Let’s first consider the problems of the Big Bang cosmology creating galaxies. A former professor of mine, James Trefil (no friend of ID and had debated William Dembski in 2005), had this to say about galaxies:

Five Reasons Why Galaxies Can’t Exist

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.

There are numerous problems getting and explosion to create things. We know that from experience, and that is certainly the case with the Big Bang making galaxies. Part of Trefil’s solution to some of the problems of galaxy formation is the invocation of so-called Dark Matter.

Trefil was one of the early pioneers of the idea. But the existence of Dark Matter is in doubt. It’s invoked because it has to be there even though we have never directly measured it. Some dark matter may exist, but we do not know if there are enough quantities to fix the problems with galaxies. Furthermore Dark Matter won’t fix all the problems with galaxy formation….

Walter Brown describes the situation:

Evolutionists now admit that galaxies cannot evolve from one type to another. There are also good reasons natural processes cannot form galaxies. Furthermore, if spiral galaxies were billions of years old, their arms or bars would be severely twisted. Because they have maintained their shape, either galaxies are young, or unknown physical phenomena are occurring within galaxies. Even structures composed of galaxies are now known to be so amazingly large, and yet relatively thin, they could not have formed by slow gravitational attraction. If slow, natural processes cannot form such huge galactic structures, then rapid, supernatural processes may have.
….

Figure 161: Hubble Deep Field North. The Hubble Space Telescope, searching for evolving galaxies in December 1995, focused for 10 continuous days on a tiny patch of sky, so small when viewed from Earth that a grain of sand held at arm’s length would cover that area. This picture of that tiny patch of sky is called Hubble Deep Field North. Most objects in it are not isolated stars, but galaxies, each containing billions of stars. Of the 3,000 galaxies photographed that emitted enough light to measure their redshifts, which presumably measure distance, all seemed surprisingly mature. As stated in Scientific American, “the formation of ‘ordinary’ spiral and elliptical galaxies is apparently still out of reach of most redshift surveys.”16 Moreover, fully formed clusters of galaxies, not just galaxies, are seen at the greatest distances visible to the Hubble Space Telescope.17 In 1998 and 2004, similar pictures—with similar results—were taken.

Think about this. There is not enough time in the age of the universe (even as evolutionists imagine it, times a billion) for gravity to pull together all the particles comprising clusters of galaxies.18 (As explained under “Galaxies” on page 30, clusters of galaxies cannot form, even granting all this time.) Because the most current studies show fully-formed galaxies even farther away than those shown above, creation becomes the logical and obvious alternative. We may be seeing galaxies as they looked months after they were created. Vast amounts of time are no longer needed.
….

Figure 162: Spiral Galaxies. The arms in these six representative spiral galaxies have about the same amount of twist. Their distances from Earth are shown in light-years. (One light-year, the distance light travels in one year, equals 5,879,000,000,000 miles.) For the light from all galaxies to arrive at Earth tonight, the more distant galaxies, which had to release their light long before the closer galaxies, did not have as much time to rotate and twist their arms. Therefore, farther galaxies should have less twist. Of course, if light traveled millions of times faster in the past, the farthest galaxies did not have to send their light long before the nearest galaxies. Spiral galaxies should have similar twists. This turns out to be the case.

Here are some references that support Brown’s arguments. Galaxies.

Like ReMine’s Biotic Message Walter Brown is arguing for a Cosmic Message, that the universe is specifically designed to resist evolutionary interpretations and force one to accept that the most scientifically reasonable solution is that of special creation.

My professor, Trefil, in his book with self-deprecating humor refered to his own theories of galaxy formation as potential snake oil. He entitled one of his chapters in Dark Side “Solution or Snake Oil?”

Indeed, Trefil is honest enough to admit, there are such serious problems in theories of galaxy formation, that the term “snake oil” is appropriate to describe the state of affairs. If Cosmic Message theory is correct, the empirical evidence will continue to resist evolutionary (Big Bang) interpreations of formation in favor of recent special creation. If Cosmic Message is correct, following the evidence where it leads will lead us to the conclusion of recent special creation.

Finally, in addition to Trefils mild skepticism of the Big Bang (which he expresses in his book Dark Side of the Universe), three professor at my former university reject or seriously question the Big Bang. A website that has the list of dissenters and their reasons for rejection can be found at www.CosmologyStatement.org. David Berlinski of the Discovery Institute wrote: Was There a Big Bang?

Beyond every act of understanding, there is an abyss. Like Darwin’s theory of evolution, Big Bang cosmology has undergone that curious social process in which a scientific theory is promoted to a secular myth. The two theories serve as points of certainty in an intellectual culture that is otherwise disposed to give the benefit of the doubt to doubt itself. It is within the mirror of these myths that we have come to see ourselves. But if the promotion of theory into myth satisfies one human agenda, it violates another.
Myths are quite typically false, and science is concerned with truth. Human beings, it would seem, may make scientific theories or they may make myths, but with respect to the same aspects of experience, they cannot quite do both.

jb asked that I post my thoughts on evidences for YEC. He asked in comment #3, Wavelength behavior at a fixed location, Jellison and Bridgman’s critique…

Maybe you could make a blog post elaborating on this in layman/popular-audience terms. What are the specific physical evidences that have moved you more toward accepting a YEC model? What are the problems you’ve identified with galactic, stellar and planetary evolution?

I will offer answers over several threads as the topic is deep. So let me introduce the topic.

Many OECs and Old Earth ID proponents (OEIDs) have risked their careers and reputations in the cause of Intelligent Design. I do not question their integrity and commitment to the truth. And for the Christians OECs and OEIDs, I do not question their desire to see Christianity succeed. I know personally and have grieved along side various OECs and OEIDs who have suffered persecution: Caroline Crocker, Guillermo Gonzalez, William Dembski, Michael Behe, etc. That’s not to even mention the countless others it would be best I not comment on, lest I identify them publicly…..

It’s too simplistic to assert OECs and OIEDs are somehow part of an effort to erode the Christian world view because they accept an old universe. The evidential case for an old universe is very substantial. If one thinks the Bible absolutely says the world is young, one must wrestle with the evidential case that it is old, and the evidential case is formidable.

I do not think for one second the case for mindless abiogenesis or Darwinian evolution has substantial merit, and my experience over the years has only reinforced that view. The case for Intelligent Deisgn is substantial, the case for special creation (versus universal common ancestry) is not quite as substantial as the case for ID, but formidable.

[For those who accept special creation (as I do), I would like to point out we still have our work cut out for us. I would like to point out this fine paper by the president of BSG, Todd Wood: The Chimpanzee Genome and the Problem of Biological Similarity. Wood is exemplary in his willingness to criticize the YEC hypothesis which he holds dear. That spirit of open and honest inquiry will bear fruit in due season, and that is the spirit I hope to foster at YoungCosmos...]

It is with that spirit of Wood’s openess I explore the question of the age of the universe. But first some basics. How do we know the universe is not eternal? The simple answer is the stars cannot be burning forever. The laws of thermodynamics suggest, like a car running out of gas, the universe is running out of fuel, hence it could not be eternal.

We can thus put an outer bound of maybe billions or trillions of years, but for the most part it’s hard to argue the universe is eternal. It is “young” in that sense, since it is not from everlasting to everlasting.

The question then is how old is the universe if it’s not eternal? There are two prinicple reasons to think it is billions of years, none of which have to do with metaphysics, namely distant starlight and long-term radiometric dating.

We use speed of light to measure all sorts of things today. We are able to tell how far one object is from another by using laser range finders. This is real science. On the presumption of a constant speed of light we can build things like laser guided smart bombs. It stands to reason then, that if laser range finding works so well on Earth, the concept would be extrapolatable to anything else. Indeed, we are able to exptrapolate these ideas to determining the distances to spacecraft. Thus, with some modification of the math we use in laser range finders, we might be tempted, nay, compelled to say far away stars must have been in existence long ago, otherwise, presuming a constant speed of light, we would not be seeing them today. Ergo, the universe is billions of years old.

[I can't begin to tell you how grating it is to people who build devices like laser range finders and space craft to be dismissed by YECs as compromising the word of God. Unlike Darwinian evolution, the physics behind Old-Earth theory actually has real world application for the benefit of humanity. It should not be dismissed by theological fiat. It must be resolved scientifically for the Old Earth view to be overturned.]

Furthermore, long term radiometric dating suggests an old earth. Like fuel being consumed, we see the consumption of radioactive material. The very natural interpretation is an old universe. Combined with the light speed considerations, the inference to an old universe is almost irresistible. I cringe to hear suggestions that Old Earth ideas were mainly an attempt to erode Christian beliefs.

And irony of ironies, it was the greatest YEC scientist, math and physics genius James Clerk Maxwell, whose equations suggested the constancy of the speed of light, and thus Maxwell’s equations unwittingly signed the death sentence to YEC theory. Ah, but the executioner could not quite deliver the fatal blow to YEC….

YEC, on evidential grounds could be rescued if the problem of distant startlight and radiometric dating could be solved. In fact, research can proceed even if at least tentative solutions to these two major problems were being actively pursued. I for one, and the researchers at Loma Linda/GRI determined the C-14 dates for various fossils were absolutely fallacious. In fact, the provider of one of the C-14 data points in the 1970s, Reiner von Protsch, was found out in 2004 to have fabricated C-14 dates. It was no surprise to me or the researchers at Loma Linda/GRI. The evidence pointed to data being pulled completely out of the air.

The following papers (not easy reading!) describe why the following graph demonstrates systematic errors in C-14 dating. The downward slope in the data points indicates an error. If C-14 dating were reliable, the points should be horizontal not sloping downward:

See: Amino Acid Dating by bio-chemist Michael Brown

Amino Acid Dating by RH Brown

And hence, the doubts began to continue that there may be good reason to consider YEC.

Before I go into more detials, I should be careful to note, there are several separate issues:

1. Problems with the Big Bang vs. Special Creation
2. Age of the genomes
3. Age of the geological column
4. Age of the Earth
5. Age of the Solar System
6. Age of Stars
7. Age of Galaxies
8. Age of the Universe

One could argue the universe could be old, but life was recently created (an OEC position). Or one could argue the universe is old but the solar system is young, etc. To see why this is important, it would be illogical to point to a five-year-old child and argue the universe is young because the child is young. In like manner, one must be careful to not make the same mistake with the age of the universe. One could look at the young rings of saturn, young comets, etc. and one could still not convincingly argue the WHOLE universe is young. One could legitimately argue the rings of Saturn are young, the comets are young, but beyond that, one is probably making an invalid inference.

There are numerous markers for each of the above 8 items in favor of YEC. The case for YEC is more believable as we see that each of the 8 suggests youth and/or special creation. But again, caution is in order, the youth of items 2-7 does not imply the youth of the whole universe, but the YECs must prove the first 7 to prove their case. In the parlance of math and logic, we would say YEC-friendly evidence in the first 7 items is a necessary but not sufficient condition to infer YEC. Fortunately, those 7 items have evidence in YECs favor. I will, God willing, blog on those 7 issues.

So what would suggest a young universe, assuming we can solve the problem of distant starlight and radiometric dating? How do we solve item #8? Under the assumption of a constant speed of light we hypothesize the objects the farthest from us should look the youngest, since we are supposedly looking at events that happened 13.4 billion years ago.

There are various markers for age. But suffice it to say, something young should not look like something old. The stars and galaxies near us are presumably old, and the ones far away should look presumably young. Thus we would expect the ones far away should not look like the ones nearby since the ones far away ought to look very young. But is that the case? Nope!

Here is an observation by one of the scientists looking at the early universe. It looked OLD (or rather the paradigm is all wrong)!

“It’s becoming more and more clear that the young universe was a big zoo with animals of all sorts,” said Labbé, lead author of the study. “There’s as much variety in the early universe as we see around us today.”
The most surprising of these animals are the dead galaxies that literally ran out of gas – or at least cold gas – for making new stars. These giants suffocated far sooner than expected.

“We are really amazed – these are the earliest, oldest galaxies found to date,” Labbé said. “Their existence was not predicted by theory and it pushes back the formation epoch of some of the most massive galaxies we see today.“

Surprising New View of Early Universe, Space, March 2005

The alternative view is that the nearby stars and galaxies are young, and we have only supposed that the nearby stars and galaxies are old. When we adopt the view that the nearby stars and galaxies are young, the mystery that confronted Labbe disappears.

But do we simply presume the universe is young and be done with it? In the interest of being thorough, I suggest the YECs must solve the problem of distant starlight and long-term radiometric dating. Even though my research and that of Loma Linda/GRI has cast doubt on C-14 dates, the issue of other isotopes still formidably argues for an old universe. These other isotopes are used for long-term radiometric dating (billions of years) whereas C-14 is for relatively short term (millions of years). If the YECs can overcome the problem of distant starlight and long-term radiometric dating, they will make a compelling scientific case for a young cosmos. Until then, I think we’re in something of a stalemate, but I’m cautiously optimistic.

I will obviously have to write more on these topics.

Note:
The big bang argues for seeing aged stars nearby and young stars far from us. This is figuratively illustrated with the three people below going from left (nearby stars) to right (far away stars):

In actuality, what we see is more akin to seeing every thing about the same age like the triplets below:

http://smartaxes.com/blog/yec-resources-online/

(HT: Crevo at Baraminology weblog)