Dark Matter Revisited
by Delmar Dobberpuhl
The relationship of dark matter to a creationist perspective of the universe was evaluated in an article in the March 2000 issue of the Creation Research Society Quarterly. It is interesting to note that even after seventeen years of intensive searching since that article was published, no one has directly observed dark matter or provided a definitive theory to what it is. Its existence and location were first based on observations of the dynamics of galaxies and galaxy clusters. More recently it has been absorbed into the assumptions by the standard model cosmology for the evolution of the universe. This article provides an updated creationist perspective on dark matter and what is and is not known about it. It addresses galaxies and their flat rotation curves; clusters of galaxies and how their supposed dark matter distribution formed gravity lenses; and how dark matter is related to the large-scale structure of the universe. It investigates the latest searches for a dark matter particle by accelerator experiments and astronomical observations. It also presents a creation-based cosmology and a possible new interpretation of the observations that originally led astronomers to propose the existence of dark matter. This new cosmology and its new interpretation of observations question the need for dark matter in a universe created only 6000 years ago
Genesis Flood Drainage through Southwest Montana: Part III: Water Gap
by Michael J. Oard
Uniformitarian science has been unable to explain wind and water gaps, but they are easily accounted for by the recessional stage of the Flood. Eight water gaps and three wind gaps in southwest Montana confirm that the three major and one minor uniformitarian hypotheses fall short, while the Flood provides a reasonable explanation. This model is further supported by other features examined—large slack water and eddy gravel bars, whose size and placement require drainage of great proportion, like those formed by the Lake Missoula Flood.
A Scientific Alternative to Evolution
by Dr. Thomas C. Barnes
One of my colleagues, a Ph.D. in philosophy who has been reluctant to speak out publicly against evolution, privately expressed his concern. He said, “Evolution is a dogma and not a science.” This is a very serious charge because there are a great many disciples of Darwin in the scientific community. I believe, however, that a critical analysis of the literature on evolution justifies his statement. A scientific fallacy in evolution may be seen by noting that its whole superstructure is built upon extralogical considerations. Extralogical considerations are the extensions of a proposition beyond the scope of true logic. In evolution, an extralogical error occurs when phenomena with observable limits are cited as evidence in support of an unbounded proposition. A recent speaker on our campus defined evolution as “change.” He then said, “Change is fact; therefore evolution is fact.” It soon became evident that the evolution he adheres to is far more than an observable change. He committed the extralogical error of defining evolution as observable and employing it as an unlimited process. Fabrications upon that kind of premise are nothing more than figments of imagination. The failure to give an adequate definition of evolution is a common failing among evolutionists; definitions implying observables are employed to frame speculative propositions. It is not uncommon, however, to find these same adherents of evolution charging that the remaining scientific community ignores the observable evidence. No scientist questions the validity of variety, change, and development within groups of living things. The works of Luther Burbank, Walter Lammerts, and others in California have made it obvious that it is possible to breed new forms differing from parent forms. But it is also observable that this type of breeding is limited and invariably shows bounds beyond which it cannot go. One would say in mathematics that the curves of these real processes have asymptotes which never cross finite boundaries. Evolutionists ignore those asymptotes. After more than a hundred years of research in biology, evolution remains without a solid foundation. Dr. G. A. Kerkut (1960, p. 157) states it this way: “The evidence that supports it [general evolution] is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it anything more than a working hypothesis.” It is amazing that after all these decades of toil by scientists in numerous disciplines that evolution is still a mere hypothesis and not a law! By now it should be clear that the evolutionary hypothesis is neither necessary nor sufficient. There are scientific laws that are much more successful in specifying the processes of nature. These laws can be checked by experiment and may profitably be employed as guides to invention and progress. I therefore invite your attention to a scientific alternative to evolution, an alternative that has present processes that follow the basic laws of science.