The Cosmos: Hiding in the light (Part 5)
By Steve Rowitt, Th.M., Ph.D.
This installment of The Cosmos miniseries begins with our host and narrator, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, telling us, “The age and size of the cosmos are written in the light. The nature of beauty, the substance of the stars, the laws of space and time, they were there all along. But we never saw them until we devised a more powerful way of seeing.”
Our narrator continues, “The story of this awakening has many beginnings and no ending. Its heroes come from many times and places. An ancient Chinese philosopher, a wizard who amazed a caliph of 11th century Iraq, a poor German orphan enslaved to a harsh master, each one brought us a little closer to unlocking the secrets of the light.”
Now the animators take us back to those primitive cave dwellers. It’s a scene of domestic tranquility with a father and son sitting around a fire working with crude tools. We are told, “Most of their names (those heroes of the light) are lost to us, but somewhere long ago (now we see the child look up) someone looked up to see the light perform one of its magic tricks.” Now our animated cave-child walks over to the wall and begins to trace the outline of something that has appeared there. The rest of his relatives look on with curiosity at the fledgling Picasso. Dr. Tyson notes, “Who knows, maybe that quirk of light inspired the very first artists.” Now we see that there was a horse grazing right outside the cave’s window (they must have been well-to-do cave dwellers) reflecting its image onto the wall of that cave.
We cut to a night scene of a large city. Dr. Tyson asks, “Were did all this come from; a small band of hunter/gatherers to become the builders of a global civilization. How did we get from there to here? There’s only one answer.” Now I’ve been reporting on this series for some time so we know from previous installments that it’s definitely not going to be “In the beginning God, Gen. 1:1. He continues, “Climate change, the domestication of fire, the invention of tools, language, architecture, all played a role. Maybe there was something else too.”
Now we return to animation as our narrator continues, “In China, more than two thousand years ago a philosopher named Motze (also spelled Mozi, circa 470-391 BC) observed that light can paint a picture inside a locked treasure room.” As the animator recreates this demonstration by Motze, Dr. Tyson tells us, “This was the description of the first camera obscura. This was the prototype for all image forming cameras, including the one that’s bringing you this picture taking advantage of this funny thing that light does resulting in what could be called the first movie.” As we hear this description, we see the inventor projecting his image into the darkened tent as he demonstrates several Kung Fu stances.
Dr. Tyson tells us, “Motze, master of light, worked against all forms of darkness, a military genius who only used his talents to prevent violence. He was legendary for travelling among the kingdoms of the warring States employing ingenious strategies to talk Kings out of going to war.” Now Dr. Tyson begins to border on hero worship as he tells us, “He (Motze) was one of the first to dream of universal love and an end to poverty and other forms of inequality, of governments for the people and to argue against blind obedience to ritual and authority.” Furthermore, we are told, “In his writings, you can find early stirrings of a scientific approach. By Motze’s time, the Chinese had already been recording their thoughts in books, (we see a scribe writing as our narrator continues), for at least a thousand years. Still, our knowledge of him is only fragmentary.” I was somewhat startled to hear him say that “our knowledge of him was only fragmentary.” After all, Dr. Tyson painted a picture of this individual that was almost messianic. He told us Motze was a warrior who fought to bring peace among the warlords of China. He was perhaps the very first flower child, spreading a message of universal love among his people. He wanted to end poverty and inequality, end oppression and he was an early proponent of the scientific method. Then I remembered that Dr. Tyson sees science, at least the evolutionary version of science, as being the source of ultimate truth. For Dr. Tyson, science has eliminated the need for God. Now I understood the glowing, messiah-like terms with which he was speaking of Motze.
Then Dr. Tyson continues, “The source of our fragmentary understanding of this pre-renaissance man was a collection of essays attributed to him and his disciples. In one of them, entitled Against Fate, there is a three-pronged test for every doctrine that is proposed. First, question its basics. Ask if it can be verified by the sights and senses of the common people and benefit the greatest number.” Dr. Tyson tells us, “Motze was extremely popular.” But as he says this, we see a gang pushing their way into the home of what we presume is the disciples of Motze. Our narrator explains, “But a few hundred years after his death, China’s first Emperor and unifier of China, Qin Shi Huang, took power. He took a continent and turned it into a nation that now bears his name, China. Most of us know the Emperor Qin by the army of terracotta warriors that guard his tomb.
In Emperor Qin’s drive to consolidate his far-flung empire, He took drastic measures to standardize everything within it. This included mandating a single coinage, making uniform all weights and measures, widths and carts and roads as well as the precise way the Chinese language was to be written, including what you were allowed to write and think. The Emperor Qin’s philosophy was legalism, which was just what it sounds like. Do as I say or else!” Dr. Tyson explains, “It’s a philosophy that is not highly conducive to questioning authority.”
Now the animators show us one of the Emperors’s enforcers reading a decree to the people that ordered “all the books of the ‘Hundred Schools of Thought’ shall be burned” as we see piles of books being set aflame. The proclamation continues, “Anyone who uses history to criticize the present shall have his family executed.” Dr. Tyson chimes in, “The works of Motze, Confucius and other philosophers were destroyed in the world’s first book burning. Hundreds of scholars bravely resisted by trying to preserve the forbidden books, but they were buried alive in the capital.”
We go back to a familiar scene shown throughout the series. Dr. Tyson is standing by a campfire and as he says, “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority and the open exchange of ideas.” I guess he isn’t speaking about those scholars at the Discovery Institute who are proponents of the Theory of Intelligent Design or creationists or anyone else that does not swear allegiance to the theory of Evolution. The defenders of all things Darwin reject any explanation that does not conform to their own legalistic evolutionary worldview. It’s only science if they deem it to be so. Dr. Tyson continues, “The sparks of curiosity in the writings of Motze and his disciples were effectively stomped out. It would be another thousand years before the next movie.” Not to worry, because our narrator explains, “Luckily, our Ship of the Imagination can take us anywhere in space and time.” Now we are back on the spaceship where the story continues. “The ancient Chinese and Greeks observed that light could be made to do wonderful things, but no one asked that question favored by small children and geniuses alike. Why?
Now we see an ancient city appear on the TV screen. Dr. Tyson tells us, “In the city of Basra, Iraq, there lived another master of the light. Ibn al-Alhazen (965-1040 AD) had a passionate desire to understand nature. He questioned everything, especially those things that everyone else took for granted.” Now the animator shows us a likeness of Alhazen as he tells us that Alhazen asked, “How do we see?” Dr. Tyson continues, “Some of the great authorities that came before him taught that rays come out of our eyes and travel to the objects we see before returning to our eyes. But Alhazen reasoned that the stars were too far distant for something in our eyes to travel all the way to them and back in the blink of an eye.” Tyson notes, “Excellent reasoning. He didn’t stop there. He searched for ways to compel nature to divulge her secrets.”
Now we see an animation of Alhazen using a quill pen to sketch his ideas on paper. Our narrator continues, “His culture was open to new ideas and questioning. It was the Golden Age of Science in the Islamic world, one that stretched from Cordova in Spain all the way to Samarkand in central Asia. Christian and Jewish scholars were honored guests at the research institutes in Bagdad, Cairo and other Islamic capitals. Instead of burning books, the caliphs sent emissaries all around the world in search of books.” The animators show us a ship sailing on rough seas and a caravan of Muslims on camels as ziggurats and the pyramids pass by in the background.
Now we see Dr. Tyson standing in front of a tent in the desert as he tells us, “The caliphs lavishly funded projects to translate, study, and preserve them for future generations. Much of light of ancient Greek science would have been permanently extinguished without their efforts. The reawakening to science that took place in Europe hundreds of years later was kindled by the flames that were long tended by the Islamic scholars and scientists. The Arabs also imported ideas from India to the west, including the so-called Arabic numerals that we all use today, and the concept of zero.” Now Dr. Tyson quips, “It comes in handy when you want to write billions and billions.”
Not only do the fossils say no, the statistics say no as well
I knew it wouldn’t be long before the subject of deep time made its way into this history of science during Islam’s Golden Age of Science. After all, ‘billions and billions’ became part of a mantra repeated by evolutionists ever since they realized that the evidence for their theory was missing. When the proof failed to show up in the fossil record, the evolutionary faithful came up with the concept of punctuation. [Gould, Stephen Jay, & Eldredge, Niles (1977). “Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered.” Paleobiology 3 (2): 115-151.] Of course, there is little evidence of change because change is happened too quickly. That was after decades of insisting that the process was so slow as to be virtually invisible. Consider the following excerpt from an article entitled, “Why Darwin couldn’t define the word species.”
Remember, Darwin’s theory predicted that a continuum of living organisms will exist in the past, thereby confirming that all life began evolving from a single-celled microorganism approximately 2 billion years ago. Punctuated Equilibria is yet another convenient “secondary” explanation, another “just so” story of Darwinism, given to explain why Darwin’s prediction failed, and the evidence of goo-to-you is absent from the fossil record. But, do we have any empirical confirmation for Punctuated Equilibria, or is this just another in a long line of “just so” stories intended to explain away the gaps, e.g. the empty spaces where transitional fossils should be?
It seems that in the world of Darwinian evolution, you get to say anything you want. Both the gaps in the fossil record as well as the transitional fossils are placed on the plus side of the evidence column for the Theory of Evolution. Evolutionists get to have their cake (gaps in the fossil record where transitional fossils should be) and eat it too (transitional fossils where the gaps should be). This is done, even though gaps are allegedly the result of fast changes; changes that happen so quickly that they cannot be documented in the real world. The transitional fossils, allegedly evidence of the slow gradual changes Darwin did, in fact, predict is also used as support for the Theory of Evolution. [Rowitt, S. (2011). Why Darwin couldn’t define the word species. Creation Studies Institute Nov. 8, 2011. Accessed 7.15.14.]
When we examine the idea that a ‘simple’ cell could form by evolutionary means, Dan Batten, Ph.D. in agronomy and horticultural science writes the following:
The argument from probability that life could not form by natural processes but must have been created is sometimes acknowledged by evolutionists as a strong argument. [D.A. Bradbury, D.A. (1993). ‘Reply to Landau and Landau’, Creation/Evolution 13(2):48–49, 1993.] The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 1057800. [D.A. Bradbury, D.A. (1993). Ibid.] This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros. It would take 11 full pages of magazine type to print this number. To try to put this in perspective, there are about 1080 (a number with 80 zeros) electrons in the universe. Even if every electron in our universe were another universe the same size as ours that would ‘only’ amount to 10160 electrons. [Batten, D. (1995). Cheating with chance. Creation 17(2):14–15 March 1995.]
When confronted with the facts concerning the statistical impossibility of the evolution of a simple cell, the evolutionists resort to other far-fetched concepts such as an infinite number of universes or some other incarnation of multi-verse theory. [Koonin, E.V. (2012). The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.] If having an infinite number of universes fails, they can always fall back on the tried and true given enough time anything is possible.
Additional evidence of this problem is noted in John Woodmorappe’s, M.A. review of evolutionist Eugene V. Koonin’s book, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution.
In fact, so baffling is the naturalistic origin of life that Koonin cannot even suggest if it is ostensibly the product of presently unknown factors or if it is the product of chance writ large.
“The profound difficulty of the origin of life problem might appear effectively insurmountable, compelling one to ask extremely general questions that go beyond the realm of biology. Did certain factors that were critical at the time of the origin of life but that are hidden from our view now significantly change these numbers and make the origin of life more likely? Or is it possible that the processes that form the foundation for the origin of life are as difficult as we imagine, but the number of trials is so huge that the appearance of life forms in one or more of them is likely or even inevitable? In other words, is it conceivable that our very concepts of probability are inadequate?” (pp. 382–383). [Woodmorappe, J. (2013). Chance or more than chance? A review of The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution by Eugene V. Koonin. Journal of Creation 27(1):36–38 April 2013. Accessed 6.14.14.]
Deep time has always been an important part of the evolutionary paradigm. Apparently you need massive amounts of time for molecules to morph themselves into men. There is only one problem with the billions and billions of years, it makes no difference whatsoever. In fact, deep time is really a red herring, a misleading concept introduced into the evolutionary scenario in order to bolster the overall theory. According to the probability experts, there is not enough time or matter in the known universe to support the Theory of Evolution. This is true whether we are talking about chemical evolution (galaxies, stars, planets) or biological evolution (rocks to Rowitt).
The usual reply to creationists or Intelligent Design theorists with regard to probabilities seems to be that they really don’t matter, because you cannot posit all the variables. That same argument does not seem to bother them at all when they postulate their fanciful musings with regard to the Big Bang or abiogenesis. Consider the evolutionary response to the now famous statement by English astronomer and author of the Theory of Stellar Nucleosynthesis, Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001). Although he was a lifelong atheist, his view of the concept of abiogenesis has become a common argument against the evolutionary paradigm. Dr. Hoyle seems to have sinned on two counts with regard to the Theory of Evolution. First, he rejected the Big Bang.
He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, “for it’s an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms.”[Smith, Quentin (1992). A Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God's Nonexistence.(as cited in Wikipedia, 2014). Fred Hoyle. The Rejection of the Big Bang. Accessed 7.3.14.]
The big bang cosmological theory is relevant to Christian theism and other theist perspectives since it represents the universe as beginning to exist ex nihilo about 15 billion years ago. This paper addresses the question of whether it is reasonable to believe that God created the big bang. Some theists answer in the affirmative, but it is argued in this paper that this belief is not reasonable. In the course of this argument, there is a discussion of the metaphysical necessity of natural laws, of whether the law of causality is true a priori, and of other pertinent issues. [Smith, Quentin (1992). Ibid.]
Dr. Hoyle’s second indiscretion was a statement concerning his rejection of the concept of earth-based abiogenesis.
The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. [Hoyle, Fred (1983). The Intelligent Universe. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. p.10 (as cited in Wikipedia, 2014) Junkyard Tornado. Fred Hoyle’s statement.]
This is a reflection of his stance reported elsewhere:
Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes? [Hoyle, Fred (1983). Ibid.]
As is the case with every alternative explanation or criticism, evolutionary theory is always rigorously protected. Sometimes they claim that evolution does not cover the subject of origins when several proponents of Darwin clearly know that this is not true. Just a cursory look at Wikipedia’s webpage on the subject of abiogenesis or the newest terminology being applied to the origin of life, biopoiesis, reveals no less than 246 references. All to a variety of related subjects from J.B. Bernal’s (1960) Problem of the stages in biopoesis that appeared in the journal Aspects of the Origin of Life to spontaneous generation to the primordial soup and proteinoids to RNA duplication and protocells. Never mind that no one has ever seen a protocell. Add to this other highly speculative “just so” stories such as Zn-World (zinc), Clay, Deep Vent hypotheses along with Gold’s deep hot biosphere model and the Primitive extraterrestrial life, extraterrestrial organic molecules, the Lipid world theory, polyphosphates and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) world hypotheses among others and the claim that evolution has nothing to do with origins cannot be supported. [Wikipedia (2014). Abiogenesis. Accessed 7.3.14.]
Dr. Tyson continues his history of science lesson by telling us, “Arabic astronomy was so influential that we still call most of the bright stars by their Arabic names. It was here that I was reminded of the One who not only created the stars, but He named every one of them.
He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name. Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite, Psalm 147:4-5
Even though scientists have always understood that there were millions of stars in the known universe, it was not until the Hubble telescope that we can peer out to the furthest edges of the cosmos. Back when the original narrator of the first Cosmos miniseries, Carl Sagan, made the phrase “billions and billions” famous, they thought that there might be 100 billion galaxies each with 100 billion stars. Today they know that was an enormous underestimation. Yale University astronomer Pieter van Dokkum and Harvard astrophysicist Charlie Conroy have adjusted Sagan’s original estimation up, way up.
Van Dokkum's work takes these numbers and adjusts them. That's because some of those galaxies – the elliptical ones, which account for about a third of all galaxies – have as many as 1 trillion to 10 trillion stars, not a measly 100 billion. When van Dokkum and Conroy crunched the incredibly big numbers, they found that it tripled the estimate of stars in the universe from 100 sextillion to 300 sextillion.
That's a huge number to grasp, even for astronomers who are used to dealing in light years and trillions, Conroy said. [Borenstein, S. (2010). Number Of Stars In The Universe Could Be 300 Sextillion, Triple The Amount Scientists Previously Thought: Study. Huff Post 12/ 1/10 09:32 PM ET, Accessed 6.14.14.]
“It's fun because it gets you thinking about these large numbers,” Conroy said. Conroy looked up how many cells are in the average human body – 50 trillion or so – and multiplied that by the 6 billion people on Earth. And he came up with about 300 sextillion. [Borenstein, S. (2010). Ibid.]
[This] study suggests there are a mind-blowing 300 sextillion of them, or three times as many as scientists previously calculated. That is a 3 followed by 23 zeros, or 3 trillion times 100 billion. If anyone wants to know what this number looks like in simple math terms it would be a 3 followed by 23 zeros or 3 trillion times 100 billion. [Borenstein, S. (2010). Ibid.]
Is it any wonder that the Word of God declares, “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created,” Rev. 4:11. I do not expect the writers of the Cosmos to offer any such praise to the One who spoke the universe into existence in six 24-hour days. The closest Neil DeGrasse Tyson will come to this is a passing reference to the female deity of evolutionary theory, Mother Nature.
The accolades concerning the Golden Age of Science in the Islamic world continue with, “The ‘al’s in algebra, alchemy, algorithm and alcohol are just some of the traces left from the time when Arabic was the language of science.” Our narrator continues, “In the 11th century, Ibn al-Alhazen set about trying to test his ideas about light.” Now we see Dr. Tyson standing beside the pyramids as he says, “He (Alhazen) erected a tent in full daylight and sealed it tightly so only a single ray of light could pierce the darkness. With little more than his brains, a straight piece of wood (as a ruler) Alhazen had accomplished a great leap in the history of science. He had discovered that light moves in straight lines.” With this we actually see Dr. Tyson holding that wooden ruler up to the single hole in the tent as Dr. Tyson says, “But he was just getting started.”
We are told that “Alhazen figured out that the key to forming any image whether you’re talking about an eye or a camera obscura is a small opening to restrict the light that can enter an otherwise darkened chamber.” As Dr. Tyson points to the small hole in the side of the tent he says, “That aperture excludes the chaos of extraneous light rays that surround us. The smaller the aperture the fewer directions the light can come from. That makes the image sharper. So, instead of being blinded by the light, it can see everything it has to show us.”
The animators now take us back in time where we see Alhazen demonstrating his camera obscura as we are told, “Alhazen dazzled the caliphs. A camera obscura works best in bright light. The stars of the night sky are too dim for this. You somehow need a bigger opening to collect light. But we also need to maintain focus.” Now our narrator is giving us the basics noting, “A telescope collects light from any spot in its field of view across the entire lens or mirror, an opening much larger than the camera obscura hole. This is one of the first telescopes, the one that Galileo looked through in 1609. With it he pulled aside the heavy curtain of night and began to discover the cosmos.”
We cut to a scene of Dr. Tyson standing in a field looking up. Then we see a man holding a lens up to his eye as our narrator says, “The lens made it possible for a telescope to have a much larger light collecting area than our eyes have. Big buckets catch more rain than small ones.” As the animators give us a visual of this statement we hear, “Modern telescopes have much larger collecting areas, highly sensitive detectors and they track the same object for hours at a time. Now we see an observatory telescope being covered by the familiar dome) to accumulate as much of its light as possible. Space-based telescopes such as the Hubble have captured light from the most distant galaxies.” Here we see one of the Hubble Deep Field photos similar to this one as Dr. Tyson concludes, “Giving us vastly clearer pictures of the outer edges of the cosmos.”
The Hubble eXtreme Deep Field picture was made over 10 years from time exposures totaling 2 million seconds or 23 days. It shows about 5,500 galaxies in a patch of sky less than one-tenth the size of the full moon. Credit: NASA, ESA, G. Illingworth, D. Magee, and P. Oesch (University of California, Santa Cruz), R. Bouwens (Leiden University), and the HUDF09 Team.
There were several important discoveries that the Hubble telescope made possible. One had to do with our concept of size. The pictures revealed that the universe is wildly larger than anyone previously predicted. The astronomy department at Harvard seems to be noncommittal for a variety of reasons.
No one knows if the universe is infinitely large, or even if ours is the only universe there is.
Although our view of the universe is limited, our imaginations are not. Astronomers have indirect evidence that the universe of galaxies extends far beyond the region we can see. But no one knows if the whole universe is infinitely large - large beyond limit.
According to the leading theories, other parts of the universe may look very different from our own - and may even have different laws of nature. We may never be able to find out for sure. But it is possible that clues to the answer lie in plain view, just waiting to be discovered! [Harvard University (2009). How big is our universe? (an exploration through space and time). Smithsonian Institution. Accessed 6.18.14.]
The reason for their reserved answer may be due to the fact that, according to the Big Bang model, our universe is still expanding. The other reason has to do with the theoretical nature of the Big Bang scenario and the problems that evolutionary cosmologists are not apt to share with the public. Note that Big Bang enthusiasts are careful to allow room in their scenario for ‘different laws of nature’ as well as completely hypothetical concepts used to bolster the Big Bang model such as dark matter, dark energy or the concept of the possibility of an infinite number of universes, e.g. multiverse or meta-universe, sometimes referred to as parallel universes.
Hubble Ultra Deep Field photos means trouble for evolutionary cosmologists
While we are looking at the Hubble Deep Field pictures (HUDF), I thought it might be a good time to explain why some of the galaxies in these photos are problematic for Big Bang model and the 15.8 billion-year timeframe it proposes. One such problem is the appearance of young galaxies mixed in with allegedly ancient galaxies in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field pictures. The discovery of mature galaxies within the area noted in this picture should not contain the large and apparently old galaxies in an otherwise young portion of the universe.
Diagram illustrating comparative sampling distance of the HUDF and the earlier. [Wikipedia (2014). Hubble Deep Field. 2012 Hubble Ultra Deep Field. Accessed 7.16.23.]
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape. [Scheffler, H., & Elsasser, H. (1987). Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag pp. 352–353, 401–413.]
Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ‘winding-up’ dilemma also applies to other galaxies.
For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’. [Scheffler, H., & Elsasser, H. (1987). Ibid.] The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the ‘Whirlpool’ galaxy, M51. [Zaritsky, D., et al., (1993). Nature, July 22, 1993. Sky & Telescope, December 1993, p. 10] [Humphreys, R. (2011). Evidence for a Young World. Creation Ministries International. Accessed 6.17.14.]
Now we are back in a familiar place. Dr. Tyson is standing at an outdoor campfire beside a replica of Alhazen’s tent as he says, “Alhazen discovered how images were formed by light, but that was far from his greatest achievement. Ibn Alhazen was the first person to set down the rules of science. He created an error correcting mechanism, a systematic and relentless way to sift out misconceptions in our thinking.” Now we see Alhazen teaching his disciples, “Finding truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough. As seekers after truth, you would be wise to withhold judgment and not simply put your trust in the writings of the ancients. You must question and critically examine those writings from every side. You must submit to argument and experiment and not to the sayings of any person.”
As Dr. Tyson reviewed the teaching of Alhazen, I though that these were indeed words of wisdom with regard to what would later be called the scientific method. I even thought that he call for a critical evaluation of truth was itself also good advice. The problem lies in the definition of truth. There are statements and observations that are themselves true, but there was only one person in history that declared that He was the Truth. Not an observation, not even a experimentally verified truth, but “the” Truth. The difference between what Dr. Tyson is striving for and what the Bible teaches concerning the subject of truth is that the Bible is speaking to us about ultimate Truth. The ultimate source of truth must be the Creator of all that is seen and unseen, and what is recorded in His Word. It is not some hypothetical grand tale of cosmic explosions and evolving stars, galaxies, planets that, given enough time, will eventually evolve into you and me.
When the Messiah appeared before the Roman Governor, Pontus Pilate, he questioned Jesus concerning the accusation against Him, that He was a King in opposition to Caesar.
37 Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” 38 Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, “I find no fault in Him at all, John 18:37-39.
This is the crux of the problem. Those who are pagan, whether secular pagans like the modern materialists Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson, or ancient pagans like the polytheistic Roman governor Pontus Pilate, they all believe that truth is relative. We are not told whether Pilate was a religious man or not. We do know from history that he was a brutal pragmatist that was willing to have an innocent man crucified for the sake of political expediency.
I don’t fault Pilate for not recognizing the Truth when initially confronted with it; few of the religious leaders of Israel were able to recognize their own Messiah prior to His resurrection. What was true of Pilate is true of every human being regardless of their ethnicity, religious belief or lack thereof. All are born into this world spiritually deaf and blind. The only way to receive ‘ears that hear’ and ‘eyes that see’ is to be born again by faith in the risen Savior, John 3:3. Only then will you understand what the Old Testament prophets proclaimed:
14 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer,
The Holy One of Israel…
15 I am the LORD, your Holy One,
The Creator of Israel, your King,” Isaiah 43:14-15.
You might complain that this is this is the provenance of theology, but I would remind you that all the sciences, as we have come to recognize them today, were once taught under the umbrella of theology. This was certainly true in Darwin’s time, so you cannot always just place a fast and hard division between the sciences and theology. Furthermore, it is only the atheists and their not-so-certain agnostic colleagues that attempt to make religion and science mutually exclusive. Not religion in general, but specifically the Judeo-Christian religious traditions rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The foremost genius of the 20th century, Albert Einstein, was willing to admit the following with regard to science and religion.
It is true that convictions can best be supported with experience and clear thinking. On this point one must agree unreservedly with the extreme rationalist. The weak point of his conception is, however, this, that those convictions which are necessary and determinant for our conduct and judgments cannot be found solely along this solid scientific way.
Einstein understood that empirical science can only go so far in explaining what we find in our physical world. He also knew that this alone would not suffice.
For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capable, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence. [These excerpts are from an article that appears in Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, pp.41 - 49. The first section is taken from an address at Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939. It was published in Out of My Later Years, New York: Philosophical Library, 1950.]
Einstein is surely giving us sage advice, but to where did the man whose name replaced the Newtonian universe with the Einsteinian universe look for this kind of truth?
The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If one were to take that goal out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind. [The second section is from Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.]
Tyson admits he doesn’t know it all. Well, not really
Dr. Tyson admits, “Every human being is vulnerable to all kinds of imperfections. As seekers of the truth, we must also suspect and question our own ideas as we perform our investigations to avoid falling into prejudice or careless thinking. Take this course and truth will be revealed to you.” Now we see Alhazen with sextant in hand looking up at the stars. A satellite orbiting the earth comes into view on the TV screen as Dr. Tyson says, “This is the method of science, so powerful its carried our robotic emissaries to the edge of our solar system and beyond.”
Cut to a baby in the womb as our narrator continues, “It has doubled our lifespan and made the lost worlds of the past come alive. Science has enabled us to predict events in the distant future and communicate with each other at the speed of light as I am doing with you at this very moment. This way of thinking has given us powers that Alhazen would have regarded as wizardry. But it was he who put us on this rough and endless road.” As Dr. Tyson takes a seat at the helm of the Spaceship of the Imagination he notes, “And now it has taken us to a place where even light itself is shrouded in darkness.”
Now we’re looking skyward through the tree tops as Dr. Tyson says, “Light has properties unlike anything else in the realm of human existence. Take the speed of light, the basic particle of light, a photon, is born traveling at the speed of light as it emerges from an atom or a molecule. A photon never knows any other speed, and we’ve not found another phenomenon that accelerates from zero to top speed instantaneously. Nothing else can move as fast.” Now our narrator is walking through the forest and saying, “When we try to accelerate other particles closer and closer to the speed of light, they resist more and more as though they’re getting heavier and heavier. No experiment ever devised has made a particle move as fast as light.”
Now I know that the writers of this series are doing their very best to ignore the Bible. It contains too much pertinent information. Little nuggets of truth such as the Creator of light, Gen. 1:3 is the same One that proclaimed of Himself, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life,” John 8:12. In keeping with evolution’s deceptive practices, the writers avoid all references to the Word of God that offers insight into the true history of the World. In addition to this, they have been using paganism as the standard for religious beliefs. Not once have they contrasted biblical faith with the aminist and polytheistic paganism they present as the superstitious purveyors of spiritual truth.
Our narrator continues his ode to the light by telling us, “I don’t know anything else in life that behaves like light. I cannot reconcile its strong properties with everything else my senses tell me.” Now we are getting to one of the major differences between those who are locked into a materialistic worldview such as atheist and agnostic scientists who embrace a purely materialistic view of the world. While evolutionists will acknowledge there is a reality that goes beyond our five senses such at quantum physics, they never acknowledge the realm of faith and the Creator of all that is seen and unseen. Dr. Tyson continues, “The urge to trust our senses over powers that our measuring devices tell us about the nature of reality. Our senses work fine for life-size objects moving at normal speeds ill-adapted for the wonderland laws of light speed.” Our narrator is still walking as he tells us, “We don’t even know why there’s a cosmic speed limit. Time stands still when you’re traveling at the speed of light.” Looking agitated he says, “What is light anyway?”
The mystery of the rainbow
The animators bring us back to Newton’s childhood home. Now we see a rainbow over a country scene telling us, “Isaac Newton’s fascination with light began when he was a child in this very house.” Now we are back in present time as our narrator stands in front of Newton’s family home. He tells us, “By the time he was in his twenties, Newton became the first person to decipher the mystery of the rainbow.” That is true, but the meaning behind the rainbow, the symbolism of that familiar icon, is given to us in the first book of the Bible. The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth,” Gen. 9:16. Dr. Tyson can tell us how a rainbow is formed as sunlight is reflected through water vapor, but he cannot tell us why this occurs. It reflects God’s promise never to destroy the world by flood again.
I understand the reason that godless evolutionists will avoid any mention of the reason for this symbolism. After all, the worldwide cataclysmic flood recorded for us in the Bible is the real reason the dinosaurs became extinct. Most of those that were preserved on the Ark could not survive the Ice Age that followed. Most of the geologic column was created during the flood. The Grand Canyon and a host of other geologic structures were the result of a lot of water and a relatively short period of time. But as we have noted time and again, any other explanation for what we see around us must be suppressed. Only one explanation is allowed. No criticism can be voiced. The indoctrination continues unabated.
We are back in Newton’s time as we see him experimenting with a ray of light and a prism as he tells us, “Newton discovered that sunlight or white light was a mixture of all the colors of the rainbow.” He tells us it was a “major discovery.” He named the displays of colors of the spectrum from the Latin for phantom or apparition.” Newton’s servant tells him that dinner is ready and we see Newton put is magnifying glass down and leave the lab. At this juncture, Dr. Tyson protests, “No Isaac don’t put the magnifying glass down, something even more amazing is hidden in the light, a code, a key to the cosmos.” But Isaac does close the door and Dr. Tyson says, “Isaac Newton didn’t miss much, but that one was a beaut. He just walked right past a door to a hidden universe, a door that would not swing open again for another 150 years. It would fall to another scientist working in the year 1800 to stumble on a piece of evidence for the unseen worlds that surround us.”
Now Dr. Tyson walks through the garden of a country estate as he tells us, “By night, William Hershel scanned the heavens with the largest telescope of his time. By day, Hershel performed experiments. For Newton and earlier works, it was known that sunlight was a blend of different colors and everyone knew from being outside that sunlight carried heat.” Now we return to animation with Hershel walking in that same garden as our narrator says, “William Hershel asked whether some colors of light carried more heat than others. The nature of scientific genius is to question what the rest of us take for granted, and then do the experiment.” Now we see Hershel setting up an experiment in the pallor of his country estate. Dr. Tyson explains the basics of a simple experiment as we see several thermometers set up in a row with one acting as a control. Dr. Tyson explains, “In Hershel’s experiment, the relationship between color and temperature was being tested. So his control has the thermometer that is not subjected to sunlight.” As I pondered the words that Dr. Tyson had said, I realized he had said this in error. The control thermometer was not protected from sunlight, because infrared sunlight is still part of the sun’s rays that hit the earth. The control was protected from visible sunlight attracted to a specific color; in this case, the color was red.
After being interrupted by an unusual sound that appeared earlier in this episode, Dr. Tyson says, “There’s that sound again. What is that?” At this point, William comes back to check on his experiment and Dr. Tyson says, “OK, red light is warmer than blue light, interesting discovery, but not exactly revolutionary. But his control is reading higher than the others.” We are told, “There’s nothing wrong with your thermometer, you’ve just discovered a new form of light. Hershel was the first to detect this unseen presence lurking just below the red end of the spectrum. That’s why it’s called infrared. Infra is Latin for the word below. It’s invisible; our eyes are not sensitive to this kind of light. Our skin is. We feel it as heat. That’s a really big discovery, but far greater secrets were still hiding deep inside the light.”
Animation shows us a boiling hot cauldron being stirred as Dr. Tyson says, “About the same time that William Hershel was discovering infrared light in his parlor in England, a young boy named Joseph Fraunhofer (1787-1826) was trapped in hopeless drudgery. He stood over a cauldron of toxic chemicals endlessly stirring. Joseph had been given to a harsh master named Weichelsberger, the royal mirror maker. He prevented Joseph from going to school. Instead, Joseph labored in the glass making workshop by day and tended to the master’s household chores by night.”
The animators show poor Joseph shoveling coal into the house’s furnace while his master reminds him that he is not allowed to read. This continues until Joseph gets his big break. His master’s house collapses and the animators show us the future King, Maximilian, who visited the scene to oversee the rescue. The future King was known for taking an interest in the people and often walking among them. This made him a very popular figure among his future subjects. The animators show men carrying Joseph from the rubble and we are told that he is taken under the wing of the future King of Bavaria. Dr. Tyson tells us, “The prince gave Joseph some money and told the Prince’s Privy Counselor to provide further help to the boy should he need it.” Now the animators show the evil Weichelsberger working the boy hard and continuing to prevent him from attending school. Our narrator tells us, “But the Prince’s Counselor intervened offering Joseph a position at the Optical Institute. This small gesture of kindness really paid off.”
The animators show us some buildings and Dr. Tyson says, “By the time he was 27, Joseph Fraunhofer was the world’s leading designer of high quality lenses, telescopes and optical instruments. His firm was housed here in the old Benedictine abbey. In the early 19th century, this was the top-secret ultra-high technology. The Benedictine monks of earlier times had taken a vow of secrecy. This local tradition and the ability to restrict access to Fraunhofer’s laboratory allowed him to maintain control of trade and State secrets.” Dr. Tyson tells us, “Fraunhofer was experimenting with prisms to find the best types of glass for precision lenses. How, he wondered, could he get a better look at the spectrum a prism produced?” Fraunhofer asks for his theodolite as our narrator tells us that this is a type of telescope.
Now we are taken to another part of the abbey. Then, in something that can only be understood by those who have experienced certain types of psychedelic drugs, we are told, “Sound waves are beautiful to hear, imagine how beautiful they would be to see.” Now we are looking at the abbey’s pipe organ and Dr. Tyson gives us a short lesson on the inner workings of this instrument. He tells us the length of the pipe constricts the air thrust and that is going to determine the pitch of the sound we hear. Short pipes = short sound waves = a higher frequency. Now we are told that the distance between adjacent waves is called a wavelength. We are then told, “A long pipe gives us a long sound wave with a low pitch and a low frequency.” Dr. Tyson begins to play the introductory notes to “Pomp and Circumstance” when the abbeys real organist interrupts him. Now the abbey’s organist begins to play, and with the magic of special effects, we see and hear the sound waves emanating throughout the cathedral.
Dr. Tyson claps his hands and we see the sound waves reverberate outward are also visualized as he tells us, “Sound waves can’t travel through a vacuum. They need matter to ride on like molecules of air or water or rock. Light waves fly solo. They can move through empty space and fast. A million times faster than sound waves in air. And the wavelengths of the light we see are so much shorter than sound waves.” Now we see Dr. Tyson squeezing his thumb and forefinger close together as he says, “Right here (about ½ inch) oh yeah, Fraunhofer.” Our narrator is now walking briskly through the halls of the abbey when he arrives saying, “Just in time, we didn’t miss it.” Now the animator show us Joseph working in his lab we are told, “Just as the wavelength of sound determines the pitch we hear, the wavelength of light determines the color we see. But how does the prism spread out the colors concealed in a beam of sunlight? When light travels through air or space all its colors move at the same speed.” We see light hitting a prism spreading colors across the floor. Dr. Tyson continues, “But when it hits glass at an angle, the light slows down and changes direction. Inside the prism each color moves at a different speed.”
The animators have left and we are back in our present time as Dr. Tyson says, “In glass, violet which is carried by the shortest waves we see slows down more than red light which has the longest waves. These changes in speed pry the colors apart sending their waves off in slightly different directions. That’s how a prism works. If I seem unduly emotional about this, it’s because Joseph Fraunhofer is about to do what Isaac Newton could’ve done, but didn’t. And it will have a powerful effect on the course of my own life.” Now our narrator opens the doors to Fraunhofer’s laboratory and the animator take us back to Joseph holding a prism up to a theodolite. As he does this, Dr. Tyson is doing the same thing and telling us, “You are witnessing the marriage of physics and astronomy, the birth of my own field of science, astrophysics.” He continues, “Written in the light, those vertical black lines, the secret code. Fraunhofer looked at that and wondered why, a code that comes to us from an alien universe.”
As the program paused for a commercial, I pondered the fact that Dr. Tyson was getting all verklemptpt about Fraunhofer’s discovery. I was seeing the heartfelt connection that Neil DeGrasse Tyson had with regard to his chosen career. But I also realized that for him, and all others who live without the knowledge of God’s truth, they will replace God with some combination of people, places and things. One of those things that Dr. Tyson had looked to for his security (love) and significance (meaning and purpose) was his pursuit of scientific knowledge. When a person, place or thing is substituted in the place that our Creator should have in our lives, we are worshipping idols. It doesn’t have to be the traditional pagan concept of so often characterized as ignorant pagans worshipping the images of animals or the stars themselves who were without the scientific knowledge to free themselves from their superstitious chains. Modern pagans worship modern gods and goddesses such as the god of escrow or the cult of personality. Perhaps they become dedicated to some political view or social cause. When the true and living God is left out of their lives, darkness ensues.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 1:20-25.
Proclaiming the evolution of life as one of many distinct threads
Our commercial ends, and with it Dr. Tyson continues telling us, “What is the message written in these dark lines? It took a hundred years of thinking, questioning, searching to decipher it.” Now we see the sun’s rays hitting the earth and our narrator is standing in a field of flowers saying, “Lovely isn’t it.? Why? There are many layers to this fine structure of beauty. The chemistry of the earth and its atmosphere, the evolution of life, many distinct threads” (the camera shows us the veins in a leaf). “Let’s just examine one at the surface. The colors of nature that dazzle us, what’s really happening?” One thing that is ‘really happening’ is the continuous brainwashing we have noted repeatedly in this miniseries. And every time it is repeated, evolution is presented as a fact. Here, the scriptwriters are proclaiming it as one of “many distinct threads.”
Now the indoctrination continues as Dr Tyson points to the flowers and tells us, “How does the red, the blue, the astonishing palette of nature’s colors, how do they happen? Light waves of different lengths from the sun strikes the earth. The petals of these particular flowers absorb all low energy, long red wavelengths of light, but the petals reflect the shorter, higher energy wavelengths. That interaction between starlight and petals or water or Van Gogh is what makes blue. The longest waves, the ones we see as red have the lowest energy. Color is the way our eyes perceive how energetic light waves are. A sunset, a flag, the eyes of your beloved that shiny new car, the feelings they inspire happen when something inside you is triggered by a particular variation in the frequency and energy of light waves. And the secret message, those black vertical lines in Fraunhofer’s spectrum, what makes them? They occur when the light waves of these particular colors are being absorbed. It happens on another level of reality, far smaller than the world we’re used to operating in. To get there, we’ll need to become ten billion times smaller than we are.”
Now we see into the atomic realm and Dr. Tyson says, “You can pick any one of these atoms. Let’s go for the hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom is the most plentiful in the cosmos, and the simplest. It has only one electron and one proton. We’ve entered into the quantum realm. It doesn’t correspond to ordinary human experience. Common sense is no help here at all. Take the hydrogen atom’s electron for example. In an atom, an electron doesn’t exist between orbits; it disappears from one orbital and reappears in another. It’s as if you took and elevator from the 2nd floor to the 4th floor, but ceases to exist in between. And another thing, quantum elevators only stop at certain floors. The size of the electron’s orbit are strictly limited, they are different for the atoms of every element.”
We are told, in the realm of quantum mechanics, things happen differently than we might expect. The periodic table is a tabular arrangement of the chemical elements, organized on the basis of their atomic numbers, electron configurations (electron shell model), and recurring chemical properties. When we look at the periodic table, with its orderly arrangement of the elements and their atomic number, the number of protons found in the nucleus of an atom of that element, (and therefore identical to the charge number of the nucleus), to think that this is the result of blind evolutionary processes strains credulity.
They can form chemical bonds that represent the attraction between atoms that allows the formation of chemical substances that contain two or more atoms. Make no mistake about this; the periodic table is evidence of intelligent design of the highest order. The concept that the periodic table and the physical universal laws of chemistry and quantum physics that support all that is seen and unseen are due to random evolutionary changes over time is not supported by the evidence.
Dr. Tyson continues, “That’s why the elements are different. The chemistry of anything is determined by its electron orbit. The force that holds an electron in orbit has nothing to do with gravity; it’s a force of electrical attraction. The electrons dance a wavy ring around the central nucleus of a hydrogen atom (we actually see this demonstrated for us via special effects as our narrator continues) and makes quantum leaps from orbit to orbit, up or down, the larger the orbit, the greater the energy of the electron. An electron has to get energy to leap to a larger orbit. It must loose energy to jump back down. Every upward leap is caused by an atom absorbing a light wave, but we have no idea what causes the downward leaps. What we do know is that such leaps always produce a light wave whose color matches the energy difference between the orbitals.”
Now we see our own sun burning brightly on screen as Dr. Tyson says, “The sun’s surface radiates light waves of all colors. If you look at the sunlight through a prism (Dr. Tyson demonstrates this for us), you’ll see its spectrum. When you magnify the spectrum with a telescope, as Joseph Fraunhofer did, you raise the curtain on the electron dance within the atom. When the energy of the electron flags and it drops to a lower orbital, the light wave it emits scatters and most of it does not reach us. That leaves a dark gap with black vertical lines in the spectrum. These dark lines are the shadows cast by hydrogen atoms in the atmosphere of the sun. Sodium atoms cast different shadows. Their electrons dance to a different tune. A grain of table salt is composed of sodium and chlorine atoms, ten million billion of them doing their crazy dance in a single grain of salt. And a single iron atom with 26 electrons is like a great big production number in a Broadway musical.
Dr. Tyson is going to tie the black lines that appear when light passes through a spectrum to the elements that that its particular signature represents. This is the reason that we can identify elements that exist in the heavenly objects. Now our narrator explains, “Fraunhofer’s lines are the atomic signature of the elements writ large across the cosmos. As with every other revelation in the history of science, it opened the way to newer and deeper mysteries.” Dr. Tyson turns and looks out into space and says, “And to the revelation that there are many more secrets hiding in the light.”
I have made the point throughout the Cosmos miniseries that evolutionists like Dr. Tyson often borrow biblical terms and apply them to their own religion of materialism. You would think that a scientist would realize that his discoveries are not revelation at all, unless they are referring to the One who reveals these hidden scientific truths to man. Revelation is the province of the God of Creation, the last book of the Bible is the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. So why is Dr. Tyson once again appropriating the language of the Bible while knowingly and willingly ignoring what is written therein? I have seen this type of religious zealotry manifested in people who do not have a personal relationship with the living God through His Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. Because they refuse what God has provided for them, the security and significance offered in the gospel end up embracing politics or materialism including the uber-religious Theory of Evolution. What ends up being presented is a religion of naturalism parading around in the guise of science. Both the hyper-political and hyper-materialistic evolutionists (often they are combined) are fiercely dedicated to some party line or worldview. I think this what we are seeing here, especially after Dr. Tyson’s teary-eyed confession of faith in evolutionary cosmology as told by unbelieving astrophysicists.
Now we are back to the history of science with regard to Hiding in the Light. We are told when Joseph Fraunhofer combined a prism with a telescope and turned it towards the skies; he brought the stars much closer to us. A long view of the stars flashes across the TV screen and the animators return as Dr. Tyson says, “When he was only 39, he contracted a fatal illness that we are told might be due to his exposure to those toxic chemicals used in glass making. He continues, “You never know where the next genius will come from. How many of them do we leave in the rubble (we see the crumbling of Weichelsberger’s home), the prince and his kingdom were immeasurably enriched in an act of kindness to a poor orphan. Fraunhofer’s discoveries transformed Bavaria from a rural backwater to a technological powerhouse.”
Now we see Fraunhofer on his deathbed. Dr. Tyson says, “As he lay dying, the government was desperate to preserve every shred of his precious knowledge about the high technology of optical glass. But it could only be divulged to a person who had a top security clearance, the Director of the Mint. The Government kept Fraunhofer’s technology for making optical glass a State secret for another 100 years. This would prove to be a major obstacle for someone we’ll meet later in our journey.
But Fraunhofer would allow no such secrecy where his pure scientific research was concerned. He knew that science needs openness to flourish, that our understanding of nature belongs to the world. As soon as Fraunhofer discovered the spectral lines, he published everything he knew about them. The reverberations of his momentous discovery echo still. His spectral lines revealed that the invisible cosmos is all made of the same elements. The planets (we see them on the TV screen going by one by one), the stars (now we get to see one of the Hubble Deep Field pictures), the galaxies, we ourselves and all of life (are made of) the same star stuff.” (Emphasis added)
Two things immediately came to mind. First, was Dr. Tyson going overboard to the point of hero worship with regard to Joseph Fraunhofer? He was careful to make a distinction between the state secrets (obviously hidden from the competitors for monetary gain and nothing more), and the noble Fraunhofer who wanted the world to benefit from his discoveries. I realize that neither Dr. Tyson nor I can ever know the intentions of Joseph Fraunhofer with regard to why he published his scientific discoveries. What I can tell you is human nature is usually not so pure when it comes to motive. I also have observed that the scientific communities, especially when two or more are working in the same area of research, are more often than not fiercely competitive and unwilling to share the limelight with one another. I cannot be certain, but I could easily see Fraunhofer publishing his work for his own glory and not to necessarily benefit all mankind.
Secondly, how long did it take the scriptwriters to repeat their mantra of naturalism? This is certainly not the first time we are being told that we are made of the stuff of stars. The story that, “In the beginning,” everything seen and unseen in the entire universe was compacted into something the size of a marble that suddenly exploded into everything else including us. This is what I call the “Whoop- there it is” version of evolutionary folklore, and I submit that this is patently absurd. Because the elements of the universe are the same throughout, and the stars contain chemicals that we have in our own bodies does not mean we are the star babies evolutionary cosmologists say that we are.
Now Dr. Tyson continues, “He (Fraunhofer) made it possible to know what’s in the atmosphere of other worlds and in galaxies millions of light years away. Spectral lines reveal not only the composition of objects, but also their motion towards or away from us. Using them, we discovered that our universe is expanding, but perhaps the greatest revelation of spectroscopy is the thing we cannot see, a hidden universe of dark matter.” Aside from the fact that, once again, our narrator is using the term revelation incorrectly when the appropriate word is discovery, he his now invoking mysterious dark matter. This is something that remains highly speculative in nature and about which little is really known.
What is dark matter and why do evolutionists invoke it?
Dark matter and dark energy are (in some cosmological theories) nonluminous material that is postulated to exist in space and that could take any of several forms including weakly interacting particles (cold dark matter ) or high-energy randomly moving particles created soon after the Big Bang (hot dark matter). Did you notice that it is related to the Big Bang model? That is because you need fudge factors to support the Big Bang model. The evolutionary cosmologists, true to form, hide the fact that the Big Bang cosmology requires the hypothetical constructs of dark matter and dark energy in order to shore up the holes in Big Bang model. They would bristle at the this characterization, but I assure you that NASA speaks about these invisible forces without ever letting you know why they are so certain these substances or quantum conditions exist. On their official webpage, NASA explains dark energy in the following way:
More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 68% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe. [NASA (2014¬). Dark Energy, Dark Matter. What is Dark Energy. NASA Science Astrophysics. Accessed 6.29.14.]
With regard to dark matter, the NASA website offers this explanation:
By fitting a theoretical model of the composition of the Universe to the combined set of cosmological observations, scientists have come up with the composition that we described above, ~68% dark energy, ~27% dark matter, ~5% normal matter. What is dark matter? [NASA (2014¬). Ibid.]
If the truth were told, dark matter and dark energy cannot fix the problems that are inherent in the Big Bang model. It is based on a purely materialistic view of reality, where matter has to do things that are contrary to what we see today. Some of their more recent discoveries such as the rate of expansion had been increasing since the initial Big Bang (the Bang is getting bigger and that does not make sense). NASA scientists offer a variety of explanations. They appeal to Einstein’s cosmological constant. Another explanation floated was this dark energy and matter could be explained by using quantum theory. The following excerpt indicates that evolutionary scientists have difficulty making their fanciful Big Bang scenario work:
Another explanation for how space acquires energy comes from the quantum theory of matter. In this theory, “empty space” is actually full of temporary ("virtual") particles that continually form and then disappear. But when physicists tried to calculate how much energy this would give empty space, the answer came out wrong - wrong by a lot. The number came out 10120 times too big. That's a 1 with 120 zeros after it. It's hard to get an answer that bad. So the mystery continues. [NASA (2014¬). Ibid.]
NASA’s final offer to explain the inexplicable is that Einstein’s theory of gravity is plain wrong. While they share this, they offer the reader the hope that some day we will discover, or should I say we will receive a revelation from the cosmos, and a new theory will come down the pike allowing us insight into these matters. Proving my point, the scientists at NASA are sure that dark matter will come to their rescue.
However, at this point, there are still a few dark matter possibilities that are viable [NASA (2014¬). Ibid.]
A more in-depth discussion of the problems with Big Bang cosmology is found in the article covering this miniseries entitled, The Cosmos: the Space Time Odyssey Continues (Part 4).
Dr. Tyson continues his narration by telling us this dark matter is “Six times more massive than the familiar cosmos that does not emit, absorb or reflect any kind of light. We only know it’s there because of its gravity. It pulls on all the galaxies and speeds them up. Why is Dr. Tyson telling us that dark matter can speed up galaxies? It is because they have no other explanation for this reversal of what they have taught for decades. Remember that the Big Bang postulates that those galaxies further away from us are actually younger than we are. They are supposed to be formed shortly after the Big Bang, but the Hubble Deep Field pictures show us old galaxies next to young galaxies. Consider the following observation from science writer Andrew Rigg with regard to the Gemini Deep Deep Survey (GDDS). [Faintest spectra ever raise glaring question: Why do galaxies in the young universe appear so mature? Gemini Observatory press release, 5 January 2004.]
What the GDDS astronomers found was totally unexpected. Where they had expected to see young, small, still-developing galaxies, they found more than 300 fully mature galaxies, just like those seen near our own galaxy, the Milky Way.
Team member Dr Karl Glazebrook from Johns Hopkins University says the find presents a huge challenge because their ‘star-forming youth is in fact long gone.’ [Faintest spectra ever raise glaring question: Why do galaxies in the young universe appear so mature? Gemini Observatory press release, 5 January 2004.]
‘We expected to find basically zero massive galaxies beyond about 9 billion years ago, because theoretical models [based on the big bang] predict that massive galaxies form last. Instead we found highly developed galaxies that just shouldn’t have been there, but are.’ [De Nike, L. (2004). Glimpse at early universe reveals surprisingly mature galaxies, Johns Hopkins Gazette, 19 July 2004.]
Consider the following evidence that evolutionary cosmologists and astrophysicists will not tell you.
Thanks to new developments in Earth-based optical technology and orbiting telescopes such as the Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers have been able to detect fainter light from more distant objects. So they can probe the most distant reaches of space and detect objects so faint that astronomers 10 years ago did not even know they existed.
These new discoveries have shaken current theories of star and galaxy formation:
- Elements thought to ‘evolve’ within the furnaces of ancient stars over many billions of years have been found ‘only’ 2.5 billion years after the big bang, under their own dating system. [Oard, M. (2004). The big bang problem of early maturity, Journal of Creation 18(1):15–16, 2004.]
- Very complex strings of galaxies, claimed to be hundreds of light-years in size, have been found at a time when only small, isolated proto-galaxies should exist. [Rigg, A. (2004). Young galaxies too old for the big bang, Creation 26(3):15, 2004.]
- And now, massively complex galaxies and supermassive black holes have also been found too early in the evolutionary life of the universe to be explained by conventional theories.
We need to state that many creationists and even some evolutionary cosmologists believe the redshifts used to measure distance with regard to the Big Bang are flawed.
Australian physicist, Dr John Hartnett, Ph.D. says that these recent discoveries are very significant for a creationist understanding of the universe. ‘This has enormous significance because [the big bang astronomers] are saying they don’t see how such a structure could form so quickly according to the big bang model.
Dr. Hartnett believes that the redshift methods used to measure the distances to these objects are flawed. [Astronomers measure the redshift of distant objects, called quasars, to calibrate the distances to objects such as the galaxies in this article.] A growing list of evolutionary astronomers and cosmologists, such as Dr. Halton Arp, (1927-2013), agree that the big bang interpretations of the redshifts are flawed. Arp documented many pairs of objects that have greatly different redshifts, supposedly showing that they are vast distances apart and receding at hugely different speeds. Yet there is also connecting material between them, meaning that they must be the same distance away. [For more information on redshift and problems with using it as a measure of distance, see reviews of Arp’s books in Journal of Creation 14(3):39–45, 46–50, 2000.]
If the distances are wrong, then an object may appear small and dim not because it is incredibly distant, but because it really is small and dim. And faulty distances mean that any theory based on them—such as the big bang—is faulty too! [Rigg, A. (2004). Galaxy games: Grown up galaxies in a young universe prompt rethink of big bang ideas. Creation 27(1):18–21, December 2004. Accessed 6.29.14.]
One last chance to repeat the mantra
We find ourselves back on good old terra firma and Dr. Tyson is telling us, “There’s many more kinds of light then our eyes can see. Confining our perceptions of nature to visible light is like listening to music in one octave. There’s so many more, they differ only in wavelength, but over a huge range. For instance, infrared light (Rhapsody in Blue begins to play in the background) like the kind Hershel discovered or X-ray light or in gamma ray light. These are not just different ways of seeing the same thing, these other kinds of light reveal different objects and phenomena in the cosmos. In gamma ray light, we can see mysterious explosions in distant galaxies we would otherwise miss. And in microwave light, we can see all the way back to the birth of our universe. We’ve only just opened our eyes.”
So once again we hear our narrator express his faith in the billions and billions of years of deep time, the magic ingredient for the Theory of Evolution. In Dr. Tyson’s world, he has long ago bought the lie of evolution. For him, the cosmos itself drew his attention. After all, Carl Sagan, co-writer and narrator of the original Cosmos series had done a good job of reinforcing the indoctrination that our public schools deliver to their students in the name of science. They are not allowed to hear any alternative explanations in the science classroom that even infers a Creator or intelligent designer. Those references are strictly forbidden. The price we pay, when this lie is retold over and over again with these slickly produced propaganda pieces like the Cosmos, has been grievous indeed.
Dr. Tyson wholeheartedly believes in the billions and billions of years of deep time. He says “we’ve only just opened our eyes.” The truth is exactly the opposite. Over three millennia ago, King David wrote the following Psalm.
1 The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.
2 The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
3 They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt
There is none who does good,
No, not one. Psalm 14:1-3.
Now the TV screen explodes with flowers that correspond to George Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue, the first-ever American jazz symphony and one that I am particularly partial to. Well, at least this episode ended on a series of good notes.