproducts of aging stars, he was probably as well, if not better, known as
    a chief opponent of the Big Bang Theory, which he had coined in derision, as
    well as of the possibility of abiogenetic origins of life on Earth.

    "While some non-Christian scientists, such as Sir Fred Hoyle of
    England are openly acknowledging the serious contradictions
    inherent in the Big Bang Theory, various Christian scientists
    and philosophers (including the present leadership of the 2100-
    member American Scientific Affiliation) are eloquently
    promoting cosmic evolutionism." ~ John C. Whitcomb, The Early
    Earth, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 66
    It should be mentioned that the battle lines may not be as simply drawn as
    even shown in this attempt. Hoyle's backers among the Humanists included
    many prominent Unitarians and Friends (Quakers.) BTW, I guess I would have
    to able to identify YECs on sight to know the importance of Whitcomb's
    statement. On the face of it, he seems to be backing my prime contention,
    that BBT needs not be anti-Christian.

            "Some Christians have wondered whether the big bang might be
    the creation event described in Genesis. However, it is wrong
    to confuse the postulated big bang with creation. It is a
    philosophical mistake because the big bang explanation was
    invented as a philosophical alternative to creation. It did
    not come from a study of Scripture. The big bang is a
    mechanistic or naturalistic explanation. It is an
    antisupernatural explanation of origins." ~ Donald E. Chittick,
    The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution
    Conflict,(Creation Compass, 1984), p. 62
    More "historical ignorance," I see.

         "Well, the Big Bang has started to fizzle! Astronomer
    Hoyle says that a 'sickly pall now hangs over the big bang
    theory.' The Big Bang has fallen with a big bang! Eminent
    scientists who reject the BBT include Nobel Prize winner Hannes
    Alfven, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer Jayant Narlikar,
    astronomer N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, astronomer Geoffrey
    Burbidge, physicist Allen Allen, physicist Hermann bondi,
    physicist Robert Oldershaw and physicist G. de Vaucouleurs." ~
    Don Boys, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith, (Largo, Fl: Freedom
    Publications, 1994), p. 44-45
    Wow...unfortunately I only recognize a few other names on the list,
    including Hermann Bondi, of course, who was the other Humanist cheerleader
    against the big bang. The fact that anyone would lead with such an opening
    sentence and then follow up by listing BBT opponents that have fighting the
    good fight for over forty years would seem a little misleading.
    Rats, did I just admit that you can't trust YECs? Ooh, am I gonna get MY
    knuckles beaten!
    <more snipping>
    But, what is interesting is that the Big Bang has started to "fizzle", at
    least in the imagination its opponents.
    (Q) Okay, if the big bang did occur, could it just be the latest of an
    infinite series of explosions and implosions? (the so-called "oscillating
    universe" theory)
    (A)Well, no...there is not enough matter to cause the universe to slowdown
    and collapse currently, and several laws of conservation would prohibit
    earlier universes to have been less energetic, or more massive, than the
    current.
    (Q)Okay, How about if there is more mass in the universe than we can see?
    (the so-call "dark matter" conjecture)
    (A)Well, if so, then all this added mass would cause rapid localized
    collapsing, such as in the galaxies we can see.
    (Defense)Well, maybe this dark mass can produce a sort of anti-gravity. (so
    call "dark energy fields.")
    (Q)But wouldn't this prohibit the overall collapse of the universe?
    ( Deep Defense) Didn't I mention that this dark energy could switch itself
    on and off at random? (Dark thinking.)
    (Pure Diversion) Besides, I do not believe in the expansion of the universe
    any way; localized conditions have been found (theorized) that could explain
    those red shifts without the need for speed.
    The scary part is that a lot of tax dollars are being spent in this trivial
    pursuit.
    Later,
    Norm



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 08 2002 - 11:17:18 EDT