Download Cosmology on Trial PDF - Institute for Creation Research

distant future and would alreadyhave experienced the cosmicturnaround.Presumably, these retreating bodies inreversed time, being no longer visible,could constitute the vast amounts of“dark matter” required by Big Bangcosmology.To us, it is especially surprising thatso many evangelical scientists and theologiansseem quite willing to discardthe statements of Scripture in order toaccept the imagined “Big Bang” as theevent of divine creation. They are evenusing the “New Age” icon, the so-calledanthropic principle, which presumablyties various cosmic constants in withBig Bang cosmology, as evidence ofthis event. They should realize, however,that all this compromise not onlycontradicts God’s Word, but also theopinions of the large majority evolutionaryof evolutionary cosmologists.For about a decade now, an increasingnumber of scientistsand theologians have been asserting,in popular articles andbooks, that they can detect asignal of cosmic purpose pokingits head out of the noisydata of physics and cosmology.This claim has been widely reportedin the media, perhapsmisleading lay people intothinking that some kind of newscientific consensus is developingin support of supernaturalbeliefs. In fact, none of this purportedevidence can be foundin the pages of scientific journals,. . .Stronger versions of theanthropic principle, which assertthat the universe is somehowactually required to produceintelligent “information-processing systems,” are nottaken seriously by most scientistsor philosophers. 7The author of the above evaluationis Professor of Physics at the Universityof Hawaii, obviously biased againsttheism, but nevertheless accurate in hisappraisal of the influence of theanthropic principle.To come back to Earth, so to speak,it is worth repeating once again thegreat truth that God’s revelation of specialsupernatural creation of the heavensin the beginning has never beenrefuted by any factual discoveries ofastronomy or physics or cosmology.God was there, and He knows! We dowell to believe His Word.By the word of the LORD were theheavens made; and all the hostof them by the breath of Hismouth. . . . For He spake, and itwas done; He commanded, andit stood fast (Psalm 33:6,9).My right hand hath spannedthe heavens: when I call untothem, they stand up together(Isaiah 48:13).References1 Roy C. Martin, Jr., Astronomy on Trial(Landham, Md., University Press ofAmerica, 1999), p. xv.2 Ibid., p. 14.3 Geoffrey Burbridge, Fred Hoyle, andJayant V. Marlikar, “A DifferentApproach to <strong>Cosmology</strong>,” PhysicsToday (volume 52, April 1999), p. 39.4 Ibid.5 Marcus Chown, “Unwrite This,” NewScientist (vol. 164, Nov. 27, 1999), p. 11.6 P. Weiss, “Time’s Arrow May Make U-Turns in Universe,” Science News (vol.157, January 1, 2000), p. 6.7 Victor J. Stenger, “Anthropic Design:Does the Cosmos Show Evidence ofPurpose?” Skeptical Inquirer (vol. 23,July/August 1999), pp. 40,42.c

WHAT DO AMERICANS BELIEVE ABOUT ORIGINS,ACCORDING TO THE POLLS?BY JOHN D. MORRIS, Ph.D.For decades opinion polls have consistentlyrevealed that a majority of Americansbelieve in some form of creation,while only a small minority fully embraceevolution. Thus, it was of interestto see the results of a nationwidepoll (November–December, 1999) commissionedby the ultra-liberal Peoplefor the American Way (PAW), whoseanti-creation views are well known.I first learned of this story when anewspaper reporter from Kansasphoned me for my opinion. She hadjust received the 54-page news releasefrom PAW and was writing an article. Ihad not seen the document, but as sheread the questions and analysis to me,Paw’s overriding bias became clear toboth of us. Even in spite of constructedquestions, some very interesting resultsunfolded.Before discussing the results, let memention flaws in the survey. The poll repeatedlyportrayed creation thinking(“creationism”) as a religious belief asopposed to the “scientific” truth of evolution.How should one respond whenasked if they want religious beliefs taughtas science in public school classrooms?The poll never defined evolution,never differentiating between adaptation,natural selection, mutations, etc.(sometimes called microevolution,which all creationists accept), andlarge-scale macroevolution, i.e., fish toman. The idea that man evolved fromthe apes was deemed a wrong view ofevolution, for knowledgeable evolutionistshold that man really evolvedfrom “an apelike ancestor,” not an ape(even though the human ancestor mostrecognized, means “southern ape”).One question was about the KansasState Board of Education’s decision to“remove evolution from their state sciencestandards,” but the KBOE did nosuch thing. They did remove macroevolutionfrom its proposed status as a“unifying principle” in science, but leftall the actual “evolution” intact.One conclusion drawn was thatpeople are confused over this issue andwhat they believe on both sides. Actually,it was the pollsters who are confused.I am very familiar with both sidesand on most of the questions, none ofthe answers reflected my views, whilethe questions contained error. Nowherewould I have been allowed to state mypreference that the secular scientific informationfavoring creation and contradictingevolution be allowed.Nevertheless, it is instructive tonote that only 5% of these Americansaccepted evolution theory as “fully accurate,”and another 22% accepted itas “mostly accurate.” Meanwhile, 21%considered it “completely not accurate,”and another 8% considered it“mostly not accurate.” The real questionis: How has this 5% minority ofaggressive evolutionists come to fullycontrol the public school system, includingthe writing of textbooks andteacher credentialing? What can bedone to allow a more mainstream viewback in?America still awaits a polling effortwith unambiguous, unbiased, revealingquestions. For what it’s worth, ICRstands ready to help prepare such a poll,and we would welcome the results.dSINGLE COPIES 10¢ORDER FROM: INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH © 2000 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDP.O. BOX 2667, EL CAJON, CA 92021