9. Is there a scientific theory for a young earth that explains the evidence offered for the Big Bang?In other words, he's doing creation "science" instead of real science.Answer: Yes, Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, a physicist at the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has published such a theory in his 1994 book, Starlight and Time*Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe. Dr. Humphreys explains how secular scientists built their Big Bang cosmology on the assumption of an unbounded material universe that has no center and no outer surface or edge. When this assumption is fed into the mathematical equations of Einstein's general theory of relativity, the Big Bang theory automatically results. In contrast, Humphreys began with biblical information about the creation of the universe and fed it into the equations. The result is a startling new theory that allows for an earth only 6000 years or so old. At the same time it explains the three principle kinds of evidence that are used to support the Big Bang cosmology. These are (1) the fact that light from galaxies billions of light years away has reached the earth, (2) the red shift of the light from the distant galaxies, and (3) the cosmic microwave background radiation that is observed coming in from all directions.
Dr. Humphreys is careful to point out that his radical new theory must be critically examined, perhaps for years, before it can become established as a scientific theory. He began his eight years of study of this problem by carefully searching the Scriptures to obtain his fundamental scientific assumptions. This is an example of how Christians ought to function in scientific research. It will probably will be a few years before this new theory either gains substantial corroboration or is falsified. This author feels that Dr. Humphreys interpretations of Genesis 1 designed to fit the Scriptures with his theory are a little bizarre. They may have to be modified, but all new theories need adjustments before reaching their final form. In any event, Dr. Humphreys' work does suggest that those Christian creationists who have opted to accept the secular great age chronology may have capitulated too soon [emphasis added].
What a joke. And you fell for it.
Why should Dr. Humphreys’ Genesis assumption be any less valid than the unbounded universe assumption of secular scientists? The real question is, given their initial assumptions, which theory explains and predicts better? If Humphreys’ theory does this better, then it is by definition better science.
PS I haven’t read Dr. Humphrey’s book “Starlight and Time”, but I am ordering it as soon as I finish this message. I searched the internet and perused reviews of his book/arguments (both pro and con) and have concluded that you are indeed correct, nobody has been able to disprove/falsify his theory. Just the thought of that, after so many hostiles have attempted to disprove his theory over the years, gave me a big chuckle deep inside. Now I’m off to order the book!!!—GGG
Here is a brief excerpt and a few links in which Dr. Humphrey’s answers his critics (you have most likely read these, but I thought I’d post them anyway):
“Starlight Wars”
Starlight and Time appeared in print in October 1994. Just a few months after that, a small group of opponents of the traditional historical view of Genesis—that it means what it says—declared “holy war” on my book. Their leader was Hugh Norman Ross, whose organization “Reasons to Believe” markets a theology heavily based on big bang thinking. Dr. Ross had assumed that general relativity can lead to only one cosmology, the big bang theory and its billions of years. But my book offers an alternative—a relativistic cosmology that fits into the Biblical timescale.
Starlight and Time did not mention Ross, but he correctly saw it as a threat to his organization. At his instigation, the Rossites launched attacks in lay publications7 and in a creationist newsletter in which I published answers.8 In 1996 they tried an extensive letter campaign to Christian leaders. In 1997 they switched to a creationist scientific journal.9 Thankfully, my answers have satisfied reviewers and silenced critics. The resulting four-years debate have now been archived on the Internet.10 The debate apparently ended last year after I emphasized that the Rossites had refused to comment on several key concepts and quotes from the secular astrophysics literature which support my cosmology. Their silence betrays the weakness of their arguments.
Here’s another link where he traces the history of the debate up to the year 2000: