The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

2011c). It is incumbent upon creationists who doubt universal expansion to offer a plausible alternate interpretation. However, for nearly a century there have been many attempts to do so without any success. This question of cosmological redshifts thus warrants much more discussion among creationists. QUANTIZED REDSHIFTS A second question is the possibility of quantized redshifts. For more than 40 years, data have accumulated that suggest that redshifts of galaxies are not uniformly distributed, but rather histograms of galaxy redshifts have peaks at certain values. The term quantized redshifts is a bit of a misnomer in that it suggests redshifts of galaxies fall into distinct bins, when in reality there are many galaxies with redshifts in the valleys between the peaks of the histograms. The simplest interpretation of quantized redshifts is that galaxies generally are situated in concentric spherical shells around our location (Humphreys, 2002a; Hartnett, 2004c), though not all creationists agree with that interpretation (Bishard, 2006). If galaxy redshifts truly are quantized, then it would have profound cosmological ramifications. As previously mentioned, few big bang models permit the universe to have a center, and even among those models that do, it is extremely unlikely that we are situated near that center. Furthermore, concentric shells of galaxies would violate the cosmological principle, the foundation of modern cosmology. However, as Humphreys (2002a) has suggested, quantized redshifts could work well within a biblical creation model. For instance, in Humphreys’ white hole cosmology, there could have been episodic releases of matter concentrically from the event horizon of the white hole during the Creation Week. Furthermore, Hartnett (2004c) has attempted to explain quantized redshifts in terms of his model. While the earth being situated at the center of concentric shells of galaxies is the simplest interpretation of quantized redshifts, it is not the only possibility. Hebert and Lisle (2016a; 2016b) have studied a possible bias in the data. It is very clear that galaxies clump into clusters that often contain a thousand or more galaxies. These clusters in turn tend to clump into much more irregular shapes, such as filaments and sheets, with near voids in between. As we measure the redshifts of galaxies, we tend to cut through these sheets and voids. It could be that the quantized redshifts that we observe may be merely the artifact of this sampling. Why do creationists find quantized redshifts so attractive? Part of the motivation may be the desire for a silver bullet to destroy the big bang model. If redshifts truly are quantized, then the big bang model almost certainly is eliminated. Part of the appeal may also be that something akin to a geocentric (more properly a galactocentric) cosmology is compatible with special creation. Nothing in Scripture demands the universe have a center or that earth be near the center. Furthermore, contrary to common misconception, the medieval church did not embrace geocentrism because being at the center of the universe conveyed special status to the earth. Quite to the contrary, the idea of being at the center of the universe was the result of the earth being in a very unprivileged position, and it was of ancient (pagan) Greek origin (Faulkner, 2017c, p. 41). How, then, is a near geocentric position consistent with special creation? If, as previously discussed, the rāqîa‘ is best identified with space (and at least part of the atmosphere), then space expanded outward from the earth, suggesting at least the possibility that the earth is near the center of the universe (though not necessarily precisely at the center). However, this would be an inference from our creation model, not a demand of Scripture. DARK MATTER A third important question is dark matter (DeYoung, 1999). Faulkner (2017b) recently has pointed out that there are good observational reasons for the existence of dark matter. Most creation astronomers concur with this assessment, though creation physicists often disagree (e.g. Hartnett, 2006a). What is the reason for discounting dark matter? One reason may be a perception that dark matter is required for the big bang, with dark matter being invoked as a rescuing device for the big bang or other evolutionary ideas. However, this is an excellent example of the difference between observational/experimental science and historical science. Once astronomers and cosmologists came to appreciate the good observational basis for dark matter, they began to exploit it to solve difficulties with evolutionary theories. It has become another free parameter to manipulate within the big bang model. While dark matter is a fixture in current versions of the big bang model, it has not always been, and its role quickly would disappear within the big bang cosmogony if astronomers no longer saw a necessity for dark matter from the data. Therefore, denial of dark matter is not a silver bullet against the big bang. Another reason for opposition to dark matter among creationists may be a desire to promote evidence for recent origin (Oard and Sarfati, 1999). The outer regions of galaxies rotate far faster than can be accounted for by the visible matter present. Furthermore, galaxies within clusters are moving too quickly to be in bound orbits based upon the amount of visible matter within the clusters. However, if the masses of galaxies, particularly in their outer regions, are dominated by dark matter, these high velocities are accounted for. Some creationists may argue that the outer regions of galaxies (Davies, 2010) and clusters of galaxies are unstable and thus indicate recent origin (Slusher, 1980a, pp. 7-14; Slusher, 1980b, pp. 59-66). But is this not a bit inconsistent? Creationists often comment on the stability that exists in the universe, suggesting design; but now some creationists want to throw this stability and design argument away in their haste to discard dark matter. If dark matter does not exist, then how can one explain the data for darkmatter?Worraker (2002) favors modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND). Hartnett (2005a) has developed his cosmological model with Carmelian physics which he says can explain the data without dark matter. The question of dark matter warrants further discussion in hopes of developing a consistent viewpoint. YOUNG AGE INDICATORS I will give brief updates of some of the young-age indicators I described in my earlier review. I also will mention a few others. 1. Comets I noted in my earlier review that comets long had been a staple of recent origin arguments. I also pointed out that, beginning in the 1980s, the Oort cloud (the proposed source of long-period comets) had undergone many changes and the Kuiper belt (the proposed source of short-period comets) had been resurrected to help explain comets; but these developments had attracted little attention in the creation literature. Fortunately, several papers on comets have appeared in recent years in the creation literature (e.g., Newton, 2002b; Worraker, 2004; Spencer, 2014a). The Oort cloud still has not been observed, but many astronomers think that the Kuiper belt has. Astronomers generally assume that the many trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs) orbiting the sun beyond Neptune are KBOs (Kuiper belt objects). However, there are problems with equating TNOs with KBOs, the latter presumably being comet nuclei. For instance, objects in the Faulkner ◀ Creation Astronomy II ▶ 2018 ICC 39