>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.
Bill Payne