Yes.
==So you wish to have me say that Hawkin’s view is necessarily anti-Biblical then, that he is just as “guilty” of interpreting the data through the lens of his ideology?
Yes and no. Rather than giving the centrality of their ideology the attention it deserves, Hawkings et al barely mention it at all...and the rest of his Darwinist/materialist/antitheist pals simply sweep it under the rug as though it has no consequence. Hawkings et al base their ideology on nothing other than their desire for it to be true. They don't base it on empirical observation, they don't point it out as a possible shortcoming when their theory fails to predict, they are as closed-mouthed as they can be about it without actually saying nothing at all.
Humphreys, on the other hand, is very up front and open about the fact that his model A) is based on the biblical idea that the universe has a center and an edge B) that the Earth is special C) that the heavens were created for our benefit, and finally that D) that his model squares with empirical observation. As such, his theory will help us to determine if the Bible's cosmological references comport with reality. If they do, then it will strengthen the argument that the Bible's cosmological references are true, should be read as straightforwardly as possible, and, most importantly, has important insights to share with the scientific community.
==Sorry I just don't see it. It goes along well with the trend of Scientific data removing humanity from a central location in geography and chronology; but it is not based upon that as an assumption.
Then what is their “ideological” assumption based on? And why do scientists tolerate it? Does Hawkings et al have a right to pass off their “admixture of ideology” as science? If so, should Creation and ID scientists be allowed to do the same thing? And why should science have only one ideology, anyway? Isn't it better to have competing ideologies employing the scientific method, looking at things differently, and otherwise falsifying or confirming each other's observations/conclusions?
==Why do you suppose that almost every culture in history has presupposed that mankind was located at the center of the universe and was there at or near the beginning of the universe?
That would be an absolutely fascinating study. It could be pure human invention designed to provide comfort or otherwise puff ourselves up. It could be hardwired into our beings like birds returning to their hatching grounds, or salmon swimming back to their spawning grounds, or sea turtles returning to a speck on a map to to lay their eggs. It could be the echo of legends that owe their origins to Noah, and before that, to Adam and Eve. Who knows? But again, this fascinating phenomena should be studied by theologians, historians, and scientists alike IMHO.
Again, I ask you...is this one of those times, Allmendream??? If so, is it because I pointed out that you were mistaken about our galaxy containing a quasar? Is it because you have come to the realization that the current consensus on big bang cosmology is based on ideology and not science? Is it because you have come to the realization that an expanding universe with a center of mass would have at one time had a gravitational well sufficient to dilate time such that the physical processes of galaxies near the center could have elapsed for thousands of years while the physical processes of galaxies near the edge could have elapsed at the rate of billions of years, and yet owe their existence to the same creation event? Is it because Humphreys based his cosmology on the Bible's description of a universe with a center and an edge? And what if Humphreys proves to be correct, should Creation Science be given the credit for said predictions? Pray tell...inquiring minds want to know.