Remember the “we’re-creationists-and-proud-of-it” creationists? Well, despite the press that ID has been getting, the older sort are still around. Today, they’re discussing not the beginning of the universe, but the end. Evidently they don’t like “dark matter” and “dark energy”, explanations that astrophysicists have proposed to explain certain puzzling phenomenon like the fact that galaxies spin faster than the gravity from their observed stars seems to allow.
Now, I think it is perfectly reasonable to criticize these explanations on their merits – it is conceivable, for example, that dark matter doesn’t exist and that instead we need some new physics to describe gravity at the very coarse scale – see for example the latest on MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) in New Scientist (plain text). And the answer to this question could impact our view of the eventual fate of the Universe – i.e., will we get a “Big Crunch” or not?
But I think the creationist solution to the problem leaves something to be desired:
Evolutionists accuse creationists of inventing a “God of the Gaps” to cover for their ignorance of true science. It would appear that the high priests of astrophysics have their own Gods of the Gaps, namely dark matter and dark energy. What will happen to the universe? It won’t be the Big Crunch or the Big Chill, but the Big Furnace: “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:10-13).
Astrophysics, schmastrophysics!
I do agree in part that dark matter and dark energy might not be a satisfactory explanation of some astronomical phenomena, but “the Big Furnace”? You gotta be kidding me.
Once again, this only reflects how America’s education fails to give its children a proper understanding of science. Look what happens when you get your science from preachers.
Whoever wrote that doesn’t know what ‘god of the gaps’ means.
The difference being, of course, that astrophysicists don’t just claim dark matter. They take the next step and say, “If dark matter is the correct explanation, we should expect to observe X, and we should not observe Y.”
Then they try to actually observe X and Y. When they find X but not Y, that’s evidence in support of dark matter.
steve s wrote:
Right, that should be a “dark matter of the gaps” or “naturalism of the gaps” or “theory with gaps.”
I blame David Heddle. If he’d have properly fine-tuned his puddle, we’d all be so much happier…
…But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.
Ah, the “oscillating universe” theory: a “big crunch” (which will, of course, involve a lot of heat) leading to – and providing the raw material for – the next “big bang” – and a whole new universe! I can live widdat. Have the YEC’s got a timetable?
Well, we know dark matter exists, we’re made of it, and the planet we’re standing on is also made of it. We also detect particles of dark matter all the time. The real dark matter question is what type and quantity of dark matter is needed to explain our observations? I know it’s a pedantic point, but it seems that most people don’t realize that dark matter really means matter that doesn’t emit light, like rocks, or planets, or neutrinos. It doesn’t necessarily mean weird stuff we’ve never seen before. (unless you want to throw black holes into the weird stuff category)
Jacob Bekenstein obviously doesn’t know anything about getting a new theory like MOND accepted by the scientific community. He should have gone to school boards and demanded that MOND be taught in grade school and high school classrooms. Why wasn’t he screaming about critically examining gravitational theory? Where were the politicians crowing about teaching alternate explanations to dark matter?
I just don’t get it.
yes!
the inferno will happen on 6/6/(0)6!
oh… wait..
Equating “gaps” with “god of the gaps” is like equating “closet” with “monster in my closet.”
Science is a work in progress and many theories have gaps. In science, you attempt to fill in the gaps with reasonable explanations. In a “god of the gaps” theology, any gaps are presumed unfillable, and taken as proof of some supernatural explanation. Historically, the gaps have eventually been filled, turning this into a process of steady retrenchment into ever more minor objections.
That’s a surprisingly infomative site with an interesting compilation of science articles… as long as you ignore the “signing statements” that tell you what the article =really= means (handily color-coded for your convenience in not reading).
This from AIG a few days ago:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom[…]006/0602.asp
I always thought that distant starlight was a problem for YEC’s but apparently not.
That’s over. What will the six-crazed maniacs do now?
Probably the same as they did after 6/6/66 !
obviously, they’ll pass the delusion on to their kids and grandkids, and get them all worked up about the end of the world coming on 6/6/6.… in a hundred years.
Wow. On a lark I actually went to that page and followed a couple of links.
My head hurts.
Apparently, Dembski feels that when God dictated Genesis, He was trying to convey the story by speaking to Moses not in metaphors, but in a observationally referenced discription of relatavistically adjusted space/time - clearly a good framework for a talk with a bronze age shepherd
(In fairness, I wasn’t smart enough to follow most of the details. It had something to do with being unable to ever synchronize two clocks - I have a degree in engineering, and have actually seen relativistic time dialtion in ultraprecise reference clocks - and he still lost me. I must be stupid)
Anyway, all these years I though God was trying to say “Yes, Yes, I made the world. Whatever. Now pay attention, here’s the stuff that’s important now. Apparently I was wrong.
From the “analysis” from the AiG post that Peter Henderson’s post #104489:
“Big bang supporters themselves acknowledge that the big bang could not have produced anything heavier than lithium, so the only way to explain the heavier elements, like carbon, is to say that the stars did it. Notice there is no observational evidence or recorded eyewitness accounts to support this, just man’s fallible opinions about the past.”
For some reason spectra from ionized elements from stars that we’ve seen explode don’t constitute “observational evidence”.
It’s interesting that there are repeated references to “man’s fallible opinions about the past”. Apparently man’s opinions (supported by observation, mathematics, and reason) are “fallible” when they involve any thing over 6000 years old. But when man’s opinions about any thing which happened 6000 years ago or less are supported by devine revelation (and contradicted by observation, mathematics, and reason), they are completely infallible.
Sigh…
tonylon: That is “warm dark matter”. It is reasonably clear to astronomers that there is insufficient warm dark matter to explain the rotation of stars in spiral galaxies. Thus the conjectured ‘cold dark matter’ which interacts only gravitationally.
Scott notes:
Isn’t that supposed to be Divine revelation? Especially Divine demonstrating the big bang. Nothing like a good John Waters movie to break the tension.
Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)
6/6/06 is the day of the Beast. The Rapture will take place on the Lord’s day 7/7/07, ie. next year, being seven years after the millenium. Of course, if it doesn’t happen then, then there’s 23/12/12, when the Mayan calender runs out, or sometime in 2018, 70 years after Israel was founded, or after that.…
The number of times that they use the word assumption, actually makes me think that they believe that all science is based on assumptions (except their interpretation of the bible of course).
I’ve completed and passed an Open University course on Astronomy, and there was a section of it which covered basic cosmology, such as whether or not the Universe is open or closed ie what will be the eventual fate of the Universe ? The teaching videos that came with the course were really excellent and dealt with most of the subjects that Jason Lisle has rubbished in his article, like stellar evolution, determining the distances to astronomical objects etc. The thing that really amazes me is that Jason Lisle describes himself as an astrophysicist. When I read this piece of nonsense I wondered what type of answers he gave when he was studying for his degree/PhD. I’m sure they were nothing like the ideas he has expressed in his AIG feedback essay !
boy it sure was! I’m still getting over the hangover.
Peter Henderson wrote
Henry Morris took care of that 35 years ago. He proposed that light from stars that appear to be more than 6,000 light years away was actually created on its way to earth. He accounted for observations of distant novas by postulating that the star that supposedly went nova never really existed, but the “blob” (Morris’ word) of light indicating the occurrrence of a nova was created en route to earth – the star was never really there.
RBH
Oh you who doubt the mark of the beast and the coming rapture (by the way can I have your car when it comes?) the next certain end of the world will be 6/6/2013. If you add the digits of the year it comes to tada!!!-06. If that doesn’t end the universe Pat Robertson can leg-press your body from here to the asteroid belt.(usually reliable sources say he can -with some cheating- leg press 1000 pounds!).By the way I’ve met the antichrist and his name is Wayne Allard.