sion, though they eventually did. Many creationists seem to be under the illusion that astronomers and cosmologists rapidly incorporated dark matter into their models or that astronomers and cosmologists entirely made dark matter up to explain away problems with their evolutionary models. For instance, this quote by Hartnett (2014) demonstrates this latter thinking: …we need to understand that dark matter, dark energy, and other “unknowns” … were only proposed in the standard big bang cosmology to resolve some conflicts between the standard paradigm and astrophysical observations. [emphasis added] However, a frank assessment of the history of dark matter as outlined here reveals that neither astronomers nor cosmologists were quick to embrace dark matter, nor that dark matter was invoked merely as a rescuing device for evolutionary ideas. There are many examples of articles in the creation literature doubting the existence of dark matter (e.g., Dobberpuhl 2017; Hartnett 2006, 2007, 2017; Hebert 2013). Some of this criticism of dark matter stems from reports of failure to detect dark matter more directly. Theoretical physicists have proposed several theories as to what dark matter is made of. One promising candidate is weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). WIMPs were thought to be new elementary particles that interact only with gravity and possibly a hitherto unknown force. Most attempts to search for WIMPs focused on detection of products of WIMP annihilation, such as neutrinos, gamma rays, and cosmic rays. All these searches have been fruitless. Another candidate for dark matter has been massive compact halo objects (MACHOs). MACHOs would be normal matter in exotic forms, such as quiescent black holes and neutron stars. There have been tests of their existence by looking for gravitational lensing that might happen as MACHOS pass in front of halo stars in the Milky Way. These searches have been fruitless too. Another candidate has been axions, a potential particle conceived apart from dark matter so was readily at hand. Axions were hypothesized to explain the preservation of charge conjugation symmetry and parity symmetry in quantum chromodynamics. Like the other candidates, axions have yet to be detected. Sterile neutrinos would interact via gravity but no other force. There are good reasons to think sterile neutrinos exist. They would have left-handed chirality, whereas all known neutrinos are right-handed. All other fermions exhibit both right-handed and left-handed chirality. If sterile neutrinos were ever discovered, and if they have enough mass and are plentiful enough, then they may be the elusive dark matter. However, there has not yet been any detection of sterile neutrinos. Another potential candidate for dark matter that was already at hand is the gravitino. Quantum mechanics views the fundamental forces as being mediated by a particle and an associated supersymmetry particle. The hypothetical particle that mediates gravity is called the graviton, and its associated particle is called the gravitino. It is possible that the gravitino has a large enough mass to account for dark matter. The graviton and the gravitino will be very difficult particles to detect. Many times, news accounts of these studies report that the scientists involved failed to detect dark matter. Worded this way, these reports are very misleading. Scientists did not fail to detect dark matter in general. Rather, the scientists failed to detect particular candidates for dark matter, thus eliminating those candidates from further consideration. The null results of tests of dark matter candidates are disproof of particular models of dark matter, not disproof of the existence of dark matter. Unfortunately, some comments on these stories by some recent creationists fail to reflect this distinction. Furthermore, the evidence for dark matter is based upon operational science, the study of how the world operates today. In contrast, inclusion of dark matter into the big bang model and for the origin and maintenance of galactic structure are historical science. Creationists ought to be aware of this distinction, but alas, many of them don’t appear to be. There are relatively few articles in the creation literature supportive of dark matter. While not necessarily supportive of dark matter, DeYoung (2000) offered a rather neutral evaluation of dark matter. What is the reason why creationists are so resistant to dark matter? As I have already stated, there appear to be two reasons for this resistance. One of those reasons is ignorance of the data supporting dark matter, thinking that dark matter is a rescuing device. One of the main purposes of this paper is to counter the notion that dark matter is a rescuing device. The history of our understanding of dark matter as presented here reveals a very different story. Those who think dark matter is a rescuing device seem to have picked up the story of dark matter only after astronomers and cosmologists widely accepted the reality of dark matter. The other reason why so many recent creationists doubt the reality of dark matter may be the desire not to give up what many creationists see as a good argument for recent origin (at least not over billions of years), that, as previously mentioned, galaxy clusters may not be gravitationally bound and could be breaking up. If the dispersion velocities of galaxies in clusters were the only observations supporting dark matter, then this may be a viable possibility. However, how does one handle the rotation curves of spiral galaxies? One could posit that just like clusters of galaxies, individual galaxies are not stable and hence are disrupting as well. Consequently, that might be an argument against individual galaxies being billions of years old. But that would only apply to the regions of galaxies outside their nuclei. Why would the nuclear regions of spiral galaxies be subject to bound orbits while the outer regions of galaxies are not? Simply positing that this is the way the world operates is not a satisfactory answer. Furthermore, this tack cannot explain gravitational lensing of distant galaxies by closer clusters of galaxies, so observations of this would require yet another explanation. There is one additional problem with this explanation. Creationists have long advanced the idea that there is design and stability in the world. For instance, some creationists speak about the stability of both planetary orbits and the orbits of the planets’ natural satellites, and even the stability of systems beyond the solar system (e.g., Burgess 2008; Wilson 2003). Which is it? Did God create a stable world, or did He create an unstable world? Are creationists willing to sacrifice the stability argument in favor of a lesser argument for relatively recent origin? Some creationists have embraced modified Newtonian dynamics FAULKNER Dark matter and dark energy 2023 ICC 5
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=