CreationAstronomy.com

THANK YOU GOD I LOVE YOU SPIKE

Reply to Jon:

“Surely the author understands that the word “evolution” has multiple applications.”

Yes, that’s the entire point of my post.

I’m using the word in its (common) astronomical context. I’m being criticized for doing so.

“Cosmological evolution does not share a common set of laws with biological evolution.”

Show me where I said that it did?

You’re setting up a straw man.

Moreover, your criticism confirms what I said. Thank you.

OK, now I’m confused. I thought you were saying that the solar system and the universe do not evolve. God zapped them into being, right? So, yes, evolution is a perfectly valid word to use in regards to astronomy and 99.99999% of astronomers know that the universe evolved from the Big Bang to its current state, sans influence of any arbitrary decisions by a so-called “God”.

Phil is rightly pointing out that your desire to paint astronomy as a debate similar to biological evolution is misguided. There is no question that life evolves and no question that the universe evolves. More to the point, none of the gaps in our current models even remotely suggest the interference of arbitrary actions by a so-called “God”.

Believe what you want, I don’t care, but your arguments are unscientific nonsense.

“Cosmological evolution does not share a common set of laws with biological evolution.”

Show me where I said that it did?

You didn’t come out and say it, that I have seen. It’s the way you talk about “the evolutionary model” as if that has any meaning within astronomy. In astronomy, “evolution” just means “change over time”. It does not refer to a specific theory as it does in biology. So by attacking “the evolutionary astronomy model”, you are effectively claiming that the solar system has never changed.

In your video about Jupiter, you suggest that the Great Red Spot might or might not have been there since Jupiter was “created”. If it was not there originally, then that would be a change over time, and we could talk about its appearance as part of the evolution of Jupiter. Your own model therefore allows for the possibility of evolution in the astronomical sense.

Since you are clearly not intending the astronomical meaning of the word, the conclusion is that, as Phil claims, you are instead using it as a buzzword to attract the attention of those who already reject biological evolution.

Why is it when we disagree with you you dishonestly frame us as taking “pro” or “anti” positions that are far more extreme? As in “anti-God”, “anti-troops” or “pro-abortion”?

Just because we think creationism is ridiculous does not mean anything beyond that. Maybe if you stopped falsely attributing positions to those who quarrel with you, you might start to win some arguments.

And Jon has it right - the author of this post is deliberately conflating the theory of evolution with the other meanings of the word. If you can’t argue honestly, then you have already lost the argument.

You say that some of the planets are not possible, yet they exist and credit god for their creation.

I would like to point out that on paper, helicopters should not be able to fly, but they do. God didn’t invent the huey.

Just because some theory can’t explain it does not mean god made it.

How do you know that your religion is any more right than science.

I really hope people are not paying you for this.

All I can say is wow…I can’t even begin to dispel the nonsense this Spike character has cast. To put it bluntly ‘Creation Astronomy’ needs to be abolished. End of story. I feel sorry for those that fall victim to this pest like illusion.

Dear Phil:

You are a dangerous man. I know you don’t feel this way. In fact, you’re probably a nice guy…charitable, sincere, bright.

But to dispute cosmological theory that has been painstakingly proven to be factually true through hard work and precise research is more than odd…it’s threatens the foundation of accumulated human knowledge. It substitutes mythology for science.

And you do it all because it doesn’t support your biblical view of the universe. Wow.

Nothing personal, but you’re wrong. The amount of evidence against your beliefs is staggering.

You can still belief anything you want. Maybe pigs fly.

But stay out of science, please. You’re confusing people.

Scary, dude.

Do you honestly believe that stellar evolution and biological evolution are the same? You, sir, are most definitely bearing false witness - either through willful ignorance or willful deception. I suspect its actually a bit of both.

The entire argument is a false dichotomy to start with. Refuting the big bang model of the universe does not equate to proving the entire thing is a result of a creator. From the video’s I’ve seen, all that has been attempted is the former. Ascribing it to “creation” is little more than a logical fallacy.

My only quip regarding the use of “evolutionists” in your clips Spike, is that you use this word as a substitute for the term “astronomer”. This substitution of titles makes me wholeheartedly agree with “The Bad Astronomer” when he says you are using evolution/evolutionist as a buzzword.

Quote [re: Jupiter spinning too fast @ 1:23]
“This is a huge problem for evolution.”

Why do you not say: “This is a huge problem for astronomers.” ?
Your use of the single word “evolution” leads a viewer to assume the synonymous definition of “biological evolution”.

Do you see my point? As well as why your wordage is viewed as a slight jab at science? (as opposed to the inane possibility of Phil Plait not being aware of stellar evolution?)

http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/jupiter-confounding-evolutionary-models-of-the-solar-system/

Mercury SHOULD have a magnetic field due to its iron core. You are either basing your theory about the planet Mercury’s magnetic field on old disproven data or are bearing false witness. Which is it?

So what if there are actual problems with the models? That’s the point of science….to expand our knowledge of how things work. Just because a model fails to make a correct prediction doesn’t mean science is wrong. It just means that they need more accurate observations to improve, or replace, the existing model. That’s why we keep sending all these probes into the solar system, so we can see what we have right and what we have wrong. Then use that new knowledge to try and make better predictions.

There is nothing that science can discover in the universe that could make me question that God created it. I’m secure enough in my faith that it doesn’t matter if the Earth is 10,000 years old or 10 billion. the more science discovers about the universe the more in awe I am of his creation.

Jon,

Having purchased and watched the video (great job Spike), I can say that it is clear that Spike is, as he points out in his comment, simply using the word ‘evolution’ in its common, astronomical sense - the same way mainstream astronomers use it. He does not at all try to conflate or confuse astronomical evolution with biological evolution; in fact, I don’t think biological evolution is even mentioned in the video.

What Spike shoots holes in is astronomical evolution **as it is understood and promoted by the mainstream astrnomical establishment**. Note that Phil Plait **does not** address the substance of Spike’s arguments - in fact it appears as though he couldn’t bear to absorb it at all:

———————————————————————————————–
I watched the Jupiter video until all I could hear was a loud buzzing
sound punctuated by the word “evolution”.”
———————————————————————————————–

So, by Plait’s own - somewhat hyperbolic - admission, he doesn’t even grasp the **context** in which Spike uses the word ‘evolution’. For Plait, all of that context was ‘a loud buzzing sound’. And as you point out, since the word ‘evolution’ is used in a variety of ways, context is **critical** in determining its usage in any particular situation.

Having passed on addressing the **substance** of Spike’s arguments, Plait moves on to speculate on Spike’s motives and the presumed credulity of his target audience:

———————————————————————————————–
“Are creationists that confused?

“Well, certainly many are, but why ascribe to ignorance what can be
ascribed to misdirection? The creator of the video obviously uses the
word evolution over and over again because it’s a buzzword likely to
sway people predisposed against science to agree with the bizarre
version of reality he espouses, even though he must know that evolution has nothing to do with astronomy.”
———————————————————————————————–

Here, Plait hoists himself on his own petard and he doesn’t even seem to know it.

He assumes that Spike’s target audience, like Pavlov’s dogs, will ignorantly respond to the use of the word ‘evolution’ **all the while ignoring the context in which Spike uses it in his presentation**. But that’s exactly what Phil, by his own admission, did. All he heard was the word ‘evoluiton’ and, being predisposed against creationism, he **assumed** that a Spike willfuly misused the word.

Given the fact that the word ‘evolution’ is commonly used in an astronomical context and given that Plait **cannot** be ignorant of this, it is he who is engaging in willful misdirection aimed at swaying those who, like him, are predisposed against creationism.

Since Plait declined to address the substance of Spike’s presentation (i.e. that ‘loud buzzing sound’), preferring instead to resort to an ad hominem, not to mention dishonest, argument, I think it’s fair to conclude that Plait is either unwilling or unable to address the substance.

Ok guys, I’ve transcribed some of the monologue from the beginning of the video. Let’s see if Plait’s (and your) charges can bear the scrutiny. From the opening:

—————————————————————————————————–
For thousands of years, mankind has looked towards space, but it’s been less than a century since we could actually travel there. A few centuries ago, almost all scientists believed in the biblical account of creation; however, by the time the first astronaut launched into space, many scientists had abandoned this history. **Many astronomers had come to believe that our solar system and the planets and moons within it formed all by themselves without a creator about 4.5 billion years ago.**
But what did we find when we arrived in space? **Do the planets and moons of our solar system actually support this belief, or are they consistent with the bible instead?** The answer to this question might surprise you. Welcome to What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Volume I: Our Created Solar System.

[…]

In this video, you’ll discover some of the evidences that convinced me, along with many others, that the bible is true and evolution is not. I’ll be your guide as we tour the solar system together. We’ll see stunning pictures and movies of planets, moons and other objects. Some are our next door neighbors in space, others are vast distances away. **We’ll discover that often these objects do not support evolutionary ideas, many of them appear to be quite young, not billions of years old.** In fact, according to the current evolutionary models, many of the objects in our solar system cannot exist at all. **Now that probably contradicts everything you’ve heard before. You’ve probably been told that evolutionary astronomers have it all figured out and that their models prove that our solar system formed all by itself billions of years ago.**
—————————————————————————————————–

Take note of the text I’ve marked out with asterisks; the context being set for the discussion is clearly ‘evolution’ as it is understood and used by the mainstream astronomical community. Namely, a gradual, unguided process of formation over a period of several billion years. Spike goes on in the first part (an overview of the solar system):

—————————————————————————————————–
So where did this system come from? There are two competing models for the origin of our solar system. This is a pretty straight forward issue; either the solar system was created or it wasn’t. **In this video, I’m going to use the word ‘evolution’ to describe the belief that our solar system was not created. This word is often used to describe biological evolution, of course, but astronomers commonly use it in a broader meaning as well.**

**[text on screen: Astronomers often discuss the “evolution” of planets, stars, galaxies, etc.]**
—————————————————————————————————–
Again, note the set-off text. Spike goes out of his way to be crystal clear in what context, and with what meaning, he is using the word ‘evolution’. And if that wasn’t clear enough, he underscores the point in the next sentence:
————————————————————————————————–
So when I use the word evolution, I’m not talking about plants or animals; I’m talking about the belief that our solar system and everything in it formed and developed all by itself.
—————————————————————————————————–
So, far from being dishonest or misleading, Spike is very upfront in his video. He does something that evolutionists [of whatever stripe] too often neglect to do; he clearly defines his terms before he dives into the details of his discussion; definitions fall well within mainstream usage. Spike simply couldn’t be clearer.

The second set of quotes above are part of the Introduction that you can watch on this website. I don’t know if Spike had this video up with the Jupiter one from get-go, but the info is there in the video and you can watch it for yourself.

Spike clearly has more respect for his audience than Plait does. It seems Plait assumes that we creationists are a bunch of ignorant, backwoods dunderheads who can’t fight our way out of a wet paper sack. Not only is he careful to define his terms at the beginning, he assumes that his audience is intelligent enough to understand that those terms set the context for the entire video. He also knows that his audience isn’t so stupid as to start thinking about biological evolution when he is talking about stars, planets, moons, comets and asteroids.

So who’s being dishonest and misleading here? You evolutionists really should stop underestimating your creationist opponents; it’s rather…unbecoming.

The use of the disclaimer you posted does little to mitigate the countless times he posits his evidence as being in favor of a biblical account.

“But what did we find when we arrived in space. Did the planets and moons of our solar system actually this [gradual formation] belief. Or are they consistent with the Bible instead. The answer to this question might surprise you.”

“In this video, you will discover some of the evidences [sic] that have convinced me and many others that the bible is true and evolution is not.”

“There are two competing models for the creation of our solar system….Either the solar system was created or it wasn’t”

“All we can do is see which scenario fits the evidence the best”

Ad nauseum.

His entire argument seems to be that the solar system appears young, and therefore, the Judeo-Christian God did it.

And while I am aware he aims for a target audience not familiar with astronomy (i.e listing the order of the planets, “planetesimals” ), I would appreciate it if he made some of his mathematical workings regarding orbital mechanics and his other assertions available as opposed to his “take my word for it” assertions in the video.

(i.e “It turns out you can’t build planets like the evolutionist say.”)

And, as a bit of a post-script, wouldn’t it have made more sense to attack Stellar Evolution, the backbone of Modern Day “Evolutionist” astronomy, as opposed to focusing on the left-over bits in the Solar System?.

But there is no evidence that specifically suggests his version is correct. He makes (dubious) claims the solar system is young, and then moves on to establishing a Judeo-Christian God is the most likely explanation for it. His entire argument is based solely on the (once again, dubious) evidence that the Solar System is young. He treats it as the only piece of evidence either for or against a model, neglecting to mention the “Evolutionary” solar system model has a plethora of evidence for it that is not age dependent.

Replacing a model which most evidence supports in favor of one only one piece of evidence supports is bad science.

One item I’ve found quite humorous is that some creation models for astronomy have required that the second law of thermodynamics be invalid until after the fall of man….

To clarify my question, what mainstream creationist/organization is promoting this model? CMI and others have pointed out that it is fallacious, but there is no indication that anyone is actively promoting it.

Regarding consensus, I’ll cast my lot with the late Michael Crichton (http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html)
————————————————————————
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. ***Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant.*** What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period… I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way…
————————————————————————

From the paper you cite:

There is some debate among creationists as to what the full effects of this fall upon the world were. For instance, many suggest that the second law of thermodynamics may not have been operating in its fullness before the fall [57]

Note that this claim is qualified: many suggest that the second law of thermodynamics may not have been operating **in its fullness** before the fall. While I would be predisposed against this view, I can understand why it might be postulated that the 2nd Law might have been a bit different before the Fall as it is often associated with decay and disorder (absent before the Fall). I would have to read the reference cited to see exactly what the author is proposing. Unless there is some means proposed of scientifically delineating the change with testable predictions, I would relegate it to the realm of theological speculation.

Until such time, I won’t put any stock in that line of thinking. I think CMI has it right (http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use):

————————————————————————
‘The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall.’ This law says that the entropy (‘disorder’) of the Universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth—to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.

Death and suffering of nephesh animals before sin are contrary to the Biblical framework above, as are suffering (or ‘groaning in travail’ (Rom. 8:20–22)). It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power (Col. 1:15–17) at the Fall so that the decay effect of the Second Law was no longer countered.
————————————————————————

Citing Crichton as an authoritative source on Crichton. Such an argument that “consensus means nothing” would surely have aided him on his opinions on global warning. And while I am well aware that an appeal to popularity is a fallacious way of thinking, I don’t definitively state that the standard model of the universe is correct merely because most scientists subscribe to it. Given the depth of peer review articles in support of it and the paucity in peer reviewed articles against it, I’d say one who is not (yet) qualified to analyze the evidence should ere on the side of consensus and subscribe to the standard model.

I wouldn’t put much stock in any model that requires the suspension of physical laws or adjusting of well established physical constants, secular or otherwise.

I’m not aware of the specifics of any models, but it was brought up in a debate between Jason Lisle and Eugenie Scott.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1201debate.asp

Creationism is guilty of such faith as well, given Genesis 2:7. Besides, the definition of life is biologically fuzzy. Self-Replicating molecules (thought to be the precursors to life) have been spontaneously formed. Given enough time, it is not a stretch to image life forming from these.

Ryan wrote:
———-
I’m not aware of the specifics of any models, but it was brought up in a debate between Jason Lisle and Eugenie Scott.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1201debate.asp
———–
Indeed. And note Dr. Humphreys’ (the target of her smear) missive to the NCSE subsequent to the debate (appended to the end of the article you linked:

————-
Hi NCSE folks:

Please relay this to Dr. Scott. Having watched her talk about my theory of planetary magnetic fields on the Paula Zahn show tonight, I’m mildly curious as to which “physical constants” she is alleging that my theory changed in making the predictions Jason Lisle mentioned. Would she please specify them? Has she even read the Creation Research Society Quarterly article in which I made those predictions?
By the way, I thought Dr. Lisle won the debate. He looked sharp and well-informed, which he is.

Hoping to get Genie up to speed,
D. Russell Humphreys, Ph. D.
Institute for Creation Research
————-
As far as I am aware, the NCSE never bothered to reply to Humphreys or substantiate Scott’s charges. I also e-mailed them a note shortly after this debate politely asking them to provide substantiation of Scott’s claims. I never got a reply.

———–
Creationism is guilty of such faith as well,
———–
Indeed we are and we don’t deny it. All of science requires unprovable, a priori assumptions to get off the ground (which is why theology - or philosophy, if you prefer - was once referred to as Queen of the Sciences); among them are those I mentioned before.

The issue here is that the object of the creationist’s faith provides a rational & consistent foundation for science whereas that of the atheist does not. This is why science was born in Christian Europe and nowhere else - that culture had the necessary philosophical grounding to not only give science birth but to nourish, sustain and justify it.

On this subject, read, among others, Rodney Stark’s book ‘For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery’. Here is a creationist review of the book: http://creation.com/the-biblical-origins-of-science-review-of-stark-for-the-glory-of-god.

I find the characterization of evolution as a presupposition flawed, to say the least. Evolution as a theory came into being after years of research by Darwin. It was only after seeing the evidence did Darwin establish evolution as a theory. Evolution requires no such assumptions.

Creationists on the other hand begin with the Bible and then change/distort/ignore the evidence as they deem necessary to fit a literal interpretation of it. Science predates Christianity, so I fail to see how science was born in christian Europe. Science and philosophy are owed to the Greeks and the later Romans, not Christianity. I do however think Christianity has done a lot for science (who knows what would be left of the work of the Greeks and Romans if not for christian monks), and I think that when Christianity works in conjunction with science (such as theistic evolution), then there is nothing objectionable about it. I just oppose flying in the face of all we think we know about the world in order to corroborate the literal interpretation of a book.

P.S. I don’t know if Eugenie Scott’s claims are legitimate or not, but her being an anthropologist I can imagine her being confused. Nevertheless, as I have linked above, there are creationists dead set on bending science that is un-bendable in order to make their models work. I’ll try to find out though.

I’m not saying **evolution** is a presupposition (it’s a conclusion), I’m saying that notions like the rationality, logic & predictability of nature and the human mind are. You have to accept those presuppositions, among others, to even justify doing science. Creationists have a logical foundation to support these necessary philosophical underpinnings, atheists do not. And given the mindlessness, purposelessness & directionlessness of evolution, it is a non-sequitur for you to adopt those presuppositions.

The modern scientific enterprise was founded in very large part by men who believed in the bible and its account of creation (again, I refer you to Stark). What I find interesting is that today, evolutionists insist that belief in the creation account or appeal to an Intelligent Designer is a ’science stopper’. This is a philosophical point, as opposed to an evidentiary one. In other words, evolutionists are saying that someone who holds such a worldview will be stymied by it in their quest for knowledge. This, despite the fact that men of just such a persuasion are responsible for founding science in the first place. This is not to say that bit & pieces of science as it is understood today did not surface or exist apart from Christian Europe, just that it didn’t (and couldn’t) become the cohesive whole that it did in that environment.

First, Darwin was hardly the first to propose evolution. It is in fact an ancient idea going way back to the Greeks. Read David Sedley’s ‘Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity’. The debates between the evolutionists of that time (the atomists) and their opponents have a distinctly modern ring. Further, Darwin was steeped in evolutionary thinking, being influence by his Grandfather & evolutionist Erasmus, who himself wrote a treatise on his own theory of evolution. Darwin hardly came to his study of nature unbiased (despite his theological training). Benjamin Wiker’s new biography of Darwin ”The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin’ lays this out rather well. Denyse O’Leary has a good post on this book (http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/06/new-book-ben-wikers-life-and-lies-of.html). In that post she shares an e-mail from the author of ‘ Alfred Russel Wallace’s theory of Intelligent Evolution’:

—————–
***That Darwin deliberately set out to establish a materialistic metaphysic supported by some biological speculations is clearly supported from Darwin’s early university years and his notebooks, a point which I have already argued in my book.*** That Darwin clearly did not follow the evidence, as he claimed in his autobiographical boilerplate (largely a promotional effort instigated by Francis, his son), is also very true.

[...]
————————-
While I await your substantiated examples of creationists deliberately bending science to make their models work, I’ll ponder all of the deliberate frauds that evolutionists have foisted on the public in name of proving their theory; frauds that, one would think, would be unnecessary if the evidence were so clearly on their side. Perhaps they were just impatient…

As for Scott, I don’t think she’s confused at all. She is either being dishonest or, more likely, is completely ignorant of Humphreys’ work and simply presumes that he MUST be wrong.

————–
….it appears as though is requires the “divine transformation” of water into, well, everything else on the Earth. Scientifically, thats unfeasible and has no place in a physics theory. It went out with alchemy.
I’m sure you’ll agree…
————–
The same can be said for a singularity that came from….where? It exploded (despite the inconceivable gravitational forces) because….why? All of that matter came from…where? No matter your view, you have to have a starting point and that’s where the presuppositions we have been discussing come in. Again, these presuppositions are necessary, the question is ‘what set of presuppositions will you adopt?’ You cannot do physical science without doing philosophy (’non physical science) first. It kinda reminds me of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics.

You might not like some Humphreys’ presuppositions (the action of God), but I’m genuinely curious what you think of the outstanding success of his theory on planetary magnetic fields. In his 1984 paper, he made four specific predictions based on his theory. Three of them have been confirmed (regarding Mars, Neptune & Uranus) and the fourth, regarding Mercury, looks well on the way to confirmation as well. Read the recent article by Humphreys here (http://creation.com/mercury-s-magnetic-field-is-young) which contains links to articles on the successful predictions. He also recently extended his theory to account for cosmic magnetic fields (all bodies in space).

Now I’m not saying this **proves** Humphreys theory is the right one - there can be more than one theory to account for a given set of data. But given the trouble evolutionists (of the astronomical variety) have with their own planetary magnetic field theories (unworkable dynamo theories and such), one can at least say that Humphreys is fairing much better than they are. For instance, Humphreys 1984 prediction for the value of Neptune’s magnetic field was dead-on, while that of the evolutionist’s wasn’t even in the ballpark.

———-
…given your willingness to discuss evidence and not leave it a matter of faith. I really do appreciate that.
————-
I think both ‘faith’ and evidence are important. When I say ‘faith’, I mean it in the general sense of the necessity of the philosophical issues we’ve been discussing. Both creationists and evolutionists traffic in both faith and evidence. We all have the same evidence, it is the ‘faith’ part that makes all the difference.

Granted, when it comes to creationism, ‘faith’ takes on a decidedly religious flavor. However, given that Secular Humanism is regarded as a religion by its adherents (not to mention the U.S. Supreme Court) and that atheistic evolution is a fundamental, key tenant as detailed in their ’statements of faith’ (e.g. the various iterations of The Humanist Manifesto), the ‘faith’ exercised by evolutionists is, in principle, equally religious.

When evolutionists encounter a thorny, seemingly intractable issue they have faith that it will be resolved one day within their paradigm. Creationists do the same thing. What bothers me is that evolutionists often deny that they have a ‘faith’ component of their paradigm and posture as if it’s exclusively an empirical issue. They then turn around and ridicule and excoriate creationists for the ‘faith’ component of **their** paradigm as a means to disqualify them from the discussion. It’s simply dishonest to operate this way.

Incidentally, on a philosophical level (as well as honesty) I think this is a point in favor of creationists: we are very upfront about the ‘faith’ component of our approach to science.

————–
All and all, I’d say this is a constructive debate.
————-
I agree and I’ve enjoyed the discussion.

——————-
The pre-big bang singularity is a conclusion, the result of research but Hubble, Wilson and other astronomers. Evidence such as cosmic redshift and the CMBR led to that conclusion. Its far from a presupposition.
——————-

First, remember that more than one theory can account for a given set of observations.

Again, I’m not calling the Big Bang a presupposition; I agree it is a conclusion. But it is a conclusion borne of both observations **and** philosophy. Hubble himself demonstrated this beautifully in his ‘The Observational Approach to Cosmology’. He was very selective about his conclusions.

——————-
The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. **Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.**

~p. 50
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The true distribution must either be uniform or increase outward, leaving the observer in a unique position. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs.

~p. 51
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The departures from uniformity are positive; the numbers of nebulae increase faster than the volume of space through which they are scattered. Thus the density of the nebular distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.

~p. 58-59
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hubble found a straight-forward interpretation of the uniform redshifts to be repugnant for **philosophical** reasons- an unwelcome horror to be avoided at all costs, though it couldn’t be disproved.

In a similar vein, Cosmologist George F. R. Ellis had this to say

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,…For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. …You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. Alot of cosmology tries to hide that.

[W.W. Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis”, Scientific American 273(4): 28-29 (1995)]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Likewise, Ellis, with coauthor Stephen Hawking write:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
‘However we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology. In the earliest cosmologies, man placed himself in a commanding position at the centre of the universe. Since the time of Copernicus we have been steadily demoted to a medium sized planet going round a medium sized star on the outer edge of a fairly average galaxy, which is itself simply one of a local group of galaxies. Indeed we are now so democratic that we would not claim that our position in space is specially distinguished in any way. We shall, following Bondi (1960), call this assumption the Copernican principle [another name for the ‘Cosmological Principal]’.

[…]

‘A reasonable interpretation of this somewhat vague principle is to understand it as implying that,
when viewed on a suitable scale, the universe is approximately spatially homogenous’

[…]

‘… in which the universe is isotropic about every point in space time; so we shall interpret the
Copernican principle as stating that the universe is approximately spherically symmetric about every
point (since it is approximately spherically symmetric around us).

[Hawking, S.W. and Ellis, G.F.R., The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 134, 1973. Their reference is to: Bondi, H., Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1960.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Further, Hawking writes:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now at first sight, all the evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternative explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was [Russian physicist Alexander] Friedman’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it on the grounds of modesty; it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around all other points in the universe!

[Hawking, S.W., The Illustrated A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, 1996]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Much of this underscores my earlier points about the philosophical aspect of science. By the way, ‘The Observational Approach to Cosmology’ is available here as a web document and a .pdf (wooo hooo!!) Here is the link: http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/frames.html

——————-
Given Dr. Humphrey’s accuracy, I’d say his model neglects the use of Occam’s Razor.
——————-
The Big Bang puts Humphreys’ theory to shame in this department. The ad hoc ‘patches’ to the theory to rescue it from contrary observations include Dark Matter, Dark Energy & the various iterations of Inflation theory (to rescue the Big Bang from the flatness problem and its own starlight travel-time issue - the Horizon Problem). Go to Cosmologystatement.org for a statement to this effect signed and supported by a growing number of secular astronomers/cosmologists.

————–
Being based in science, I’m sure his model works even if the existence of God is not assumed. To state that it also works when a YEC viewpoint is taken is not evidence for that viewpoint.
——————-

FIrst, you are ignoring the necessary philosophical aspect of science - that aspect often makes all the difference in the world. Further, one of the fundamental parameters of his model is a ~6,000 year time-scale for the solar system. It simply would not work for a million/billion year model. So, you could say that God is not necessary, per se, but (like Spike’s approach) the theory is **consistent** with the Genesis account whereas it is **not** with the other.

just seeing [b]if html[/b] works, I hope it [i]does[/i]

….you have to use the signs

You’re post is well researched, and hence, long, so I apologize that my response may seem a bit choppy.

For starters, I am a strong proponent of the Copernican principle, mostly due to it functioning as a guard against claims that cannot be proven/disproven one way or the other. So, while, I agree its a philosophy, large claims require large amounts of evidence, and having the Earth occupy space very near to the center of the universe is a huge claim. To assume this to be true on the evidence we have does border on arrogance. (To head an argument off “at the pass” if you will, the mountains of evidence supporting evolution does warrant the conclusion it is in fact valid.)
Essentially, the Copernican Principle is more of a safety for modern science than a philosophy that is a necessary tenant of it.

Occams razor removes only the parts of a theory that aren’t necessary for it to be valid. The “Ad Hoc” additions to the Big Bang are a problem, I totally agree. In fact, they are the reason I’m majoring in astrophysics, to help understand and solve those problems. I’m not opposed to changes that appear as ad hoc solutions supposing they are grounded in physics and theoretically work, that’s just the part of the refining process all theories go through. These additions to the big bang model are necessary, and thus aren’t effected by Occam’s razor.

One of the parameters of Humphrey’s model was the changing of water into silicon. Until he can demonstrate the feasibility of such, it will take many more accurate predictions on his part before I can accept it as being possible. That being said, he is doing something right, and if it should be investigated to see if the math he is using can be changed to adopt a 4.5 billion y/o solar system creation date and still work. It may be found out that his model works regardless of creation date. I can’t say, planetary physics doesn’t interest me all that much. As I’ve said earlier, I don’t find much appeal in studying the astronomical leftovers.

You wouldn’t mind revealing the html code your using to create horizontal lines in your post would you? I think it would help my formatting a bit.

Ryan,

Your post is just fine - it’s good and clear. Your reason for favoring the Copernican Principal as…

…functioning as a guard against claims that cannot be proven/disproven one way or the other.

…ignores the fact that CP is exactly that - a claim that cannot be proven/disproven one way or the other. I appreciate your conceding that it is philosophy. You go on to write that:

…large claims require large amounts of evidence…

True enough, but you just shifted from philosophy to evidence. This is problematic because one’s underlying philosophy, in large part, governs the interpretation of the evidence. I don’t think you can reject a philosophical preference on evidential grounds. I think that was Ellis’ point; go ahead and reject this or that philosophical preference, just be honest about what you are doing. It is just as valid for me to reject the CP on philosophical grounds.

…and having the Earth occupy space very near to the center of the universe is a huge claim.

First, I think it can be said that any definitive conclusion (even if only as an operational principal) on this issue is a huge claim because in either case, you are ‘claiming knowledge’ beyond your reach. I don’t think it is any less ‘huge’ a claim that we aren’t in a special place.

In fact, some mainstream cosmologists are even questioning the usefulness, if not the validity, of the CP. Here is Ellis again, this time on resolving the Dark Energy issue:

The fundamental dynamics of the Universe are embodied in Albert Einstein’s general-relativistic field equations, which describe how gravity arises through the distortion of space-time by mass and energy.  The simplest class of solution to those equations, that on which the concordance model is based, assumes that matter is distributed both homogeneously (everything is similar in all regions of space) and isotropically (everything looks the same in all directions).  That assumption is consistent with observations, but it is not a direct consequence of them.  It is the favoured solution both because it is the simplest and because it rests on a cherished cosmological assumption.  This is the ‘copernican principle’: that the characteristics of the Universe in our neighbourhood are not special in any way, but are typical of the whole.
    A cherished assumption this might be, but it is also fundamentally untested.  It is consistent with the supernova observations, but only provided that some form of dark energy is present.  The central plank of the new research is the claim that, by jettisoning the copernican principle and our assumptions about the distribution of matter in the Universe, we can also abandon the troublesome chimaera of dark energy.

~George Ellis, “Cosmology: Patchy solutions,” Nature 452, 158-161 (13 March 2008) | doi:10.1038/452158a.

See How to Avoid Dark Energy at Creation-Evolution Headlines for commentary.

To assume this to be true on the evidence we have does border on arrogance.

I disagree, but again this is a philosophical issue. As a creationist, I find the idea humbling. To quote the words of David in Psalm 8:3-5:

When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

It all depends on your perspective.

As for the evidence in favor of rejecting the CP, I think we have more hints than many people are aware of. For instance, in a 2007 article Cosmology: A Singular Conundrum: How Odd Is Our Universe? Adrian Cho writes:

But the map led to some mysteries, too. Within 6 months, one team had found a curious alignment of certain undulations in the CMB. Others soon found more correlations that suggested that the cosmos might be skewered like a meatball on a toothpick by an “axis of evil.” That axis might show that the universe has a strange shape or is rotating. It could trash cosmologists’ cherished assumption that the universe has no center and no special directions, the so−called cosmological principle that traces its origins to Copernicus. Or it could be a meaningless fluke. “Everyone agrees it’s there,” says Kate Land, a cosmologist at the University of Oxford in the U.K. “But is it significant?”

In 2006, Lawrence Krauss gave a lecture entitled The Energy of Empty Space That Isn’t Zero. Here is an interesting comment he makes at the end:

That is, we live in one universe, so we’re a sample of one. With a sample of one, you have what is called a large sample variance. And maybe this just
means we’re lucky, that we just happen to live in a universe where the number’s smaller than you’d predict. But when you look at CMB map, you also see
that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to
haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth
around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.
The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it’s
telling us there’s something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there’s something wrong with our theories on the
larger scales. And of course as a theorist I’m certainly hoping it’s the latter, because I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it’s wrong there’s still
work left for the rest of us.

In 2008, LiveScience ran a story entitled Do We Live in a Giant Cosmic Bubble?:

Earth may be trapped in an abnormal bubble of space-time that is particularly void of matter. Scientists say this condition could account for the apparent acceleration of the universe’s expansion, for which dark energy currently is the leading explanation.

One problem with the void idea, though, is that it negates a principle that has reined in astronomy for more than 450 years: namely, that our place in the universe isn’t special. When Nicholas Copernicus argued that it made much more sense for the Earth to be revolving around the sun than vice versa, it revolutionized science. Since then, most theories have to pass the Copernican test. If they require our planet to be unique, or our position to be exalted, the ideas often seem unlikely.
“This idea that we live in a void would really be a statement that we live in a special place,” Clifton told SPACE.com. “The regular cosmological model is based on the idea that where we live is a typical place in the universe. This would be a contradiction to the Copernican principle.”

In 2003, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey released a map of the cosmos that shows strong hints that we are near the center of a series of concentric rings of galaxies on a very, very large scale (this is not a conclusion of SDSS). A beautiful, high resolution color map can be viewed here. Note especially the top portion of the map where the pattern is very clear. For a creationist perspective on this, see New evidence: we really are at the center of the universe (it’s a short article).

Then you have the quantization of galactic redshifts. If one holds that the Hubble law (redshift = distance) is universal then these redshifts indicate that these galaxies from a series of ever-larger concentric ‘shells’ centered on earth. Humphreys analyzed Tifts observations of the quantization in his article Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show.

Again, this depends on the Hubble law being universal. Another creationist, Cliff Bishard disputes Humphreys’ above conclusions on the based on data that suggests the Hubble Law is subject to exceptions. One of the alternative explanations Bishard gives is the work of Halton Arp, whose work on quasars is the source of much consternation in the astronomical community.

Arp’s basic claim is that the Hubble Law does not hold for quasars and many active galaxies and that these objects are much closer to us than their redshifts would suggest. Thus the quantization of redshifts may put the Standard Model in a catch-22: If the Hubble Law does hold, then we may well be at the center of those concentric shells; if it doesn’t, then redshifts are not universal distance indicators which is bad news for the Big Bang.

There are at least a few other, independent lines of evidence in this vein, but my point and all of this is on top of Hubble’s observations of uniform redshifts in all directions.

Now, you are still free to insist on the CP and there’s nothing wrong with that; but at some point, you’ll need to ask yourself how much evidence (and what nature of evidence) will it take for you to consider the contrary position to be just as legitimate. I’m not asking you to answer that question here, I’m highlighting the issue.

Essentially, the Copernican Principle is more of a safety for modern science than a philosophy that is a necessary tenant of it.

I would say that it is more of a shield to protect the modern establishment from the challenge of an uncomfortable conclusion.

Occams razor removes only the parts of a theory that aren’t necessary for it to be valid.

These additions to the big bang model are necessary, and thus aren’t effected by Occam’s razor.
This applies equally well for Humphreys’ theory on planetary magnetic fields. As I mentioned, one of the necessary components of his model is the time-scale. Another, that I forgot to mention before, is the ‘raw material’ of creation. Humphreys assumes that God started with plain old water. He bases that assumption on a couple of bible passages.

Genesis 1:2, 6-7:
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.
2 Peter 3:3-7:
First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
So two necessary parts of Humphreys’s theory are the time-scale and the ‘raw material’. Thus, by your application, Occam’s Razor leaves Humphreys unscathed.

In fact, they are the reason I’m majoring in astrophysics, to help understand and solve those problems.

Cosmology, astronomical & interstellar physics has always fascinated me; I’ve toyed with the idea of going back to school for it myself. Any particular area of particular interest - aside from those thorny questions?

You wouldn’t mind revealing the html code your using to create horizontal lines in your post would you? I think it would help my formatting a bit.

I’m sorry Ryan, but I’m not a liberty to disclose that information - it is very senstive Just kidding. The horizontal lines simply result from a series of dashes. I’m not even sure if it is HTML. So just lay down a line of dashes and away you go!

Ryan, here are a few other bits and pieces on the possibility of a galacto-centric cosmos:

Here are two short articles by Humphreys:

New evidence for a rotating cosmos

More on the ‘Rotating Cosmos’!

Here is one of the papers cited by Humphreys above:

Indication of Anisotropy in Electromagnetic Propagation over Cosmological Distance by Nodland & Ralston.

Well done Spike,

I’ve waded through all the comments and it’s clear that despite all the cries to the contrary, you made clear what you meant by evolution. It’s clear that there’s a bunch of evolution-o-phobes out there (by that, i mean evolutionists who have a spasm attack when a creationiist uses the word ”evolution”).
The fact is everyone who posted has a god or gods, even the”‘atheists”.

Whatever you put your faith in, that’s your ‘god’. For some of you, your ‘god’ is the ‘voice of the majority of scientists’. ……pretty fickle ‘god’ though!!…. what he/she/shim/it was saying 50 years ago is different to what they are saying now ….which will be different to what he/she/shim/it will be saying in 50 years from now. Álso when you die, this ‘god’ will be powerless to help you.

There is no such thing as a true atheist.

Praise the Lord who made heaven and earth.

Ryan,

I think you have misconstrued the principal known as Occam’s Razor. You wrote:

Occam’s razor removes only the parts of a theory that aren’t necessary for it to be valid.

These additions to the big bang model are necessary, and thus aren’t effected by Occam’s razor.

Occam’s Razor doesn’t ‘cut away’ those things unnecessary to a particular theory, but those things unnecessary to explain observations; there is a huge difference. In other words, the simplest theory that can explain the observations is to be preferred. This is also known as the Principal of Parsimony. Dictionary.com offers the following ”definition of Occam’s Razor:

A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Occam’s razor is named after the deviser of the rule, English philosopher and theologian William of Ockham (1285?-1349?).

For example, take the geocentric model of the solar system (i.e. Ptolemy’s) vs. the heliocentric model. The Ptolemaic system worked well enough to predict the orbits of the planets and their moons; but do so, required adding epicycle upon epicycle to reconcile the model with observations. The heliocentric model also predicts the orbits of the planets and their moons, but without all of the epicycles. The orbits in the heliocentric model are much simpler. All other things being equal, the heliocentric model is preferable because it is a simpler, more straight-forward explanation of the observations.

The epicycles were as necessary to the Ptolemaic model of the solar system as Dark Matter, Dark Energy & Inflation are to the Big Bang. That necessity didn’t save the Ptolemaic model from the heliocentric model; nor should it have. In the same way, cosmological models that are simpler (i.e. have fewer necessary ‘additions’) than the Big Bang should be preferred to it . At the very least, such models should be given an equal place at the table. Cosmologystatement.org was launched because the Big Bang has a virtual monopoly on the field.

In any case, it seems to me that Humphreys has a distinct edge in that the necessary components of his model (timescale & ‘raw material’) were there from the beginning. In contrast, the necessary ‘additions’ to the Big Bang we are discussing here were added after the fact in order to reconcile the theory with observations. This is not to say that models cannot be updated in light of new information and observations, just that Humphreys’ theory has a stronger ‘core’ than does the Big Bang as it has not required additional ‘patches’ to harmonize it with newer observations.

By the way, the reason Humphreys’ theory cannot work on a million or billion year timescale is that is a ‘free decay’ model. He proposes that, since its creation some 6,000 years ago, it has been ‘freely decaying’ much the same as it is seen doing today. Given its observed decay rate, the maximum age of the earth’s and its magnetic field would be around 10,000 years. He doesn’t postulate a mechanism (e.g. a self-sustaining magnetic dynamo) to keep the magnetic field going for billions of years beacuse he doesn’t have to. Creationists like Humphreys can acccept the magnetic field decay rate data at face value as it is fully consistent with the creationist timeline/framework. Indicentally, this is another score for Humphreys vis-a-vis Occam’s Razor; he doesn’t need to complicate his model with ‘additions’ to explain the data.
 
Another point in his favor is the phenomon of magnetic field reversals - for which much evidence exists. He postulated that they happened very rapidly (during the Flood) and later proposed a physical mechanism to explain such reversals. He then went on to make a specific, detailed prediction to test his theory:
 
Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record earth’s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction.

Now this is was a very ‘risky’ prediction. These reversals must have happened rapidly for the data to be explained within a creationist framework. Further, rapid reversals are not compatible with conventional magetic dynamo theories.
 
A few years later, his prediction was fulfilled -twice:
 
Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prévot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it. And it was no fluke—eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal. This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for Humphreys’ model.
 
Now that is solid science. As with his prediction of Neptune’s magnetic field strength, Humphreys (and creationism) comes out on top.

Here are some articles on Humphreys’ magnetic field reversal work:

Fossil magnetism reveals rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field

The Earth’s magnetic field and the age of the Earth

Creation in the physics lab

The ‘principle of least astonishment’!

a href=”http://creation.com/the-earth-s-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young”>The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young

I fixed those links - sorry about that

Fossil magnetism reveals rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field

The Earth’s magnetic field and the age of the Earth

Creation in the physics lab

The ‘principle of least astonishment’!

The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young

It seems to me that Discovery magazine only post material that follows the party line. After reading all the exotic blog insights I can understand why. They need to stop the childish anti-creationist ranting and raving and grow up. What place does all this childish dribble have in a magazine that supposedly is about science. After viewing the Phil Plait related blogs I can only wonder who the Discovery magazine readers are, and whether the magazine is still taken seriously.

Spike, you are “Right On” with your insights and comments. It is and always will be the “evolutionists” who are the fairy tale tellers for adults and they are the ones who don’t truly have a clue to what real science is.