Duane Caldwell | posted 11 June, 2017
Cosmologists Today: Tilting at Windmills
I, Don Quixote!
So sings the title character of the hit movie and play Man of La Mancha based on the book Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes. Don Quixote is the name adopted by Alonso Quixano a likeable, less-than-affluent, well read fellow, well past his prime who lives with his niece in the Spanish village of La Mancha. He reaches a point where all his days "from dawn to dark " are spent reading his favored books: those of the tales of chivalry and the deeds of errant knights from days long ago. However being past his prime, and "with little sleep and much reading his brains got so dry that he lost his wits.". He was so immersed in the tales that with his waning faculties, he lost the ability to distinguish between what was fact and what was fiction. To the point where he believed that "the whole fabric of invention and fancy he read of was true..."
And thus Quixano decides to adopt the distinguished name of Don Quixote de La Mancha, become an errant knight and go off in search of adventures to right wrongs and fight injustice. Perhaps the most memorable of which is when he comes upon some windmills which he imagines to be giants, and begins jousting with them from his aging and arthritic horse. It's from this scene we get the phrase "tilting [or jousting] at windmills" which originally meant to fight against imaginary or unimportant enemies or issues. But as a Yahoo aficionado points out, figuratively it has come to mean "a futile activity."
Which brings us to the current state of affairs in cosmology. Many cosmologists these days are like Don Quixote - jousting at imagined problems that are a result of their imagined theories in order to obtain great glory. And like Quixote, they are so taken with their own theories they never realize they have set for themselves an impossible, futile task since they have rejected a search for the truth and are instead trying to confirm theories which only contain processes allowable by their de facto god: methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism allows only material, natural processes; no miracles; no interventions by God - even if the story makes no sense and doesn't match observable facts. The more honest among them admit as much - that the goal is not to find the truth, but to see how much they can explain apart from God.
But in their rejection of the truth in favor of what they can explain apart from God, we are beginning to see a quiet desperation as their theories continue to be exposed as failures and frauds since they are simply unable to correctly describe reality within their self imposed cage of methodological naturalism.
Judging from current events in cosmology, there's a quiet desperation growing among the ranks of secular cosmologists - those who subscribe to the tenets of methodological naturalism as we begin to see defections from secular orthodoxy among big bang cosmologists. And it's all due to the fact that their long cuddled, nursed and prized theory - the big bang theory - is just not yielding the evidence needed. The evidence I speak of is not evidence needed to prove it true - as Einstein stated no amount of experimentation can do that - rather the evidence they really needs is that to keep it from being proved false and totally untenable. Yet such evidence has yet to be found.
So let me go on record here and make some predictions - you know the things they claim creationists don't do. These are predictions around evidence needed to keep the big bang from being proved to be totally false and untenable. Like a bird without wings cannot fly, the big bang without these add-ons theories cannot fly. But they won't find evidence of these add-ons which once against draws attention to the fact that the theory simply doesn't work.
What Scientists are looking for but won't find
1. Scientists won't find a particle that fits the description of what an "inflaton" does.
The Big Bang theory, by itself, does not work. So they've had to tack on a bunch of helping theories to make the thing even feasible. One of those tacked-on theories is the theory of inflation. Inflation is needed to solve a number of problems the Big Bang has, most notably, what is known as the Horizon Problem, as well as another problems such as the flatness, smoothness and magnetic monopole problems. Like all forces, scientists believe that inflation is governed by a particle which they have dubbed the "inflaton". Based on the fact that inflation never happened, I have previously predicted (and stand by my prediction) that scientists will never find a particle that behaves as the inflaton is supposed to make inflation behave because inflation - as the big bang theorists describe it - never happened.
Formerly only Big Bang doubters (typically creationists) stood against inflation, but now some well known scientists - some former standard big bang theory supporters - are also blowing the whistle on inflation saying they doubt it happened. Princeton physicist Anna Ijjas, Harvard astronomer Abraham Loeb, and Paul Steinhardt, the Albert Einstein Professor in Science at Princeton University, state:
Inflation is part of secular cosmology orthodoxy, so as I noted above, we're beginning to see defections from standard scientific orthodoxy. That's to be expected since it's become painfully obvious that the big bang theory simply doesn't work to describe how the universe we observe came about.
2. Scientists won't find the Dark Matter particle they're looking for.
Dark matter is now another add on
requirement of the big bang theory. This is because with without dark
matter, the big bang theory cannot explain either how stars form,
galaxies form, or why
distant galaxy clusters are rotating too fast. Scientists have been
looking for dark matter, unsuccessfully, for over 40 years. I list
6 experiments conducting dark matter searches
here, and 2 other searches
here. In that last group of two is included Rafael Lang, who has
been searching for dark matter particles using 100 kilos of inert liquid
Xenon as a detector. (If a dark matter particle flies through it, it
will leave a detectable trail of light.) Having been unsuccessful with
the 100 kilo tank, scientists wanted to move up to a 1 ton tank - which is
approximately 100 times larger. Well, after 3 years of construction, the
new 1 ton Xenon detector, "the world's most sensitive dark matter
detector" as NBC news reports - is now online and operating - though it
has not yet detected any dark matter. Nuclear physicist Marcello
Messina is one of the scientists at Gran Sasso Laboratories in Italy
where the detector is located. Messina is looking for dark
matter, but he recognizes the low probability of detecting the particle
they're looking for:
So not only is the particle difficult to detect, there is a very narrow range of test results that will indicate success. Remember - they're looking for a particle with the following properties:
Did you get all that? In summary, here is what scientists are saying are the properties of the dark matter they're looking for:
Most scientists agree with the summary conclusion that "... all this adds up to one thing: we're looking for a new particle."
Is it reasonable to believe that such a particle exists? Perhaps the most impressive evidence that dark matter believers adduce in support of dark matter are Einstein rings. Albert Einstein predicted that gravity can bend light (you can see Einstein's description of the effect in a letter here). From that basic property he predicted the existence of rings of light, bent by the strong gravity of massive galaxies in front of distant galaxies. The gravity of the nearer massive galaxy between the observer and the distant galaxy acts like a lens that bends the light from the distant galaxy around the near galaxy, creating arcs of light around the near galaxy. This effect is called gravitational lensing.
Such gravitational lensing - when the foreground galaxy is not in apparent, is taken by some scientists as "conclusive evidence" of dark matter:
Notice Nichols also takes this "cloud of dark matter particles" as evidence of WIMPs as opposed to MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects) such as brown stars or black holes.
Which is more reasonable - to believe that a particle with such properties exists, or doesn't exist? Ultimately, it all comes down to your worldview. Christian scientist Dr. Danny Faulkner cautions Christians that we should not be too quick to dismiss the idea of dark matter simply because secular scientists use it as a rescue theory for the Big Bang. He also points out that the fact that scientists have not found the particle they're looking for, does not mean that dark matter doesn't exist. Speaking of the Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPS) a type of dark matter most scientists believe the dark matter (if it exists) will turn out to be, he states:
With that I can agree. The WIMPS scientists are searching for likely do not exist. But as I mentioned above - ultimately what you believe about dark matter is entirely dependent on your worldview. Secular scientists need dark matter to rescue the big bang theory from a number of things it can't explain by itself, such as the formation of stars, galaxies (and thus everything that exists in them - all of life), as well as the rotational speeds of distant galaxy clusters. But Dr. Faulkner suggests that "there is good observational evidence for dark matter." Among other things he points to the above referenced evidences of galaxies orbiting too fast and Einstein rings. Thus he throws a life line to the sinking big bang theory. I would offer no such life line because 1. the big bang theory is obviously wrong; and that includes its supporting mechanism - dark matter; and 2. cosmologists and scientists have too often gone tilting at windmills, refusing to believe what the Bible says, supporting instead some theory contrary to revealed truth, and have been time and again proved wrong.
Furthermore, cosmologist and
Bible Science Forum
proprietor Dr. John Hartnett
points out there are explanations for both Einstein rings and
galaxies with too fast orbital velocities
that don't invoke dark matter. What Dr.
Faulkner doesn't mention are the big bang requirements that make dark
matter a necessity. One look at these requirements will show you why the
big bang beginning of the universe is inconsistent with a biblical one.
One need merely answer the question: in the beginning what was first?
Water or plasma?
The Big Bang says:
And speaking of the instants immediately after the supposed singularity:
Astrophysicist Hakeem Oluseyi explains that plasma "is a gas that
has been heated so much the electrons get ripped off the atoms. And now
you have a mix of these elementary particles which all have a charge
flying around. We call it the fourth state of matter: solid, liquid,
gas, plasma" 
To everyone I ask: which is more reasonable to believe? Unseen, undetectable, hypothetical, poorly understood dark matter championed by secular scientist trying to save the godless big bang theory; or unseen, unsearched for, but well understood and well known matter (namely water) that God, who does not lie (Num 23.19), says he created in the beginning and placed in the outer reaches of space? It makes more sense to believe the witness who was there and who actually brought it about. That would be God. That of course requires faith that God is truthful (John 17.17) - which is a concept that is anathema to scientists. Yet they have no problem with telling us we must have faith in fallible humans with an agenda who are often wrong when it comes to making predictions based on their assumptions about the universe. For examples of that you need merely learn the Lessons from Pluto.
But scientists have not learned those lessons, nor will they acknowledge that multiple lines of evidence demonstrate that the big bang theory is simply wrong. (The lack of detection of either inflatons or WIMPs being among of them.) Thus secular scientists will not stop tilting at cosmic windmills trying to find the missing pieces of their intentionally godless theories, whether it be inflatons, dark matter WIMPs, multiverses, extra-terrestrial aliens, missing links, their asteroid explanation to what happened to the dinosaurs or whatever. They will keep tilting at these windmills just like Don Quixote, because they, like him, are true believers in the fantasy stories they've told themselves too many times over too many years.
Duane Caldwell | posted 11 June, 2017
3. Yahoo! Answers,
BebotinBangkok, accessed 5/30/2017
4. Richard E.
Dickerson [evolutionist scientist]: "The Game of Science."
Perspectives on Science and Faith, (Volume 44, June 1992), p. 137,
6. The Big Bang should
have re-collapsed onto itself - but inflation fixes that blowing things
apart too fast for it to re-collapse.
7. I describe the
behavior/problems with inflation in
Which Theory has the fatal flaw and described the inflaton, and
what properties it needs to give inflation in
Should Christians Believe in a Multiverse - 7 Reasons against
and stated the inflaton doesn't exist, and thus predicted it will never
8. Don Galeon, "Stephen
Hawking Responds to Colleagues’ Critical Article on the Origins of the
Universe",Futurism, May 12, 2017,
10. Ian O'Neil "World's
Most Sensitive Dark Matter Detector Gives Its First Results",
NBCnews.com, May 26, 2017,
21. Danny Faulkner, "The Case For Dark
Matter", Answers In Genesis, March 22, 2017,
23. On Einstein rings /
Gravitational lensing, see:
24. On an alternate
explanation for galaxy rotational curves that doesn't involve dark
Christian scientist Russell Humphreys
waters above the sky in his presentation on
Creation in the 21st Century,
episode “Starlight Time and Physics”, TBN broadcast 8/26/2016; archived
starting at time mark 9:00 , esp 9:40-9:50
a list 20 problems with the Big Bang theory, see:
Chesire Cat Einstein rings - NASA (public domain)
Wind mill Sint Janshuismolen © artjazz | Fotolia (used by permission)
Starfield: Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) | NASA/JPL-Caltech/STScI/IRAM (public domain)