Erich A. von Fange<\/b><\/p>\n
[Our English word \u201castronomy\u201d comes from two Greek words: astro<\/i> (star<\/i>) and nomos<\/i> (law<\/i>), meaning the law of the stars. In this article, Dr. von Fange addresses Creation\/Evolution issues from the field of astronomy.]<\/i><\/p>\n
The universe up there. No one can fait to be awed by the absolutely marvelous photos beamed back to the world from such triumphs of technology as the Hubble space telescope. These sights are a perfect illustration of the Psalmist who exclaimed that the heavens declare the glory of God. This article is not a short course in astronomy (that is the task for astronomers) but it will describe some characteristics of modern astronomy.<\/p>\n
Faulkner and DeYoung (1991) carefully spell out what is involved in developing a creationist astronomy, no simple task. Several items about astronomy in the news in recent years show the extremely speculative nature of some important aspects of astronomy.<\/p>\n
A Notorious Quotation<\/b><\/p>\n
Evolutionists sometimes accuse Christians of restricting the free exercise of scientific endeavor, and sometimes this has been true. But it is not difficult to find examples of blindness on the part of scientists in the past, and of evolutionists throughout their history. About 200 years ago the Academy of Sciences of France declared: \u201cIn our enlightened age there can still be people so superstitious as to believe stones fall from the sky.\u201d (Tomas 1971:57). Eyewitness accounts of meteor falls were summarily dismissed at that time, because science had spoken. Does this mentality still exist within the field of astronomy?<\/p>\n
Comet Hyakutake as photographed on March 25,1996. Taken near Oxford, England, it was shot with a two-minute exposure. The brightest comet to fly near the earth in 400 years, Hyakutake also had the longest ion tail ever recorded. Discovered by Yuji Hyakutake in Japan, it was officially desginated Comet C\/1996 B2.<\/b><\/p>\n
Is astronomy a science? Every astronomer in the world would be shocked at such a question. There can be no doubt that billions have been spent to make the study of the universe a truly sophisticated pursuit. Then why is it commonly stated that astronomy is the most speculative of all the sciences? As we shall illustrate below, there is a great gulf between what is observed and how the observations are interpreted. We have no quarrel, of course, with data gathering, nor with speculation properly labeled as such. It is only when speculation is presented as fact that we must emphasize that hunches fitting a particular bias are not the same as truth. The Christian, for example, realizes that when astronomers speak of billions of years and millions of light years, they base such notions on assumptions that are far from verified.<\/p>\n
BSpade<\/i> 14:1 (Winter 2001) p. 27<\/p>\n
Ernest Brown, past president of the American Astronomical Society, confessed that many of the beliefs regarding the solar system cosmogony, dynamics, and stability which he had held throughout his life were illusions, mere articles of faith, adhered to for non-rational reasons, and impossible of legitimate presentation as the logical consequences of observations and valid calculations. Now these are shocking statements and should be reread whenever one reads sweeping statements about the nature and age of the universe. Things have not changed.<\/p>\n
The Big Bang<\/b><\/p>\n
A remarkable drama occurred about the Big Bang some years ago and received very little attention after the first big splash in the news media. The Big Bang phenomenon has been taught as fact for years despite much contrary evidence.<\/p>\n
Act 1<\/b> of this mighty Big Bang drama was announced in April 1992 at the meeting of the prestigious American Physical Society (Ann Arbor News<\/i> 1992: A1). A discovery was made that was described in the following manner:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Explains how stars and galaxies evolved.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Shows evidence for the birth of the universe.<\/p>\n
\u2022 One of the major discoveries of the century, in fact, of all time.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Unbelievably important: its significance could not be overstated.<\/p>\n
\u2022 The Holy Grail of cosmology has been found.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Solved a major mystery and deserved the Nobel prize.<\/p>\n
\u2022 The discovery is like looking at God.<\/p>\n
This was indeed heady stuff, and so one must inquire just what was discovered? With more than 300 million measurements, the astronomers discovered ripples of matter near the edge of the universe. How did they know this? The measurements were all of temperature<\/b> taken by sensors pointed in different directions from the earth. In averaging the 300 million measurements, astronomers found a temperature difference in different parts ofthe universe. How big was the difference? One report stated 30 millionths of one degree; another said 10 millionths of one degree.<\/p>\n
The study cost $400 million and 28 years of work by many scientists. Shortly after the announcement there came an embarrassed silence. Apparently there is no instrument in the world that can measure such an infinitesimal difference. Presumably a gnat flying across a sensor 100 miles distant would create a greater temperature difference. All that had evidently happened in the study was averaging an almost infinite number of meaningless measurement errors<\/b>.<\/p>\n
All was not lost, however. Act 2<\/b> of the Big Bang drama was announced nine months later at the annual meeting of the equally prestigious American Astronomical Society (Ann Arbor News<\/i> 1993: A1).<\/p>\n
The great new discovery was described in these terms:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Strong new support for the theory that the universe began some 15 billion years ago with a Big Bang.<\/p>\n
BSpade<\/i> 14:1 (Winter 2001) p. 28<\/p>\n
\u2022 Precise measurements of remnant energy from the Big Bang gave results exactly as the theory predicted.<\/p>\n
\u2022 It was the toughest test yet of the theory.<\/p>\n
\u2022 The powerful new evidence verifies the textbooks<\/p>\n
\u2022 The results exactly match the theoretical curve of temperature energy decay that would be expected in the Big Bang theory.<\/p>\n
Again we must ask just what was found? We now learn that the 300 million measurements taken at a cost of $400 million dollars, described above, were just preliminary results prematurely released to the media a few months previously. The new study, hundreds of millions of measurements later, is 30 times more precise. What was found? Nothing!<\/b> That is, no temperature differences at all, which is exactly what the first study should have concluded.<\/p>\n
But read these studies again! Two opposite results are reported, and both claim to be exactly what the theory required. It is one thing to present such things to captive students in a classroom, and to equally captive colleagues who do not dare to raise an eyebrow, but one must be forgiven for thinking this is another version of the wonderful story of the emperor who wore no clothes. Even the prestigious British science journal, Nature<\/i> (1991:731), proposed that the results be ignored. Corliss (1992:7), no friend of creationism, was aghast to see that distinguished astronomers were claiming that opposite results each proved the same thing about Big Bang. Thus Big Bang was fact in spite of what research revealed!<\/b><\/p>\n
Comets<\/b><\/p>\n
Kohoutek (1974)<\/b><\/p>\n
Noted astronomers excitedly called this the comet of the century, and it was to become the most intensely scrutinized celestial object in the history of astronomy. Astronomers promised that the display would be 50 times as spectacular as the awesome appearance of Halleys Comet in 1910. These studies would help to solve the great mysteries of how our solar system was formed, what changes will occur in the next few billion years, and how life began.<\/p>\n
How could any foundation resist financing such important studies\u2019 People around the world flocked to the best vantage points and cruise ships were booked to capacity for those who wanted an even better view away from city lights.<\/p>\n
Now we know what happened. The predictions were so grossly exaggerated that one astronomer had an egg thrown at him when he mentioned Kohoutek at a lecture and another astronomer had to testify before a congressional committee to explain the comets failure to follow the predictions. (Time<\/i>, 1973:88).<\/p>\n
Halley (1986)<\/b><\/p>\n
In spite of getting burned with Kohoutek, hope springs eternal, and special tours organized by astronomers to view Hal ley\u2019s comet were sold out three years in advance. People paid more than $10,000 each to sail with Carl Sagan between New Zealand and Australia for the choicest view of this expected dazzling display. Again the scene was spectacularly less than advertised.<\/p>\n
Hyakutake, (1996)<\/b><\/p>\n
Another comet appeared in 1996 and promised to rival Halleys spectacular appearance in 1910, which was indeed an awesome sight. Those who still believed in such predictions strained their eyes and necks and barely could make out a little fuzz ball in the sky, again far less than predicted.<\/p>\n
Back in 1910 noted astronomers had it all wrong about Halleys Comet. Here are three samples of the dire prophecies (Spanuth 1979:156):<\/p>\n
\u2022 About 4:25 AM our planet will be enveloped in a deadly cloud of poisonous gases and cosmic dust that makes up the tail of the comet. Hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen cyanide and potassium cyanide will turn the globe into a monstrous gas chamber. No one will escape, or at most a fortunate few in the areas around the poles, who may not be directly struck by this terrible fate, which is approaching us out of space. There will be a catastrophe.<\/p>\n
\u2022 The sun will become dark, glaring lightning will illuminate the pitch-black sky, monstrous fiery masses will plunge from heaven. The eruption of the chained volcanic fires will alter the face of the earth. The axis of the earth will be displaced. The bodies of water in the oceans will leave their beds and break over the continents.<\/p>\n
\u2022 A hundred thousand human beings will meet a terrible end in this new deluge, and all traces of our civilization will be obliterated in a single night.<\/p>\n
As you might suspect, since the world is still here, nothing of the sort happened. We must remember that these were crackpots from the lunatic fringe speaking. These were noted 20th century astronomers.<\/p>\n
Three up, three down. Hindsight, of course, is a great gift, but the nagging question remains: If the best astronomers err so badly on relatively easy problems, how can they be taken seriously about much more fundamental mysteries and questions? I have no quarrel at all with the science of astronomy. Technology is cumulative and provides spectacular advances in many fields. Speculation, however, posing as fact that is then used to undermine the Bible is quite another thing, and that is where our strong objection lies.<\/p>\n
Bibliography<\/b><\/p>\n
Ann Arbor News<\/b><\/p>\n
1992 June 12: A1.<\/p>\n
1993 January 8: A1.<\/p>\n
Anonymous<\/b><\/p>\n
1991 Big Bang Brouhaha. Nature<\/i> 256 731.<\/p>\n
Corliss, J.<\/b><\/p>\n
1992 Science Frontiers<\/i> 82:7.<\/p>\n
Faulkner and DeYoung<\/b><\/p>\n
1991 Creation Research Society Quarterly<\/i>.<\/p>\n
1973 Kohoutek: Comet of the Century. Time<\/i> 102.25:88\u201395.<\/p>\n
Spanuth, J.<\/b><\/p>\n
1979 Atlantis of the North.<\/i> London: Book Club Association.<\/p>\n
Tomas, A.<\/b><\/p>\n
1971 We Are Not the First.<\/i> New York: Bantam.<\/p>\n
BSpade<\/i> 14:1 (Winter 2001) p. 29<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Erich A. von Fange [Our English word \u201castronomy\u201d comes from two Greek words: astro (star) and nomos (law), meaning the law of the stars. In this article, Dr. von Fange addresses Creation\/Evolution issues from the field of astronomy.] The universe up there. No one can fait to be awed by the absolutely marvelous photos beamed … Continue reading “ASTRONOMY:
\nTECHNOLOGY, SCIENCE, OR SPECULATION?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15309","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15309","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15309"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15309\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15309"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15309"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15309"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}