© Cedarville University International Conference on Creationism. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of Cedarville University. Faulkner, D.R. 2023. How should recent creationists respond to dark matter and dark energy? In J.H. Whitmore (editor), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Creationism, pp. 1-10. Cedarville, Ohio: Cedarville University International Conference on Creationism. HOW SHOULD RECENT CREATIONISTS RESPOND TO DARK MATTER AND DARK ENERGY? Danny R Faulkner, Answers in Genesis, P.O. Box 510, Hebron, Kentucky 41048 dfaulkner@answersingenesis.org ABSTRACT For too long, recent creationists have dismissed the existence of dark matter and dark energy as rescuing devices for the big bang model. A proper survey of the history of both dark matter and dark energy reveals that this assessment of dark matter and dark energy is false. There are three robust lines of evidence for dark matter, two of which were known long before the big bang model became widely accepted. If the big bang model were to fall out of favor, the reality of dark matter would remain. Thus, the existence of dark matter has nothing to do with the big bang model. Dark matter easily can be included within a recent creation model, so I discourage recent creationists from rejecting the dark matter hypothesis in an attempt to nullify the big bang model. The unexpected downturn in the Hubble relation at great distances is the evidence for dark energy, albeit interpreted in terms of the big bang model. What the downward inflection of the Hubble relation might mean in a biblical cosmology/cosmogony is unknown, for no such model yet exists. In developing such models, I encourage recent creationists to consider the evidence generally interpreted in terms of dark matter and dark energy. KEYWORDS Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Cosmology, Cosmogony I. INTRODUCTION Since the turn of this century, dark matter and dark energy have been widely accepted in cosmological models. These models are based upon the big bang, the assumption that the universe suddenly appeared nearly 14 billion years ago in a very hot, dense, expanding state. The big bang model further posits that as the universe expanded and inevitably cooled, stars and structure (galaxies) arose, eventually resulting in the universe that we observe today. Since this model contradicts many aspects of the Genesis creation account, recent creationists reject the big bang model. Perhaps because of their close association with the big bang model, many creationists also reject dark matter and dark energy. However, is this rejection warranted? In this paper, I will review the evidence for dark matter and dark energy. I will demonstrate that the evidence for dark matter is very robust, predating the wide acceptance of the big bang model by nearly 40 years. Hence, the evidence for dark matter has very little to do with the big bang model, and I discourage recent creationists from rejecting the dark matter hypothesis as a strategy to nullify the big bang model. On the other hand, there is a much more intimate relationship between dark energy and the big bang model. There are data that when interpreted in terms of the big bang model leads to the conclusion of dark energy. While we reject the big bang model, the data remain. Creationists need to address the question of what that same data may mean within a truly biblically based cosmology. II. DARK MATTER There are three independent lines of evidence for dark matter: 1. Dispersion velocities of galaxy clusters 2. Rotation curves of spiral galaxies 3. Gravitational lensing of distant galaxies and quasars by closer galaxy clusters As I explained in an earlier paper (Faulkner 2017a), measurements of the dispersion of velocities of galaxies in clusters was the first observational evidence for dark matter, dating back 90 years ago (Zwicky 1933, 1937c; Ostriker, 1999). Zwicky measured the Doppler velocities of galaxies in the Coma Cluster. Assuming that the measured Doppler motions of those galaxies were due to orbital motion of the members of the Coma Cluster, Zwicky used the virial theorem to calculate the dynamic mass, the amount of mass required to account for the orbital motion. As explained below, astronomers already knew how much mass was required to produce the light we receive from galaxies. Therefore, from measurement of the brightness of galaxies on photographs of the Coma Cluster, Zwicky was able to determine the lighted mass of the Coma Cluster. Zwicky found that the dynamic mass of the Coma Cluster exceeded its lighted mass by two orders of magnitude. Adjustments in the cosmic distance scale since then have reduced the mismatch to only a factor of 50. Meanwhile, Smith (1936) found a similar discrepancy between the dynamic mass and the lighted mass of the Virgo cluster. Other clusters of galaxies show 9th 2023
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=