In this post, one of our readers, Benkeshet ask about James Trefil’s chapter entitled: “The Five Reasons Galaxies Can’t Exist”. It was chapter 4 of The Dark Side of the Universe. Trefil, an opponent of ID, actually did much work that unwittingly led to the ID-friendly Privileged Planet hypothesis and unwittingly led to various YEC cosmologies!!!! He writes:
The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.
Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe, p. 55.
Every few years the American Physical Society, the professional association of physicists, has a session at one of its meetings where astrophysicists talk about the hottest new ways of tackling the galaxy problem. I have been a bemused listener at many of theses sessions, and I have come away with a great respect for the ingenuity of my colleagues. At the same time, I have also come a way with a profound skepticism about the ideas they advance. Having sat through explanations of how turbulence, black holes, explosive events during galaxy formation, heavy neutrinos, and cold dark matter would solve all our problems, I’ve developed an immunity to waht Princeton astrophysicist Jim Peebles cals the “snake-oil approach” to cosmology. Despite what you may read in the press, we still have no answer to the question of why the sky is full of galaxies…Reason #1: Galaxies could not have formed before atoms…interaction of radiation and matter prevents the beginning of processes that could lead to galaxies before the universe is 500,000 years old. This turns out to be a major problem, because of…
Reason #2: Galaxies Haven’t Had Time to Form…can gravitational forces act quickly enough after decoupling occurs to gather matter into galaxy-sized clumps before the Hubble expansion carries everything out of range? One of the great shocks to the astronomical community in the 1930’s was that the answer to this question is a resounding “No!”….
One way out suggests itself…some other physical process, such as turbulence in the gas clouds after the formation of atoms….Alas, this line of argument leads us to….
Reason #3: Turbulence Won’t work, either
Reason #4: Galaxies haven’t had time to form clusters
Reason #5 If Radiation Clumps with Matter, and Matter Clumps into Galaxies, The Cosmic Microwave Radiation Comes out Wrong
The microwave radiation can’t be uniform and non-uniform at the same time.
Amusingly, one solution to #5 is VSL (Variable Speed of Light–Old Earth) or CDK (Young Earth). I apologize for the brevity, but suffice to say, it seems these points are available on the web, but you’ll have to piece it together with scraps here and there.
To be fair to Dr. Trefil, he offers Dark Matter as a solution to some if not all of these problems. He cautions:
PS
For the record, I studied under Trefil after I had already graduated since I was so honored to have a chance to say I learned from a great master in the field. Though it is difficult that he and I are on opposite sides of the ID debate, I have never stopped admiring his scientific insights and achievements. He is also a wonderful teacher.
I got a copy of his book, and Dr. Trefil autographed it:
To Salvador Cordova, it’s been great having you in class.
James Trefil
I think I’d like to respond to this post philosophically by asking a “meta” question (e.g. one about the original post’s question). It is:
Why, if there are presently difficulties in explaining the origin of galaxies (indeed, the origin of anything) is that evidence for a recent creation?
I have to think that the answer must be: If there is no naturalistic explanation (and by naturalistic I mean no special, intelligent manipulation of existing physical conditions by God), then the phenomenon in question must, indeed have been produced by God directly, and recently in a young universe.
I think that can be a dangerous sort of argument, because, should a naturalistic explanation eventually be produced, it makes the original postion (and I must say that it is usually the YEC position) look simplistic, premature, and ill-thought out. It does no favour, in other words, to the YEC position in general.
I remember quite well, when I was in high-school, reading about the earth’s magnetic field, and that since a symmetrical, self-sustaining magnetic dynamo was provably impossible, that the field itself must be the result of a decaying electrical current with a half-life measure in the thousands of years, that had been set in motion by God at the creation. I still have the monograph in my excellent YEC library of books from the 1970s and 1980s. This seemed an excellent argument to me, and I even wrote some of my first computer programs to model the apparent decay through time and estimate for myself the “Tau” of the decay.
Subsequently, of course, the theory of dynamos has made enormous advances, with complicated, non-symettrical models, laboratory tests and the increase in the power and sophistication of computers, it is no longer implausible that there could, indeed, be a self-sustaining dynamo. The earth’s iron core now appears to be spinning slightly faster (by up to half a degree per year) faster than the earth! Yes, it is a whole lot more complicated than the simple models that we knew were impossible, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. After all, life itself is a whole lot more complicated than we thought possible, too.
My point is, simply, that our present paucity of models for the origin of galaxies is simply a reflection of the fact that we still don’t know a whole lot about a whole lot of things, and this is really quite an exciting thing, not an indication of OEC or YEC or whatever. I think it’s actually pretty exciting that God still has surprises and mysteries for us out there and we’re nowhere near the “end of the knowledge rainbow”.
Dark matter seemed a pretty outrageous prediction until we started seeing amazing things like this link (which I posted somewhere else, so apologies):
http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/08/scientists_confirm_existence_o.php
As for the origin of galaxies, here’s a fact to give you pause: galaxies appear to line up in sheets and walls, and spiral galaxies “line up like beads on a string, with their spin axes aligned with the filaments that outline voids”.
http://universe-review.ca/F03-supercluster.htm
Again, this is extraordinary stuff, not even predicted or suspected 50 years ago, and it leaves me in humble wonder.
This research is less than 30 years old… I would wait a little longer before taking any solace as a YEC from the fact that all the details, or even the broad strokes of galaxy formation have not been worked out yet!
I look at our solar system, and the amazing combinations of orbits, axis angles, comets, asteroids, atmospheres etc. not as proofs against a old universe, but the preserved historical detritis of an amazing history that God has left behind for us to untangle and discover for many years to come. The earth-moon collision hypothesis is just one example.
I fear that a YEC perspective may actually prevent people from discovering and investigating the clues that God has left behind for our benefit!
Hi Salvador. My comment looks like it got caught in the spam buffer.
Dr. Cheesman,
I just got back. My sincere apologies for the delay. The spam buffer came with the Wordpress package for free. We got what we paid for. Thank you for your patience.
Salvador
I think your concerns are very legitimate Dr. Cheesman.
However, from an operational standpoint, if YEC cosmology leads to operationally significant and useful technologies, then it will be more than a “God of the gap” scientific view.
One of the ideas behind YoungCosmos is to postulate that if YEC is true, what are the implications for:
1. space exploration
2. technology
3. medicine
4. geology
5. other
etc.
There may be operationally significant arenas, where it may make a difference depending on whether the YEC viewpoint is correct.
For example, (given that you are an ID proponent) at least one area where we might agree is in intelligent design of biology. This may lead to a different perspective in treating disease and arriving at medical techologies.
I am looking for such things in YEC. I think your concerns are valid, nonetheless.
Salvador: “However, from an operational standpoint, if YEC cosmology leads to operationally significant and useful technologies, then it will be more than a “God of the gap” scientific view.”
I think this is an excellent way to approach things. In my posts, I’ve generally tried to point to positive evidence for OEC, as opposed to negative evidence against YEC (with the possible exception of the CDK issue, and even there it’s been more a matter of trying to raise issues and observations that are challenging).
On this issue I’m speaking from personal experience; I remember as a YEC glossing over or ignoring a lot of research that I thought was worthless or pointless because I thought it could not possibly be relevant or true (sort of my current attitude to origin of life research, I guess), because it assumed an old earth and inherited the “taint” of that view. Much of that I now find to be quite interesting and compelling.
Should a YEC viewpoint prove to be excellent grounds for new knowledge and research it would go a long way to establishing it.
It is a much better approach, I think, than the “God of the Gaps” or the “God of the Unknown or Possibly dodgy theories” viewpoint we all as Christians get accused of in the biology debate.
If YEC has a better explanation for the origin of galaxies than OEC, it should come up with a reason for the current distribution that we observe, else it must fall back on the “God just made it that way” argument, which is possible, I must grant.
Regarding the formation of galaxies, I just read this suprising quote on PhysicsWeb,
I know it is not what they meant but the last part just reminded me of Hebrews 11:3
Please Note:
ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!
Salvador