Theoretical sciences deal with subject matter that is either too old (evolution) or too far away (astrophysics) to be able to do much in the way of practical, repeatable experiments. By necessity, these areas of study will never offer us much more than theories. This is acceptable unless conjecture is taught as fact, as has become the case. Neil deGrasse Tyson, who seems to be more of a comedian than a scientist, once said: “The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact.”
Such a move from theory to fact requires the acceptance of unprovable presuppositions by faith. Modern astrophysics has become more of a religion than true science.
When Copernicus and others proposed the revolutionary (pun intended) heliocentric theory to explain what can be observed in the heavens, it was simply another possibility. It was partly based on reason and partly based on mysticism. This man and others, such as Sir Isaac Newton, were heavily influenced by the Egyptian sun worshiper, Hermes Trismegistus. They also believed that circles were perfect geometric figures, much to be preferred over the patterns of “planetary” motion they observed. Copernicus believed that the sun should be the center of the universe, holding sway over its subjects, including earth. (I have written about the occult side of heliocentrism in another article.) This new way of viewing the heavens soon took root and influenced everything that followed. Today heliocentrism is considered to be “gospel” truth, not to be disputed by any sane person, but it is still merely a theory.
Some astrophysicists are honest enough to admit this, such as George Ellis, who wrote in 1995.
People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations, For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that. —Cosmologist George Ellis, in Scientific American, “Thinking Globally, Acting Universally”, October 1995
Another less honest astrophysicist, none other than Edwin Hubble, wrote the following after discovering that cosmic background radiation indicates that the earth is the center of the universe.
…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…. the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…. such a favored position is intolerable…Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.” (The Observational Approach to Cosmology)
Ellis and Hubble teach us that certain things in astrophysics must be accepted by faith, making it a religion. Max Planck agreed.
Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: ‘Ye must have faith.’ —Max Planck
Modern astrophysics assumes by faith that there is no Creator. Therefore, the universe must be explained using only mechanistic principles. The Bible is not taken seriously. These false assumptions have unavoidably produced false conclusions.
Modern astrophysics is not science. It is science fiction.
The only way to find our way back to the truth is to return to square one: God exists and created everything, just as the Bible, God’s inspired Word, tells us. What the Bible teaches is the truth.
Our model of the cosmos must agree with the Bible’s teachings, or it is false. We are faced with the choice to believe what God says or in science fiction.
It takes great courage to contest the accepted paradigm. Many have refused to do so.
I have already known a long time that we do not yet have proof for the system of Copernicus, but I shall not take the risk to be the first one attacking it —Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), Quoted in F.K. Schultze’s synopsis and translation of F.E. Pasche’s “Christliche Weltanschauuing
Will we stand up for God’s truth or bow the knee to science fiction?
