Download to read offline
![Afterreviewingmanyoftheproblems(especiallyfromther
modynamics)thatwouldbeinvolvedinproducingsomething
living from something nonliving, he asked: “If living matter
is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces,
and radiation, how has it come into being?” Dr. Lipson dis
missedanysortof“directedevolution”(aBritishtermforwhat
people in America generally refer to as “theistic evolution”),
andconcluded:“Ithink,however,thatwemustgofurtherthan
this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is crea
tion.” Like Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, and Patterson, Dr. Lip-
son is not happy about the conclusion he has been forced to
draw from the evidence. He made that clear when he said: “I
know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me,
but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the ex
perimentalevidencesupportsit”(1980,31:138,emp.inorig.).
Interestingly, just two years before Dr. Lipson penned his
article, Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin made the follow
ing comment in the September 1978 issue of Scientific Ameri
can, which was devoted in its entirety to a defense of organic
evolution:
Lifeformsaremorethansimplymultipleanddiverse,
however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the ex
ternal world in which they live. They have morphol
ogies, physiologies and behaviors thatappear to have
been carefully and artfully designedtoenableeach
organismtoappropriatetheworldarounditforitsown
life. It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the envi
ronment,muchmorethanthegreatdiversityofforms,
that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer
(1978, 239[3]:213, emp. added).
Of course, Dr. Lewontin then went on to try to explain in his
article how nature alone—without any assistance whatsoever
from a “Supreme Designer”—could account for the impres
sive “apparent design” in the world around us.
Three years before Dr. Lipson wrote his article, France’s
preeminentzoologist,Pierre-PaulGrassé(whoseknowledge
of the living world has been called by his colleagues “encyclo
pedic”), authored The Evolution of Living Organisms, in which
he wrote:
- 15 ](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-24-320.jpg)
![ingallknownpastandpresentspeciesoflife.Thecon
ceptofcontinuityofnaturehasexistedinthemindof
man, never in the facts of nature (1985, pp. 16,327,
353, emp. in orig).
A year later, when Oxford University’s renowned evolution
ist Richard Dawkins published The Blind Watchmaker, he la-
mented in the preface: “The complexity of living organisms
is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design.
If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex de
sign cries out for an explanation, I give up!” (1986, emp.
added). One year after that, the highly regarded Swedish bi
ologist, Søren Løvtrup, wrote:
After this step-wise elimination, only one possibility
remains: the Darwinian theory of natural selec
tion,whetherornotcoupledwithMendelism,isfalse.
Ihavealreadyshownthattheargumentsadvancedby
the early champions were not very compelling, and
that there are now considerable numbers of empiri
cal facts which do not fit with the theory. Hence, to
all intents and purposes the theory has been fal
sified,sowhyhasitnotbeenabandoned?Ithinkthe
answer to this question is that current evolutionists fol
low Darwin’s example—they refuse to accept falsifying
evidence (1987, p. 352, emp. added).
Again, one year later, American physicist George Green-
stein wrote in his book, The Symbiotic Universe:
Aswesurveyalltheevidence,thethoughtinsistently
arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agen-
cy—mustbeinvolved.Isitpossiblethatsuddenly,with
outintendingto,wehavestumbleduponscientificproof
oftheexistenceofaSupremeBeing?WasitGodwho
stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos
for our benefit? (1988, p. 27).
[Greenstein quickly went on to voice his dissent with such a
conclusion, which he considered a “heady prospect” that he
labeled as “illusory” (pp. 27,38).]
These quotations—and in chapter 3 I will provide several
morerecentexamplesalmostidenticaltothem—arenotfrom
creationists.Rather,theyarefromhighlyrespectedevolution-
- 17 ](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-26-320.jpg)
![Thisgreatsagaofcosmicevolution,towhosetruththe
majority of scientists subscribe, is the product of an
actofcreationthattookplacetwentybillionyearsago
[accordingtoevolutionaryestimates—BT].Science,un
like the Bible, has no explanation for the occurrence
ofthatextraordinaryevent.TheUniverse,andevery
thing that has happened in it since the beginning of
time, are a grand effect without a known cause. An ef
fectwithoutacause?Thatisnottheworldofscience;
itisworldofwitchcraft,ofwildeventsandthewhims
ofdemons,amedievalworldthatsciencehastriedto
banish. As scientists, what are we to make of this pic
ture? I do not know (1977, p. 21, emp. added).
While Dr. Jastrow may not know how the Universe began,
there are two things that he and his colleagues do know: (1)
the Universe had a definite beginning; and (2) the Universe
will have a definite ending.
Admittedly,themostcomfortablepositionfortheevolution
ististheideathattheUniverseiseternal,becauseitavoidsthe
problem of a beginning or ending and thus the need for any
“first cause” such as a Creator. In his book, Until the Sun Dies,
astronomer Jastrow noted: “The proposal for the creation of
matter out of nothing possesses a strong appeal to the scien
tist, since it permits him to contemplate a Universe without
beginning and without end” (1977, p. 32). Jastrow went on to
remark that evolutionary scientists preferred an eternal Uni
verse “because the notion of a world with a beginning and an
end made them feel so uncomfortable” (p. 33). In God and the
Astronomers, Dr. Jastrow explained why attempts to prove an
eternalUniversehadfailedmiserably.“Nowthreelinesofevi-
dence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynam
ics, and the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion;
allindicatedthattheUniversehadabeginning”(1978,p.111).
Jastrow—who is considered by many to be one of the greatest
science writers of our age—certainly is no creationist. But as a
scientist who is an astrophysicist, he has written often on the
inescapableconclusionthattheUniversehadabeginning.Con
sider, for example, these statements from his pen:
- 23 ](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-32-320.jpg)
![Now both theory and observation pointed to an ex
pandingUniverseandabeginningintime....About
thirtyyearsagosciencesolvedthemysteryofthebirth
anddeathofstars,andacquirednewevidencethatthe
Universe had a beginning (1978, pp. 47,105).
[Sir] Arthur Eddington, the most distinguished Brit
ishastronomerofhisday,wrote,“Ifourviewsareright,
somewhere between the beginning of time and the
present day we must place the winding up of the uni
verse.”Whenthatoccurred,andWhoorwhatwound
up the Universe, were questions that bemused theo
logians, physicists and astronomers, particularly in the
1920’s and 1930’s (1978, pp. 48-49).
Most remarkable of all is the fact that in science, as in
theBible,theWorldbeginswithanactofcreation.That
viewhasnotalwaysbeenheldbyscientists.Onlyasa
result of the most recent discoveries can we say with a
fairdegreeofconfidencethattheworldhasnotexisted
forever;thatitbeganabruptly,withoutapparentcause,
in a blinding event that defies scientific explanation
(1977, p. 19).
The conclusion to be drawn from the scientific data was ines
capable, as Dr. Jastrow himself admitted when he wrote:
The lingering decline predicted by astronomers for
theendoftheworlddiffersfromtheexplosivecondi
tionstheyhavecalculatedforitsbirth,buttheimpact
isthesame:modern science denies an eternal ex
istence to the Universe, either in the past or in the
future (1977, p. 30, emp. added).
In her book, The Fire in the Equations, award-winning science
writer Kitty Ferguson wrote in agreement.
Our late twentieth-century picture of the universe is
dramaticallydifferentfromthepictureourforebears
hadatthebeginningofthecentury.Todayit’scommon
knowledgethatalltheindividualstarsweseewiththe
naked eye are only the stars of our home galaxy, the
MilkyWay,andthattheMilkyWayisonlyoneamong
manybillionsofgalaxies.It’s also common knowl
edge that the universe isn’t eternal but had a be
ginning ten to twenty billion years ago, and that
it is expanding (1994, p. 89, emp. added).
- 24 ](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-33-320.jpg)
![licalUniversethatinfinitelyexpandsandcontractsisobviously
much more acceptable than one that demands explanations
forbothitsoriginanddestiny.Practically,thereisnobenefit
that derives from such a scenario. The late astronomer from
Cornell University, Carl Sagan, noted: “...[I]nformation from
ouruniversewouldnottrickleintothatnextoneand,fromour
vantage point, such an oscillating cosmology is as definitive
anddepressinganendastheexpansionthatneverstops”(1979,
pp. 13-14).
But is the Oscillating Universe model testable scientifically?
Gribbin suggests that it is.
The key factors which determine the ultimate fate of
the Universe are the amount of matter it contains and
therateatwhichitisexpanding....Insimpleterms,the
Universe can only expand forever if it is exploding
faster than the “escape velocity” from itself.... If the
density of matter across the visible Universe we see to
dayissufficienttohalttheexpansionwecanobserve
today, then the Universe has always been exploding
atlessthanitsownescapevelocity,andmusteventu
allybesloweddownsomuchthattheexpansionisfirst
haltedandthenconvertedintocollapse.Ontheother
hand, if the expansion we observe today is proceeding
fast enough to escape from the gravitational clutches
of the matter we observe today, then the Universe is
andalwayswas“open”andwillexpandforever(1981,
p. 313).
Does the scientific evidence support the theory of an “os
cillating,” eternal Universe? In the end, the success or failure
of this theory depends on two things: (1) the amount of mat
ter contained in the Universe, since there must be enough mat
ter for gravity to “pull back” to cause the Big Crunch; and (2)
theamountofgravityavailabletodothe“pulling.”Theamount
of matter required by the theory is one reason why Gribbin
admitted: “This, in a nutshell, is one of the biggest problems
in cosmology today, the puzzle of the so-called missing mass”
(1981, pp. 315-316). Cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astron
omersgenerallyrefertothemissingmassas“darkmatter.”In
their book, Wrinkles in Time, George Smoot and Keay David
son remarked:
- 29 ](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-38-320.jpg)
![We are therefore forced to contemplate the fact that
as much as 90 percent of the matter in the universe is
both invisible and quite unknown—perhaps unknow-
able—tous....Aresuchputativeformsofmatterthefan
tasies of desperate men and women, frantically seek
ing solutions to baffling problems? Or are they a le
gitimate sign that with the discovery of dark matter
cosmology finds itself in a terra incognita beyond our
immediate comprehension? (1993, pp. 164,171).
In his June 25, 2001 Time article (which claims to “solve the
biggest mystery in the cosmos”), Michael D. Lemonick dealt
with this “puzzle.”
Astheuniverseexpands,thecombinedgravityfrom
all the matter within it tends to slow that expansion,
muchastheearth’sgravitytriestopullarisingrocket
backtotheground.Ifthepullisstrongenough,theex
pansionwillstopandreverseitself;ifnot,thecosmos
will go on getting bigger, literally forever. Which is it?
One way to find out is to weigh the cosmos—to add up
all the stars and all the galaxies, calculate their gravity
and compare that with the expansion rate of the uni
verse. If the cosmos is moving at escape velocity, no
Big Crunch.
Trouble is, nobody could figure out how much mat
ter thereactuallywas.Thestarsandgalaxieswereeasy;
you could see them. But it was noted as early as the
1930sthatsomethinglurkedouttherebesidestheglow
ing stars and gases that astronomers could see. Galax
iesinclusterswereorbitingoneanothertoofast;they
should, by rights, be flying off into space like unteth
eredchildrenflungfromafast-twirlingmerry-go-round.
Individual galaxies were spinning about their centers
tooquicklytoo;theyshouldlongsincehaveflownapart.
Theonlypossibility:someformofinvisibledarkmat
ter was holding things together, and while you could
infer the mass of dark matter in and around galaxies,
nobody knew if it also filled the dark voids of space,
whereitseffectswouldnotbedetectable(2001,157[25]:
51).
In discussing the Oscillating Universe model, astronomers
speak (as Gribbin did in one of the quotes above) of a “closed”
- 30 ](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-39-320.jpg)
![oran“open”Universe.IftheUniverseisclosed,theUniverse
willceaseitsexpansion,theBigCrunchcouldoccur(theoret
ically), and an oscillating Universe becomes (again, theoreti
cally) a viable possibility. If the Universe is open, the expan
sion of the Universe will continue (a condition known as the
BigChill)andtheBigCrunchwillnotoccur,makinganoscil
lating Universe impossible. Joseph Silk commented: “The bal
anceofevidencedoespointtoanopenmodeloftheuniverse...”
(1980,p.309,emp.added).Gribbinsaid:“Theconsensusamong
astronomers today is that the universe is open” (1981, p. 316,
emp.added).Jastrowobserved:“Thus,thefactsindicatethat
the universe will expand forever...”(1978,p.123,emp.add
ed).
Evenmorerecentevidenceseemstoindicatethatanoscil
latingUniverseisaphysicalimpossibility(seeChaisson,1992).
Evolutionary cosmologist John Wheeler drew the following
conclusionbasedonthescientificevidenceavailableatthetime:
“With gravitational collapse we come to the end of time. Nev
er out of the equations of general relativity has one been able
to find the slightest argument for a ‘re-expansion’ of a ‘cyclic
universe’ or anything other than an end” (1977, p. 15). Astron
omer Hugh Ross admitted: “Attempts...to use oscillation to
avoidatheisticbeginningfortheuniverseallfail”(1991,p.105).
InanarticlewrittenfortheJanuary19,1998issueof U.S.News
andWorldReport titled“AFewStarryandUniversalTruths,”
Charles Petit stated:
For years, cosmologists have wondered if the universe
is“closed”andwillcollapsetoabigcrunch,or“open,”
with expansion forever in the cards. It now seems
open—in spades. The evidence, while not ironclad,
isplentiful.NetaBahcallofPrincetonUniversityand
her colleagues have found that the distribution of clus
ters ofgalaxies at the perceivable edge of the universe
imply[sic]thattheuniversebackthenwaslighterthan
oftenhadbeenbelieved.Thereappearstobe20per
centasmuchmassaswouldbeneededtostoptheex
pansion and lead the universe to someday collapse
again (124[2]:58, emp. added).
- 31 ](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-40-320.jpg)
![Apparently, the information appearing in the June 25, 2001
Time article is “ironclad,” and has dealt the ultimate deathblow
totheideaofeitheraneternaloroscillatingUniverse.Inspeak
ingabouttheoriginoftheUniverse,Lemonickexplained:
That event—the literal birth of time and space some
15 billion years ago—has been understood, at least in
itsbroadestoutlines,sincethe1960s.Butinmorethan
athirdofacentury,thebestmindsinastronomyhave
failedtosolvethemysteryofwhathappensattheother
endoftime.Willthegalaxiescontinuetoflyapartfor
ever, their glow fading until the cosmos is cold and
dark?Orwilltheexpansionslowtoahalt,reversedi
rection,andsend10octillion(10trillionbillion)stars
crashing back together in a final, apocalyptic Big
Crunch,themirrorimageoftheuniverse’sexplosive
birth?Despitedecadesofobservationswiththemost
powerfultelescopesattheirdisposal,astronomerssim
ply haven’t been able to decide.
But a series of remarkable discoveries announced in
quick succession starting this spring has gone a long
waytowardsettlingthequestiononceandforall.Sci
entistswhowerebettingonaBigCrunchlikedtoquote
thepoetRobertFrost:“Somesaytheworldwillendin
fire,/somesayinice./FromwhatI’vetastedofdesire/
I hold with those who favor fire.” Those in the other
camp preferred T.S. Eliot: “This is the way the world
ends./Not with a bang but a whimper.” Now, using
observationsfromtheSloanDigitalSkySurveyinNew
Mexico,theorbitingHubbleSpaceTelescope,themam
mothKeckTelescopeinHawaii,andsensitiveradiode
tectors in Antarctica, the verdict is in: T.S. Eliot wins
(157[25]:49-50).
What,exactly,hascausedthiscurrentfurorinastronomy?
And why are T.S. Eliot and the astronomers who quote him
the “winners”? As Lemonick went on to explain:
If these observations continue to hold up, astrophys
icists can be pretty sure they have assembled the full
parts list for the cosmos at last:5% ordinary matter,
35% exotic dark matter and about 60% dark energy.
Theyalsohaveaprettygoodideaoftheuniverse’sfu
ture.Allthematterputtogetherdoesn’thaveenough
gravity to stop the expansion; beyond that, the anti-
- 32 ](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-41-320.jpg)
![gravityeffectofdarkenergyisactuallyspeedingupthe
expansion. And because the amount of dark energy
will grow as space gets bigger, its effect will only in
crease (157[25]:55).
The simple fact is, the Universe just does not have enough
matter,orenoughgravity,forittocollapsebackuponitselfin
a“BigCrunch.”Itisnot“oscillating.”Itisnoteternal.Ithada
beginning,anditwillhaveanending.AsJastrowobserved:
About thirty years ago science solved the mystery of
thebirthanddeathofstars,andacquirednewevidence
that the Universe had a beginning.... Now both the
ory and observation pointed to an expanding Universe
and a beginning in time” (1978, p. 105).
Six pages later in God and the Astronomers, Jastrow concluded:
“Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the
lawsofthermodynamics,thelifestoryofthestars—pointedto
one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a begin
ning” (p. 111).
In1929,SirJamesJeans,writinginhisclassicbookTheUni
verse Around Us, observed: “All this makes it clear that the pres
ent matter of the universe cannot have existed forever.... In
some way matter which had not previously existed, came, or
was brought, into being” (1929, p. 316). Now, over seventy
yearslaterwehavereturnedtothesameconclusion.AsLem
onick put it:
If the latest results do hold up, some of the most im
portant questions in cosmology—how old the universe
is,whatit’smadeofandhowitwillend—willhavebeen
answered,onlyabout70yearsaftertheywerefirstposed.
Bythetimethefinalchapterofcosmichistoryiswrit-
ten—further in the future than our minds can grasp—
humanity, and perhaps even biology, will long since
have vanished (157[25]:56).
The fact that Time magazine devoted an entire cover (and fea
turestorytogowithit)tothetopicof“HowtheUniverseWill
End,” is an inadvertent admission to something that evolution
ists have long tried to avoid—the fact that the Universe had a
beginning, and will have an ending. When one hears Sir James
Jeansalludetothefactthat“insomewaymatterwhichhadnot
- 33 ](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-42-320.jpg)
![downthisroadofcosmologicaldescent—fromthelong-defunct
Cartesian Hypothesis to modern versions of the Big Bang—
and examine several of these theories in light of the scientific
knowledge now available to us. As we proceed, let us heed
the warning of the late cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001),
and his colleague, Chandra Wickramasinghe, in their book
EvolutionfromSpace:“Be suspicious of a theory if more and
more hypotheses are needed to support it as new facts be
come available, or as new considerations are brought to
bear” (1981, p. 135, emp. added).
The Evolution of a Theory
Thescienceofcosmology,asweknowittoday,began,not
surprisingly,withalookintothenearestandmostreadilyob
servable astronomical environment—our solar system. Due
to the sizable number of theories regarding the origin of our
solarsystem,Iwillreviewonlythosethatwereofprimaryim
portance in the grand historical panorama.
The Cartesian Hypothesis, set down by the seventeenth-
century French physician, mathematician, and philosopher
René Descartes (1596-1650) in his Principles of Philosophy, pos
tulated that our solar system had formed from a vast system
ofvorticesrunningspontaneously.Outofthesevortices,stars,
comets, and planets emerged, each decaying into the next sub
sequentformationofmatter,respectively.Thisparticularcon
jecture did not sit well with some of Descartes’ contemporar
ies,includingSirIsaacNewton,whomadehisdisdainforDes
cartes’ theory poignantly clear in a letter (penned on Decem
ber 10, 1692) to evangelist Richard Bentley when he wrote:
“TheCartesianhypothesis...canhavenoplaceinmysystem,
andisplainlyerroneous”(asquotedinMunitz,1957,p.212).
Thenextfewhypothesesthatflickeredinhistoryevolved
their conceptual results from an initial rotating cloud of gas
and/ordustknownasanebula.[Originally,theterm“nebula”
was applied to any distant object that appeared “fuzzy and ex
tended”whenviewedthroughatelescope;eventually,nebu
lae were identified as galaxies and star clusters.] Pierre S. La
place (1749-1827), the distinguished French mathematician,
- 35 ](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-44-320.jpg)
![presented his Nebular Hypothesis—a variation on the previ
ously held hypotheses by Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772)
andImmanuelKant(1724-1804)—totheworldin1796.Laplace
believedthat,asthenebularotated,itcooledandcontracted,
causing a discernible increase in rotational velocity, which e
ventually forced the matter that was located on the rim of the
disc to overcome the gravitational attraction and be ejected
fromthecloud.Theejectedmatterthencoalesced,forminga
planetoutsideofthecontractingnebula.Thisspecificsequence
ofeventscontinueduntilitformedacentralportionofdense,
rotating gases—what we know today as our Sun—and the out
lying,orbitingplanets(seeMulfinger,1967,4[2]:58).However,
after failing a battery of mathematical and physical tests, these
fanciful views ultimately were abandoned for the Planetesimal
Hypothesis.
Heralded by T.C. Chamberlain (1843-1928) and F.R. Moul
ton (1872-1952), the Planetesimal Hypothesis started out with
two initial stars, one of which was our Sun. The secondary star
swept a near-collision path by the Sun, close enough to tear
off two “arms” of matter on opposite sides. Over time, these
arms coalesced to form planetesimals—tiny planets. This hy
pothesisfollowedinthefootstepsofthosethathadprecededit
(as well as a number of those yet to come) by failing to be sci
entificallyaccurate.LymanSpitzerofYaleUniversitydemon
strated these failings: (1) the hot matter ripped from the Sun
wouldnotcoalesce,butinsteadwouldcontinuetoexpand;and
(2) one could not reconcile the angular momentum distribu
tion of the solar system resulting from the interaction of the
two passing stars (see Mulfinger, 4[2]:59-60).
The story of modern cosmology begins in the early parts
ofthetwentiethcentury—atimewhenastronomersviewedthe
Universe as static, eternal, and limited in space to our own
MilkyWayGalaxy.Thoseviewsbegantochangeintheearly
1900swiththeworkoftwoAmericanastronomers—EdwinHub
bleandVestoM.Slipher(1875-1969).Usingoneofthelargest
andmostpowerfultelescopesavailableatthetime,Hubblecon
cluded that the Universe actually was much larger than just our
- 36 ](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-45-320.jpg)
![galaxy. He determined that what were then known as “spiral
nebulae,” occurring millions of light-years away, were not part
of the Milky Way at all, but rather were galaxies in their own
right. [A light-year is the distance that light travels in a vac
uum in one year—approximately 5.88 trillion miles. Distances
expressed in light-years represent the time that light would
take to cross that distance. For example, if an object were two
million light-years away, it would require two million years,
traveling at the speed of light, to traverse that distance.] Then,
in1929,Hubblereportedarelationshipbetweenhisdistance
information and some special analyses of light that had been
carried out by Slipher (see Hubble, 1929).
Redshifts, Blueshifts, and Doppler Effects
Inthedecadespanning1910-1920,Slipher(usinga24-inch,
long-focusrefractortelescope)haddiscoveredthecharacter
istic signature of atomic spectra in various far-flung galaxies.
That discovery then led to another somewhat “unusual” find
ing.Examiningasmallsampleofgalaxies(which,atthetime,
were referred to as nebulae), he observed that the light fre
quencies those galaxies emitted were “shifted” toward the red
portion of the spectrum (the concept of redshift is explained
in detail below), which meant that they were receding from
Earth. In 1913, Slipher reported the radial (or “line of sight”)
velocityoftheAndromedagalaxy,anddiscoveredthatitwas
movingtowardtheSunatarateof300kilometerspersecond
(see Slipher, 1913). This was taken as evidence in favor of the
hypothesis that Andromeda was outside the Milky Way. [The
Andromeda Galaxy is now considered a part of the “Local
Group,” which is an assortment of around thirty nearby gal
axies (including the Milky Way) that is bound together gravi
tationally.]In1914,Slipherreportedradialvelocitiesof13gal
axies,andallbuttwowerevisualizedasredshifts.By1925,Sli
pherhadcompiledalistof41galaxies,andotherastronomers
hadaddedfouradditionalones.Ofthetotalof45,43showed
aredshift,whichmeantthatonlytwoweremovingtowardthe
Earth(seeGribbin,1998,p.76),whilealltheothersweremov
ing away from us.
- 37 ](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-46-320.jpg)
![These were, by all accounts, extraordinary observations.
Usingafarmoresophisticatedinstrument(specifically,alarger,
short-focustelescopethatwasbettersuitedforthistypeofwork),
Edwin Hubble made the same types of discoveries in the late
1920s after Slipher had turned his attention to other projects.
This“galacticredshift,”Hubblebelieved,wasanexceptionally
stunning cosmic clue—a shard of evidence from far away and
long ago. Why, Hubble wondered, should galactic light be
shifted to the red, rather than the blue, portion of the spec
trum? Why, in fact, should it be shifted at all?
Fromtheverybeginning,astronomershaveattributedthese
shifts to what is known as the “Doppler effect.” Named after
Austrian physicist Christian Johann Doppler (1803-1853) who
discovered the phenomenon in 1842, the Doppler effect re
ferstoaspecificchangeintheobservedfrequencyofanywave
that occurs when the source and the observer are in motion
relativetoeachother;thefrequencyincreaseswhenthesource
and observer approach each other, and decreases when they
move apart.Bywayofsummary,theDopplereffectsayssim
plythatwavelengthsgrowlonger(redshift)asanobjectrecedes
from the viewer; wavelengths grow shorter (blueshift) as an
object approaches the viewer (see Figure 1 on the next page).
[Color actually is immaterial in these terms, since the terms
themselves apply to any electromagnetic radiation, whether
visible or not. “Blue” light simply has a shorter wavelength
than “red” light, so the use of the color-terms is deemed con
venient.]
The light that we observe coming from stars is subject to
the Doppler effect as well, which means that as we move to
ward a star, or as it moves toward us, the star’s light will be
shiftedtowardshorter(blue)wavelengths(viz.,lightthatisemit
ted at a particular frequency is received by us at a higher fre
quency). As we move away from a star, or as it moves away
fromus,itslightwillbeshiftedtowardlonger(red)wavelengths
(viz., light that is emitted at one frequency is received by us at
alowerfrequency).Intheorythen,astar’sDopplermotionis
a combination of both our motion through space (as the ob-
- 38 ](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-47-320.jpg)
![“carried along for the ride.” Thus, the particles of matter are
not really moving apart on their own; instead, more space is
appearingbetweentheparticlesastheUniverseexpands,mak
ing the matter appear to move. Perhaps an illustration is ap
propriate here. [Bear with me; as you will see, the distinction
that I am about to make has serious implications.]
Moreoftenthannot,cosmologistsusetheexampleofabal
loontoillustratewhattheyaretryingtodistinguishas“thetrue
nature of the expanding Universe.” Imagine, if you will, that
someone has glued tiny shirt buttons to the surface of the bal
loon,andthencommencestoinflateit.Astheballoonincreases
in size, the buttons will appear to move as they are carried
along by the expansion of the balloon. But the buttons them
selves are not actually moving. They are “at rest” on the bal
loon,yetarebeing“pushedoutward”bytheexpansionofthe
mediumaroundthem(thelatexoftheballoon).Now,cosmol
ogists suggest, compare this example to galaxies in space. The
galaxies themselves can be “at rest” with respect to space, yet
appeartobeflyingapartduetotheexpansionofthemedium
around them—space.
Almost all popular (and even most technical) publications
advocate the view that the redshifts viewed in the expansion
of the Universe are, in fact, attributable solely to the Doppler
effect. But if it is true that the galaxies are actually at rest (al
though, admittedly, being “carried along” in an outward di
rection by the expansion of space itself, with its “embedded”
galaxies), then the redshifts witnessed as a result of the expan
sion are not true Doppler shifts. To be technically correct, per
haps the galactic redshift should be called the “cosmological
redshift.” On occasion, when the “perceived motion” of the
galaxies(asopposedto“realmotion”)isacknowledgedatall,
it sometimes is referred to as “Hubble flow.” One of the few
technical works with which I am familiar that acknowledges
thisfact(andevenprovidesdifferentformulaefortheDoppler
expansion versus the Hubble flow expansion) is Gravitation,
by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (1973; see chapter 29).
- 40 ](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-49-320.jpg)
![Interestingly,asIwasintheprocessofresearchingandwrit
ingthismaterial,mathematicianAndrewReppofHawaiiau
thored a fascinating, up-to-date article on the nature of red
shifts. In his discussion, Dr. Repp correctly noted that there
are several known causes of redshifts (see Repp, 2003). One
of the causes that he listed was the concept of “Hubble flow”
expansionthatIintroducedabove—which(again,interestingly)
he labeled as “cosmological redshift” (39:271). As Repp re
marked, this “expansion redshift” (a synonym for Hubble flow
or cosmological redshift) “is caused by the expansion of space
throughwhichthewaveistraveling,resultinginan‘expansion’
(redshifting)ofthewaveitself....[T]heexpansionredshiftwould
betheresultofthemotionofspaceitself.”Yes,itwould—which
isexactlythepointIwasmakingintheaboveparagraphs.And,
as Repp went on to acknowledge concerning expansion red
shift: “It is the commonly accepted explanation for the red
shifts of the distant galaxies” (39:271). Yes, it is.
But that is not quite the end of the story. There is evidence
to support the idea that the galaxies themselves may, in fact,
actually be moving, rather than simply being “at rest” while
beingcarriedalongbytheexpansionofspace.TheAndrom
edaGalaxy(knownasM31),whichisamongournearestneigh
boring galaxies, presents a light spectrum that is blueshifted.
IftheUniverseisexpanding,howcouldthatbe?Apparently,
the Doppler motion is large enough blueward to negate the
cosmological redshift expansion, thereby allowing us to
view a galaxy that has a blueshift. The implication of this is
that the galaxy itself must be moving.
Whatcouldberesponsibleforthat?Someastronomershave
suggested that such movement may be attributable to the lo
calizedforcesofgravity.Galaxiesareknowntoclumptogether
into clusters that can contain anywhere from a few dozen to a
fewthousandgalaxies.[Clustersofclustersareknownas“super
clusters.”]What holds these structures together? Presumably,
it is gravity. That would imply that the objects composing the
structures have orbits—which produce motion that are indeed
Doppler in nature.
- 41 ](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-50-320.jpg)
![redshiftisproportionaltodistanceisacrucialpartofdistance
measurement in modern astronomy. But that is not all. The
concepts of (a) an expanding Universe, and (b) the accu
racy of redshift measurements,formacriticallyimportant
partofthefoundationofmodernBigBangcosmology.Asmath
ematician David Berlinski put it: “Hubble’s law embodies a
general hypothesis of Big Bang cosmology—namely, that the
universeisexpanding...”(1998,p.34).Onewithouttheother
is not possible. If one falls, both do. I will have more to say on
this important point later.
Hubble and Humason’s work gave cosmologists clues to
thesizeoftheUniverseandthemovementofobjectswithinit.
Butwhileastronomerswerepeeringthroughtheirtelescopes
at the Universe, theoretical physicists were describing that
Universeinnewways.ThefirsttwomodelscamefromAlbert
Einstein and Willem de Sitter in 1917. Although they arrived
at their models independently, both ideas were based on Ein-
stein’s General Theory of Relativity, and both scientists made
adjustments to prevent expansion, even though expansion ap
peareda natural outcome of General Relativity. However, as
knowledge about redshifts became more widespread, expan
sionwasintroducedasamatteroffact.[Redshiftandexpan
sion inevitably became the “twin pillars” upon which much
of modern Big Bang cosmology was built. Interestingly, ex
pansion itself also was built upon two pillars—homogeneity
(matter is spread out uniformly) and isotropy (matter is spread
out evenly in all directions). I will have more to say about all
of this later, as well.] This was the case in 1922 with a set of so
lutions produced by Russian mathematician and physical sci
entist Aleksandr Friedman. Five years later, in 1927, the Bel
gian scholar Georges Lemaître produced a model incorporat
ingaredshift-distancerelationveryclosetothatsuggestedby
Hubble. If the Universe is expanding now, Lemaître calculated,
thentheremusthavebeenatimeinthepastwhentheUniverse
was in a state of contraction. It was in this state that the “pri
mevalatom,”ashecalledit,expandedtoformatoms,stars,and
galaxies. Lemaître had described, in its essential form, what
- 43 ](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-52-320.jpg)
![is now known as the Big Bang, and scientists even today speak
frequently of FL (Friedman-Lemaître) cosmology, which as
sumestheexpansionoftheUniverseanditshomogeneity(see
Illingworth and Clark, 2000, p. 94).
The Big Bang Theory
WhileitwascreditedtoLemaîtreinhisobituary,theeven
tualwidespreadacceptanceofthishypothesiswasduemainly
toitsleadingconstituent,Gamow.Eventhoughitprobablyis
notknownwidelytoday,theBigBang—initsoriginal“standard”
form—actuallycamebeforetheadventoftheSteadyStateThe
oryand,ironically,wasgivenitsname(intendedtobederog
atory) by Hoyle as a result of a snide comment he made on a
radio show for which he served as host (Fox, 2002, p. 65). In
this section, I will discuss only the “standard” form of the Big
Bang,leavingthediscussionoftheBigBang’smostrecentvar
iations for later.
Inthebeginningwastheylem...orsothetheoristssay.The
“ylem”—an entirely hypothetical construct—was a primordial
substance 10
14
times the density of water, yet smaller in vol
ume than a single proton. As one writer expressed it:
Astonishingly, scientists now calculate that everything
in this vast universe grew out of a region many billions
of times smaller than a single proton, one of the atom’s
basic particles (Gore, 1983, 163:705).
10
The ylem (a.k.a. the “cosmic egg”) was a “mind-bogglingly
denseatomcontainingtheentireUniverse”(Fox,p.69).[Where,
exactly, the cosmic egg is supposed to have come from, no
one knows; so far, no cosmic chicken has yet been sighted.]
At some point in time, according to Big Bang theorists, the
ylem reached its minimum contraction (at a temperature of
32
Celsius—a 1 followed by 32 zeros!), and suddenly and vi
olentlyexpanded.Withinanhourofthisevent,nucleosynthe
sis began to occur. That is to say, the light atoms we know to
day(e.g.,hydrogen,helium,andlithium)hadbeenmanufac
turedintheintenseheat.AstheUniverseexpandedandcooled,
theatomsstarted“clumping”together,andwithinafewhun
dredmillionyears,thecoalescing“clumps”begantoformstars
- 44 ](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-53-320.jpg)
![Who hath thee caused, or yeve thee hardinesse
For to appere in my ladyes presence?
5
I am ful siker, thou knowest her benivolence
Ful ágreable to alle hir obeyinge;
For of al goode she is the best livinge.
Allas! that thou ne haddest worthinesse
To shewe to her som plesaunt sentence,
10
Sith that she hath, thorough her gentilesse,
Accepted thee servant to her digne reverence!
O, me repenteth that I n'had science
And leyser als, to make thee more florisshinge;
For of al goode she is the best livinge.
15
Beseche her mekely, with al lowlinesse,
Though I be fer from her [as] in absence,
To thenke on my trouth to her and stedfastnesse,
And to abregge of my sorwe the violence,
Which caused is wherof knoweth your sapience;
20
She lyke among to notifye me her lykinge;
For of al goode she is the best livinge.
Lenvoy.
Aurore of gladnesse, and day of lustinesse,
Lucerne a-night, with hevenly influence
Illumined, rote of beautee and goodnesse,
25
Suspiries which I effunde in silence,
Of grace I beseche, alegge let your wrytinge,
Now of al goode sith ye be best livinge.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-61-320.jpg)
![Explicit.
From F. (Fairfax 16); collated with T. (Tanner 346); and Th. (Thynne,
ed. 1532). 1. F. boke; T. Th. booke. Th. foule. 2. All beaute. 3. All
the (twice). 5. So all. 6. Th. abeyeng (!). 7. F. T. goode; Th. good.
Th. best; F. T. beste. 9. All somme, some. Th. plesaunt; F. plesant.
10. T. thurugh; F. thorgh; Th. through. 11. All the. 12. All ne (before
had). 13. So all (with the for thee). 14. Th. good. Th. best; F. T.
beste. 16. I supply as. 17. T. Th. trouth; F. trouthe. 18. F. abregge;
Th. abrege; T. abrigge. T. sorow; F. sorwes; Th. sorowes. 20. All
amonge. T. Th. notifye; F. notefye. 21. T. Th. al; F. alle. F. T. goode;
Th. good.
Th. Lenuoye; T. The Lenuoye; F. om. 24. Th. T. Illumyned; F.
Enlumyned. F. Rote (with capital). All beaute. F. and of; Th. T. om.
of. 25. F. Suspiries; Th. Suspires. 26. T. beseke. Th. alege. 27. F.
goode; Th. T. good. After 27: Th. Explicit; F. T. om.
XX. THE FLOWER AND THE LEAF.
When that Phebus his chaire of gold so hy
Had whirled up the sterry sky aloft,
And in the Bole was entred certainly;
Whan shoures swete of rain discended †soft,
5
Causing the ground, felë tymes and oft,
Up for to give many an hoolsom air,
And every plain was [eek y-]clothed fair
With newe grene, and maketh smalë floures
To springen here and there in feld and mede;
10
So very good and hoolsom be the shoures
That it reneweth, that was old and deede
In winter-tyme; and out of every seede](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-62-320.jpg)
![Springeth the herbë, so that every wight
Of this sesoun wexeth [ful] glad and light.
15
And I, só glad of the seson swete,
Was happed thus upon a certain night;
As I lay in my bed, sleep ful unmete
Was unto me; but, why that I ne might
Rest, I ne wist; for there nas erthly wight,
20
As I suppose, had more hertës ese
Than I, for I n'ad siknesse nor disese.
Wherfore I mervail gretly of my-selve,
That I so long withouten sleepë lay;
And up I roos, three houres after twelve,
25
About the [very] springing of the day,
And on I put my gere and myn array;
And to a plesaunt grovë I gan passe,
Long or the brightë sonne uprisen was,
In which were okës grete, streight as a lyne,
30
Under the which the gras, so fresh of hew,
Was newly spronge; and an eight foot or nyne
Every tree wel fro his felawe grew,
With braunches brode, laden with leves new,
That sprongen out ayein the sonnë shene,
35
Som very rede, and som a glad light grene;
Which, as me thought, was right a plesaunt sight.
And eek the briddes song[ës] for to here
Would have rejoised any erthly wight.
And I, that couth not yet, in no manere,](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-63-320.jpg)
![40
Here the nightingale of al the yere,
Ful busily herkned, with herte and ere,
If I her voice perceive coud any-where.
And at the last, a path of litel brede
I found, that gretly had not used be,
45
For it forgrowen was with gras and weede,
That wel unneth a wight [ther] might it see.
Thought I, this path som whider goth, pardè,
And so I folowèd, til it me brought
To right a plesaunt herber, wel y-wrought,
50
That benched was, and [al] with turves new
Freshly turved, wherof the grenë gras
So small, so thik, so short, so fresh of hew,
That most lyk to grene †wol, wot I, it was.
The hegge also, that yede [as] in compas
55
And closed in al the grene herbere,
With sicamour was set and eglantere,
Writhen in-fere so wel and cunningly
That every braunch and leef grew by mesure,
Plain as a bord, of on height, by and by,
60
[That] I sy never thing, I you ensure,
So wel [y-]don; for he that took the cure
It [for] to make, I trow, did al his peyn
To make it passe al tho that men have seyn.
And shapen was this herber, roof and al,
65
As [is] a prety parlour, and also](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-64-320.jpg)
![The hegge as thik as [is] a castle-wal,
That, who that list without to stond or go,
Though he wold al-day pryen to and fro,
He shuld not see if there were any wight
70
Within or no; but oon within wel might
Perceive al tho that yeden there-without
In the feld, that was on every syde
Covered with corn and gras, that, out of dout,
Though oon wold seeken al the world wyde,
75
So rich a feld [ne] coud not be espyed
[Up]on no cost, as of the quantitee,
For of al good thing ther was [greet] plentee.
And I, that al this plesaunt sight [than] sy,
Thought sodainly I felt so sweet an air
80
[Come] of the eglantere, that certainly,
Ther is no hert, I deme, in such despair,
Ne with [no] thoughtës froward and contrair
So overlaid, but it shuld soone have bote,
If it had onës felt this savour sote.
85
And as I stood and cast asyde myn y,
I was ware of the fairest medle-tree
That ever yet in al my lyf I sy,
As full of blossomës as it might be.
Therin a goldfinch leping pretily
90
Fro bough to bough, and, as him list, he eet
Here and there, of buddes and floures sweet.
And to the herber-sydë was joining](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-65-320.jpg)
![This fairë tree, of which I have you told;
And, at the last, the brid began to sing,
95
Whan he had eten what he etë wold,
So passing sweetly, that, by manifold,
It was more plesaunt than I coud devyse;
And whan his song was ended in this wyse,
The nightingale with so mery a note
100
Answéred him, that al the wodë rong
So sodainly, that, as it were a sot,
I stood astonied; so was I with the song
Through ravishèd, that, [un]til late and long
Ne wist I in what place I was, ne where;
105
And †ay, me thought, she song even by myn ere.
Wherfore about I waited busily
On every syde, if I her mightë see;
And, at the last, I gan ful wel aspy
Wher she sat in a fresh green laurer-tree
110
On the further syde, even right by me,
That gave so passing a delicious smel
According to the eglantere ful wel.
Wherof I had so inly greet plesyr
That, as me thought, I surely ravished was
115
Into Paradyse, where my desyr
Was for to be, and no ferther [to] passe
As for that day, and on the sotë gras
I sat me doun; for, as for myn entent,
The birdës song was more convenient,](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-66-320.jpg)
![120
And more plesaunt to me, by many fold,
Than mete or drink, or any other thing;
Thereto the herber was so fresh and cold,
The hoolsom savours eek so comforting
That, as I demed, sith the beginning
125
Of the world, was never seen, or than,
So plesaunt a ground of non erthly man.
And as I sat, the briddës herkning thus,
Me thought that I herd voices sodainly,
The most sweetest and most delicious
130
That ever any wight, I trow trewly,
Herde in †his lyf, for [that] the armony
And sweet accord was in so good musyk,
Thát the voice to angels most was lyk.
The Leaf.
At the last, out of a grove even by,
135
That was right goodly and plesaunt to sight,
I sy where there cam singing lustily
A world of ladies; but to tell aright
Their greet beautè, it lyth not in my might,
Ne their array; nevertheless, I shal
140
Tell you a part, though I speke not of al.
†In surcotes whyte, of veluet wel sitting,
They were [y-]clad; and the semes echoon,
As it were a maner garnishing,
Was set with emeraudës, oon and oon,
145
By and by; but many a richë stoon](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-67-320.jpg)
![Was set [up-]on the purfils, out of dout,
Of colors, sleves, and trainës round about;
As gret[e] perlës, round and orient,
Diamondës fyne and rubies rede,
150
And many another stoon, of which I †want
The namës now; and everich on her hede
A richë fret of gold, which, without drede,
Was ful of statly richë stonës set;
And every lady had a chapëlet
155
On her hede, of [leves] fresh and grene,
So wel [y-]wrought, and so mervéilously,
Thát it was a noble sight to sene;
Some of laurer, and some ful plesauntly
Had chapëlets of woodbind, and sadly
160
Some of agnus-castus ware also
Chápëlets fresh; but there were many tho
That daunced and eek song ful soberly;
But al they yede in maner of compas.
But oon ther yede in-mid the company
165
Sole by her-self; but al folowed the pace
[Which] that she kept, whos hevenly-figured face
So plesaunt was, and her wel-shape persòn,
That of beautè she past hem everichon.
And more richly beseen, by manifold,
170
She was also, in every maner thing;
On her heed, ful plesaunt to behold,
A crowne of gold, rich for any king;](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-68-320.jpg)
![A braunch of agnus-castus eek bering
In her hand; and, to my sight, trewly,
175
She lady was of [al] the company.
And she began a roundel lustily,
That Sus le foyl de vert moy men call,
Seen, et mon joly cuer endormi;
And than the company answéred all
180
With voice[s] swete entuned and so small,
That me thought it the sweetest melody
That ever I herdë in my lyf, soothly.
And thus they came[n], dauncing and singing,
Into the middes of the mede echone,
185
Before the herber, where I was sitting,
And, god wot, me thought I was wel bigon;
For than I might avyse hem, on by on,
Who fairest was, who coud best dance or sing,
Or who most womanly was in al thing.
190
They had not daunced but a litel throw
When that I herd, not fer of, sodainly
So greet a noise of thundring trumpës blow,
As though it shuld have départed the sky;
And, after that, within a whyle I sy
195
From the same grove, where the ladyes come out,
Of men of armës coming such a rout
As al the men on erth had been assembled
In that place, wel horsed for the nones,
Stering so fast, that al the erth[ë] trembled;](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-69-320.jpg)
![200
But for to speke of riches and [of] stones,
And men and hors, I trow, the largë wones
Of Prester John, ne al his tresory
Might not unneth have bought the tenth party!
Of their array who-so list herë more,
205
I shal reherse, so as I can, a lyte.
Out of the grove, that I spak of before,
I sy come first, al in their clokes whyte,
A company, that ware, for their delyt,
Chapëlets fresh of okës cereal
210
Newly spronge, and trumpets they were al.
On every trumpe hanging a brood banere
Of fyn tartarium, were ful richly bete;
Every trumpet his lordës armës †bere;
About their nekkës, with gret perlës set,
215
Colers brode; for cost they would not lete,
As it would seme; for their scochones echoon
Were set about with many a precious stoon.
Their hors-harneys was al whyte also;
And after hem next, in on company,
220
Cámë kingës of armës, and no mo,
In clokës of whyte cloth of gold, richly;
Chapelets of greene on their hedes on hy,
The crownës that they on their scochones bere
Were set with perlë, ruby, and saphere,
225
And eek gret diamondës many on;](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-70-320.jpg)
![But al their hors-harneys and other gere
Was in a sute àccording, everichon,
As ye have herd the foresayd trumpets were;
And, by seeming, they were nothing to lere;
230
And their gyding they did so manerly.
And after hem cam a greet company
Of heraudës and pursevauntës eke
Arrayed in clothës of whyt veluët;
And hardily, they were nothing to seke
235
How they [up]on hem shuld the harneys set;
And every man had on a chapëlet;
Scóchones and eke hors-harneys, indede,
They had in sute of hem that before hem yede.
Next after hem, came in armour bright,
240
Al save their hedes, seemely knightës nyne;
And every clasp and nail, as to my sight,
Of their harneys, were of red gold fyne;
With cloth of gold, and furred with ermyne
Were the trappurës of their stedës strong,
245
Wyde and large, that to the ground did hong;
And every bosse of brydel and peitrel
That they had, was worth, as I would wene,
A thousand pound; and on their hedës, wel
Dressed, were crownës [al] of laurer grene,
250
The best [y-]mad that ever I had seen;
And every knight had after him ryding
Three henshmen, [up]on him awaiting;](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-71-320.jpg)
![Of whiche †the first, upon a short tronchoun,
His lordës helme[t] bar, so richly dight,
255
That the worst was worth[y] the raunsoun
Of a[ny] king; the second a sheld bright
Bar at his nekke; the thridde bar upright
A mighty spere, ful sharpe [y-]ground and kene;
And every child ware, of leves grene,
260
A fresh chapelet upon his heres bright;
And clokes whyte, of fyn veluet they ware;
Their stedës trapped and [a]rayed right
Without[en] difference, as their lordës were.
And after hem, on many a fresh co[u]rsere,
265
There came of armed knightës such a rout
That they besprad the largë feld about.
And al they ware[n], after their degrees,
Chapëlets new, made of laurer grene,
Some of oke, and some of other trees;
270
Some in their handës berë boughës shene,
Some of laurer, and some of okës kene,
Some of hawthorn, and some of woodbind,
And many mo, which I had not in mind.
And so they came, their hors freshly stering
275
With bloody sownës of hir trompës loud;
Ther sy I many an uncouth disgysing
In the array of these knightës proud;
And at the last, as evenly as they coud,
They took their places in-middes of the mede,
280](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-72-320.jpg)
![And every knight turned his horse[s] hede
To his felawe, and lightly laid a spere
In the [a]rest, and so justës began
On every part about[en], here and there;
Som brak his spere, som drew down hors and man;
285
About the feld astray the stedës ran;
And, to behold their rule and governaunce,
I you ensure, it was a greet plesaunce.
And so the justës last an houre and more;
But tho that crowned were in laurer grene
290
Wan the pryse; their dintës were so sore
That ther was non ayenst hem might sustene;
And [than] the justing al was left of clene;
And fro their hors the †nine alight anon;
And so did al the remnant everichon.
295
And forth they yede togider, twain and twain,
That to behold, it was a worldly sight,
Toward the ladies on the grenë plain,
That song and daunced, as I sayd now right.
The ladies, as soone as they goodly might,
300
They breke[n] of both the song and dance,
And yede to mete hem, with ful glad semblance.
And every lady took, ful womanly,
Bý the hond a knight, and forth they yede
Unto a fair laurer that stood fast by,
305
With levës lade, the boughës of gret brede;
And to my dome, there never was, indede,](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-73-320.jpg)
![[A] man that had seen half so fair a tree;
For underneth it there might wel have be
An hundred persons, at their own plesaunce,
310
Shadowed fro the hete of Phebus bright
So that they shuld have felt no [greet] grevaunce
Of rain, ne hail, that hem hurt[ë] might.
The savour eek rejoice would any wight
That had be sick or melancolious,
315
It was so very good and vertuous.
And with gret reverence they †enclyned low
[Un]to the tree, so sote and fair of hew;
And after that, within a litel throw,
†Bigonne they to sing and daunce of-new;
320
Some song of love, some playning of untrew,
Environing the tree that stood upright;
And ever yede a lady and a knight.
The Flower.
And at the last I cast myn eye asyde,
And was ware of a lusty company
325
That came, roming out of the feld wyde,
Hond in hond, a knight and a lady;
The ladies alle in surcotes, that richly
Purfyled were with many a riche stoon;
And every knight of greene ware mantles on,
330
Embrouded wel, so as the surcotes were,
And everich had a chapelet on her hede;
Which did right wel upon the shyning here,](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-74-320.jpg)
![Made of goodly floures, whyte and rede.
The knightës eke, that they in hond lede,
335
In sute of hem, ware chapelets everichon;
And hem before went minstrels many on,
As harpës, pypës, lutës, and sautry,
Al in greene; and on their hedës bare
Of dyvers flourës, mad ful craftily,
340
Al in a sute, goodly chapelets they ware;
And so, dauncing, into the mede they fare,
In-mid the which they found a tuft that was
Al oversprad with flourës in compas.
Where[un]to they enclyned everichon
345
With greet reverence, and that ful humblely;
And, at the last[ë], there began anon
A lady for to sing right womanly
A bargaret in praising the daisy;
For, as me thought, among her notës swete,
350
She sayd, 'Si doucë est la Margarete.'
Thén they al answéred her infere,
So passingly wel, and so plesauntly,
Thát it was a blisful noise to here.
But I not [how], it happed sodainly,
355
As, about noon, the sonne so fervently
Wex hoot, that [al] the prety tender floures
Had lost the beautè of hir fresh coloures,
For-shronk with hete; the ladies eek to-brent,
That they ne wist where they hem might bestow.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-75-320.jpg)
![360
The knightës swelt, for lak of shade ny shent;
And after that, within a litel throw,
The wind began so sturdily to blow,
That down goth al the flourës everichon
So that in al the mede there laft not on,
365
Save suche as socoured were, among the leves,
Fro every storme, that might hem assail,
Growing under hegges and thikke greves;
And after that, there came a storm of hail
And rain in-fere, so that, withouten fail,
370
The ladies ne the knightës n'ade o threed
Drye [up]on hem, so dropping was hir weed.
And when the storm was clene passed away,
Tho [clad] in whyte, that stood under the tree,
They felt[ë] nothing of the grete affray,
375
That they in greene without had in y-be.
To hem they yedë for routh and pitè,
Hem to comfort after their greet disese;
So fain they were the helpless for to ese.
Then was I ware how oon of hem in grene
380
Had on a crown[ë], rich and wel sitting;
Wherfore I demed wel she was a quene,
And tho in greene on her were awaiting.
The ladies then in whyte that were coming
Toward[ës] hem, and the knightës in-fere
385
Began to comfort hem and make hem chere.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-76-320.jpg)
![The quene in whyte, that was of grete beautè,
Took by the hond the queen that was in grene,
And said, 'Suster, I have right greet pitè
Of your annoy, and of the troublous tene
390
Wherein ye and your company have been
So long, alas! and, if that it you plese
To go with me, I shal do you the ese
In al the pleisir that I can or may.'
Wherof the tother, humbly as she might,
395
Thanked her; for in right ill aray
She was, with storm and hete, I you behight.
And every lady then, anon-right,
That were in whyte, oon of hem took in grene
By the hond; which when the knightes had seen,
400
In lyke wyse, ech of hem took a knight
Clad in grene, and forth with hem they fare
[Un]to an heggë, where they, anon-right,
To make their justës, [lo!] they would not spare
Boughës to hew down, and eek treës square,
405
Wherewith they made hem stately fyres grete
To dry their clothës that were wringing wete.
And after that, of herbës that there grew,
They made, for blisters of the sonne brenning,
Very good and hoolsom ointments new,
410
Where that they yede, the sick fast anointing;
And after that, they yede about gadring
Plesaunt saladës, which they made hem ete,
For to refresh their greet unkindly hete.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/816184-250524101409-9681938e/85/Scientific-Case-For-Creation-Bert-Thompson-77-320.jpg)
Scientific Case For Creation Bert Thompson
- 1. Scientific Case ForCreation Bert Thompson download https://ebookbell.com/product/scientific-case-for-creation-bert- thompson-1632368 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
- 2. Here are somerecommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. The Case For A Creator A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God Lee Strobel https://ebookbell.com/product/the-case-for-a-creator-a-journalist- investigates-scientific-evidence-that-points-toward-god-lee- strobel-1478612 The Case For A Creator A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God Lee Strobel https://ebookbell.com/product/the-case-for-a-creator-a-journalist- investigates-scientific-evidence-that-points-toward-god-lee- strobel-5074702 Authoritative Communities The Scientific Case For Nurturing The Whole Child 1st Edition Kathleen Kovner Kline Md Auth https://ebookbell.com/product/authoritative-communities-the- scientific-case-for-nurturing-the-whole-child-1st-edition-kathleen- kovner-kline-md-auth-4387528 The Esp Enigma The Scientific Case For Psychic Phenomena First Edition Diane Hennacy Powell https://ebookbell.com/product/the-esp-enigma-the-scientific-case-for- psychic-phenomena-first-edition-diane-hennacy-powell-4983054
- 3. Making A ScientificCase For Conscious Agency And Free Will 1st Edition William R Klemm https://ebookbell.com/product/making-a-scientific-case-for-conscious- agency-and-free-will-1st-edition-william-r-klemm-5433140 Liberation Biology The Scientific And Moral Case For The Biotech Revolution Ronald Bailey https://ebookbell.com/product/liberation-biology-the-scientific-and- moral-case-for-the-biotech-revolution-ronald-bailey-5563748 The Case For International Sharing Of Scientific Data A Focus On Developing Countries Proceedings Of A Symposium 1st Edition National Research Council Policy And Global Affairs Board On Research Data And Information Board On International Scientific Organizations Committee On The Case Of International Sharing Of Scientific Data A Focus On Developing Countries Paul F Uhli https://ebookbell.com/product/the-case-for-international-sharing-of- scientific-data-a-focus-on-developing-countries-proceedings-of-a- symposium-1st-edition-national-research-council-policy-and-global- affairs-board-on-research-data-and-information-board-on-international- scientific-organizations-committee-on-the-case-of-international- sharing-of-scientific-data-a-focus-on-developing-countries-paul-f- uhli-51874238 The Case For Reason Volume Two A Scientific Enquiry Into Belief Dabholkar https://ebookbell.com/product/the-case-for-reason-volume-two-a- scientific-enquiry-into-belief-dabholkar-12294708 The Case For Reason Volume Two A Scientific Enquiry Into Belief Dabholkar https://ebookbell.com/product/the-case-for-reason-volume-two-a- scientific-enquiry-into-belief-dabholkar-58720620
- 6.
- 7. Apologetics Press, Inc. 230Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117-2752 First Edition © Copyright 1986 ISBN: 0-932859-63-1 Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedin any form without permission from the publisher, except in thecaseofbriefquotationsembodiedinarticlesorcriticalre views. First Revised Edition © Copyright 1999 Second Revised Edition © Copyright 2002 Third Revised Edition © Copyright 2004
- 8. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Cosmic Microwave Our Fine-Tuned, Science and the Law A Look at the Inner Importance of the Creation/ Evolution Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Evolutionary Scientists as “Reluctant Creationists”? . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Plausibility of the Creation Model . . . 19 Is the Universe Eternal? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Steady State and Oscil lating Universe Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 What About the Big Bang? . . . . . . . . . . 34 The Evolution of a Theory . . . . . . . . . 35 The Big Bang Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Scientific Reasons Why the Big Bang Theory Cannot be Correct . . . . 48 Background Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 The Homogeneity of the Universe. . . 82 Dark Matter and Our “Precar iously Balanced” Universe . . . . . . . . . 85 Dark Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Did the Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Was the Universe Created?. . . . . . . . . . 110 Tailor-Made Universe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 The Law of Cause and Effect . . . . . . 131 of Cause and Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 The Law of Biogenesis . . . . . . . . . . . 139 The Laws of Genetics . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Workings of the Cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 DNA, Genes, and Chromosomes . . . . . 164 Origin of the Genetic Code. . . . . . . . . . 170 - i
- 9. Function and Design ofthe Genetic Code. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Implications of the “Error Messages”— Human Genome Project . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 SNPs and Mutations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 CHAPTER 7 The Laws of Probability . . . . . . . . . . 197 CHAPTER 8 The Fossil Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Predictions of the Two Models . . . . . . . 212 Human Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 CHAPTER 9 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 APPENDIX A Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 APPENDIX B Arp’s Anomalies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 - ii
- 10. 1 INTRODUCTION There are twofundamentally different, and diametrically opposed, explanations for the origin of the Universe, the ori gin oflifeinthatUniverse,andtheoriginofnewtypesofvary inglife forms. Each of these explanations is a cosmogony—an entire world view, or philosophy, of origins and destinies, of life and meaning. One of these world views is the concept of evolution. Ac- cordingtothetheoryofevolution,orasitmaybecalledmore properly,theevolutionmodel,theUniverseisself-contained. EverythingintheUniversehascomeintobeingthroughmech anistic processes without any kind of supernatural interven tion. This view asserts that the origin and development of the Universeandallofitssystems(theUniverseitself,livingnon human organisms, man, etc.) can be explained solely on the basis of time, chance, and continuing natural processes innate in the structure of matter and energy. According to this particular theory, all living things have arisen from a single-celled organism, which in turn had arisen from an inanimate, inorganic world. This theory may be cal led the “General Theory of Evolution,” a name given to it by G.A. Kerkut, the famous British evolutionist/physiologist who describeditas“...thetheorythatallthelivingformsintheworld havearisenfromasinglesourcewhichitselfcamefromanin organic form” (1960, p. 157). - 1
- 11. The second alternateand opposing world view is the con cept of creation. According to the theory of creation, or as it may be called more properly, the creation model, the Uni verseis not self-contained.EverythingintheUniverse,and in fact, the Universe itself, has come into being through the design, purpose, and deliberate acts of a supernatural Creator Who, using processes that are not continuing as natural pro cesses in the present, created the Universe, the Earth, and all life on the Earth, including all basic types of plants and ani mals, as well as humans. As various authors—both evolutionists (see Wald, 1979, p. 289)andcreationists(seeWysong,1976,p.5)—haveobserved, therearetwoandonlytwopossibilitiesregardingorigins.One or the other of these two philosophies (or models) must be true. That is to say, all things either can, or cannot, be explained in terms of ongoing natural processes in a self-contained Uni verse. If they can, then evolution is true. If they cannot, then they must be explained, at least in part, by extranatural pro cesses that can account for a Universe which itself was cre ated. In their text, What Is Creation Science?, Henry Morris and Gary Parker commented on this point. Thefactis,however,thereareonly twopossiblemod elsoforigins,evolutionorcreation....Eitherthespace/ mass/time universe is eternal, or it is not. If it is, then evolution is the true explanation of its various com ponents.Ifitisnot,thenitmusthavebeencreatedby a Creator. These are the only two possibilities—sim- ply stated, either it happened by accident (chance)... or it didn’t (design).... There are only these two pos sibilities. There may be many evolution submodels... and various creation submodels..., but there can be onlytwobasicmodels—evolutionorcreation(1987,p. 190, emp. in orig.). Varioustermshavebeenusedtodescribethetwoconceptsof origins—creation versus evolution, design versus chance, the ism versus naturalism/materialism, etc.—but in the end all of these phrases are merely different ways of expressing the same two basic alternatives. - 2
- 12. Some, in anattempt to offer a third alternative, have sug gested“theisticevolution”(alsoknownas“directedevolution,” “mitigated evolution,” or “religious evolution”), which postu latesbothaCreatorandanevolutionaryscenario.Evolution ists frequently have been known to ask creationists, “Which creation story do you wish to see taught—Buddhist? Hindu? Christian?, etc.?” The fact remains, of course, that ultimately eitherthereisaCreatororthereisnot.Thatquestionwillhave to be resolved, whether or not one wishes to retreat to a con cept like theistic evolution. An appeal to theistic evolution as a possible “third alternative” in the origins controversy will not answer the basic questions involved. Also, evolutionists need to be reminded that the cosmogonies of the Buddhists, Hindus,Taoists,Confucianists,etc.areallbasedonevolution. Orthodox Jewish, Muslim, and Christian cosmogonies are all basedoncreation.Anyonewhotakesthetimeandexpendsthe efforttostudytheseissueslikelywillcometorealizetheillog ical, contradictory nature of theistic evolution and related con cepts(seeThompson,1977,1995,2000).Theremaybemany evolutionary submodels (e.g., different mechanisms, rates, or sequences) and various creationist submodels (e.g., different dates, or events of creation), but there still remain only two basic models—creation and evolution. Both evolution and creation may be referred to correctly asscientificmodels,sincebothmaybeusedtoexplainandpre dictscientificfacts.Obviouslytheonethatdoesthebetterjob of explaining/predicting is the better scientific model. How ever,bytheverynatureofhowscienceworks,simplybecause one model fits the facts better does not prove it true. Rather, the model that better fits the available scientific data is said to be the one that has the highest degree of probability of being true.Knowledgeablescientistsunderstandthis,ofcourse,and readily accept it, recognizing the limitations of the scientific method (due to its heavy dependence upon inductive, rather than strictly deductive, reasoning). In order to examine properly the two models, they must be defined in broad, general terms, and then each must be com pared to the available data in order to examine its effective- - 3
- 13. nessinexplainingandpredictingvariousscientificfacts.What, then, by wayof summary, do the two different models predict and/or include? The evolution model includes the evidence from various fields of science for a gradual emergence of pres ent life kinds over eons of time, with emergence of complex anddiversifiedkindsoflifefrom“simpler”kinds,andultimately fromnonlivingmatter.The creation modelincludestheev idence from various fields of science for a sudden creation of complexanddiversifiedkindsoflife,withgapspersistingbe tweendifferentkinds,andwithgeneticvariationoccurringwith in each kind. The creation model denies “vertical” evolution (also called “macroevolution”—the emergence of complex from simple, and change between kinds), but does not challenge “horizontal” evolution (also called “microevolution”—the for mation of species or subspecies within created kinds, or ge neticvariation).Indefiningtheconceptsofcreationandevo lution,anexaminationofseveraldifferentaspectsofeachof the models demonstrates the dichotomy between the two. Put into chart form, such a comparison would appear as seen in Table 1 on the next page. - 4
- 14. The creation modelincludes the scientific evidence and the related inferences sug- gesting that: I. The Universe and the solar system were created sud- denly. II. Life was created suddenly. III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have re- mained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and ge- netic variation in originally cre- atedkindshasoccurredonly within narrow limits. IV. Mutation and natural se- lectionareinsufficienttohave broughtabouttheemergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism. V. Manandapeshaveasep- arate ancestry. VI.The Earth’s geologic fea- tures appear to have been fashionedlargelybyrapid,cat- astrophic processes that af- fected the Earth on a global and regional scale (catastro- phism). VII. The inception of both the Earth and living kinds may have been relatively recent. Theevolutionmodelincludes the scientific evidence and the related inferences sug- gesting that: I. The Universe and the solar system emerged by natural- istic processes. II. Life emerged from non-life via naturalistic processes. III. All present kinds emerged fromsimplerearlierkinds,so that single-celled organisms evolved first into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then am- phibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates (in- cluding man). IV. Mutation and natural se- lection have brought about the emergence of present com- plex kinds from a simple pri- mordial organism. V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor. VI.The Earth’s geologic lec- tures were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism). VII. The inception of both the Earthandoflifemusthaveoc- curred several billion years ago. Table1— The two models of origins (afterGish,etal.,1981) - 5
- 16. 2 IMPORTANCE OF THE CREATION/EVOLUTION CONTROVERSY Thecreation/evolutionquestionishardlyatrivialissuethat concernsonly a few scientists on the one hand or a few reli gionists on the other. In one way or another, the issue perme atespracticallyeveryfieldofacademicstudyandeveryaspect of national life. It deals with two opposing world views. Con sequently,itshouldbeofinteresttoalmosteveryone.Certainly, few would doubt that in recent years the controversy definitely hasheightened.Variousstateshavediscussedenacting,orhave attempted to enact, laws that militate against the teaching of thescientificevidenceofonlyonetheoryoforigins.Booksare being written by evolutionists that attack the creationist stance; books are being written by creationists that attack the evolution ist stance. National news media have become involved. Sci ence associations have become involved. Teachers’ associa tions and political groups have become involved. Far from diminishing, the controversy seems to be increasing. And both sides acknowledge that it is not likely to “go away.” As one evolutionistputitincommentingontheupswingofcreation ism in America: “The climate of the times suggests that the problem will be with us for a very long time...” (Moore, 1981, p.1).Indeed,“theproblem”willbewithusforaverylongtime. - 7
- 17. There was atime when creationists and their arguments largelywereignoredbymanyinthescientificcommunity.That hardlyisthecasenow,however.Andthereisgoodreasonwhy evolutionaryscientistshavebecomealarmedenoughtocon sider creation a threat. In 1971, Harvard-trained lawyer Norman Macbeth wrote abitingrebuttalofevolutiontitledDarwinRetried.Somewhat later,inapublishedinterviewaboutthebookanditscontents, heobservedthatevolutionistswere“notrevealingallthedirt undertherugintheirapproachtothepublic.Thereisafeeling thattheyoughttokeepbacktheworstsothattheirpublicrep utation would not suffer and the Creationists wouldn’t get any ammunition” (1982, 2:22). It is too late, however, because the evolutionists’publicreputationhassuffered,andthecreation ists have garnered to themselves additional ammunition, as is evident from the following. Inacenter-column,front-pagearticleintheJune15,1979 issue of the Wall Street Journal, there appeared an article by one of the Journal’s staff writers commenting on how creation ists, when engaging in debates with evolutionists, “tend to win” the debates, and that creationism was “making progress.” In 1979, Gallup pollsters conducted a random survey in Amer ica, inquiring about belief in creation versus evolution. The poll had been commissioned by Christianity Today magazine, andwasreportedinitsDecember21,1979issue.Thispollfound that 51% of Americans believe in the special creation of a lit eralAdamandEveasthestartingplaceofhumanlife.A1980 Gallup poll showed that over half of the United States popu lationbelievedinaliteral,speciallycreatedAdamandEveas the parents of the whole human race. The March 1980 issue oftheAmericanSchoolBoardJournal(p.52)announcedthat67% of its readers (most of whom were school board members and school administrators) favored the teaching of the scientific evidence for creation in public schools. One of the most au thoritativepollswasconductedinOctober1981bytheAsso ciatedPress/NBCNewspollingorganization.Theresultswere as follows: - 8
- 18. “Only evolution shouldbe taught” 8% “Only creation should be taught 10% “Bothcreation&evolutionshouldbetaught” 76% “Notsurewhichshouldbetaught” 6% Thus,nationwidenolessthan86%ofthepeopleintheUnited Statesbelievethatcreationshouldbetaughtinpublicschools. In August 1982, another Gallup poll was conducted and found that 44% (i.e., almost half) of the population believed not on lyincreation,butinarecentcreationoccurringlessthan10,000 years ago (see Morris, 1982b, pp. 12,130,164; also see San Diego Union, 1982). Glamour magazine conducted a poll of its own, and reported the results in its August 1982 issue (p. 28). The magazine found that 74% of its readers favored teaching the scientific evidence for creation in public schools. Amazingly,afteralmostadecade(andinsomecasesmore thanadecade),thesefigureshavechangedverylittle.OnNo vember 28, 1991, results were released from yet another Gal lup poll regarding the biblical account of origins. The results maybesummarizedasfollows.Onorigins:47%believedGod createdmanwithinthelast10,000years(up3%fromthe1982 pollmentionedabove);40%believedmanevolvedovermil lions of years, but that God guided the process; 9% believed manevolvedovermillionsofyearswithoutGod;4%were“oth- er/don’t know.” On the Bible: 32% believed the Bible to be theinspiredWordofGodandthatitshouldbetakenliterally; 49% believed the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, but that it should not always be taken literally; 16% believed the Bible to be entirely the product of men; 3% were “other/don’t know” (see Major, 1991a, 11:48; John Morris, 1992, p. d). Two yearslater,aGalluppollcarriedoutin1993producedalmost the same results. Of those responding, 47% stated that they believed in a recent creation of man; 11% expressed their be lief in a strictly naturalistic form of evolution (see Newport, 1993, p. A-22). Four years after that poll, a 1997 Gallup sur vey found that 44% of Americans (including 31% who were college graduates) subscribed to a fairly literal reading of the Genesis account of creation, while another 39% (53% of whom - 9
- 19. werecollegegraduates)believedGodplayedatleastsomepart increatingtheUniverse.Only10%(17%collegegraduates)em braced a purelynaturalistic, evolutionary view (see Bishop, 1998, pp. 39-48; Sheler, 1999, pp. 48-49). The results of a Gal luppollreleasedinAugust1999werepracticallyidentical:47% stated that they believed in a recent creation of man; 9% ex pressedbeliefinstrictlynaturalisticevolution(seeMoore,1999). In its March 11, 2000 issue, the New York Times ran a story titled“SurveyFindsSupportisStrongforTeaching2Origin Theories,” which reported on a poll commissioned by the lib eral civil rights group, People for the American Way, and con ducted by the prestigious polling/public research firm, DYG, of Danbury, Connecticut. According to the report, 79% of the people polled felt that the scientific evidence for creation should be included in the curriculum of public schools (see Glanz, 2000, p. A-1). These results were unexpected by evolutionists, who would have expected instead a general agreement with evolutionary theory in light of the many decades of indoctrination in the schools,textbooks,andnewsmediatotheeffectthatevolution is a “fact” and that the Earth is billions of years old. Little won der, then, that many evolutionists are becoming alarmed re garding the creationist position. EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS AS “RELUCTANT CREATIONISTS”? No doubt the shock that so many today believe in the con ceptofcreationisdevastatingnewstoevolutionists.Butnow, asiftoaddsalttoanalreadyopenandbleedingwound,some intheevolutionarycampare“defecting”aswell.GaryParker, inthesectionofWhatIsCreationScience? thatheauthored,stated: Thecaseforcreation,however,isnotbasedonimagi nation. Creation is based instead on logical infer encefromourscientific observations,andonsim ple acknowledgment that everyone, scientists and lay men alike, recognize that certain kinds of design im ply creation.... According to creation, living things op erate in understandable ways that can be described - 10
- 20. in terms ofscientific laws—but these observations in cludepropertiesoforganizationthatlogicallyimplya created origin for life. The creationist, then, recognizes the orderliness that thevitalistdoesn’tsee.Buthedoesn’tlimithimselfon ly to those kinds of order that result from time, chance, and the properties of matter as the evolutionist does. Creationintroduceslevelsoforderandorganization thatgreatlyenrichtherangeofexplorablehypothe sesandturnthestudyoflifeintoascientist’sdream. If the evidence for the creation of life is as clear as I sayitis,thenotherscientists,eventhosewhoareevo lutionists,oughttoseeit—andtheydo(MorrisandPark er, 1987, p. 47, emp. in orig.). They do? Even evolutionists? Apparently so. Consider, for example,thefollowing.OnNovember5,1981,thelateColin Patterson, who was serving at the time as the senior paleon tologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, andwhowasrecognizedwidelyasoneoftheworld’sforemost evolutionaryexperts,deliveredanaddresstohisevolutionist colleaguesattheAmericanMuseumofNaturalHistoryinNew York. In that speech, Dr. Patterson astonished those assem bledbystatingthathehadbeen“kickingaround”non-evolu- tionary, or “anti-evolutionary,” ideas for approximately eigh teen months. As he described it: OnemorningIwokeupandsomethinghadhappened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thingIknewaboutit.That’squiteashocktolearnthat onecanbemisledsolong.Eithertherewassomething wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolution theory (1981). Dr.Pattersonsaidheknewtherewasnothingwrongwithhim, so he started asking various individuals and groups a simple question: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolu tion, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the ge ology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence.” He then tried the same tactic withpeopleinattendanceatanevolutionarymorphologysem inar at the University of Chicago (a very prestigious body of - 11
- 21. evolutionists), and allhe got there, according to his personal reportoftheevent,“wassilenceforalongtimeandeventually one person said, ‘I know one thing—it ought not to be taught inhighschool.’” Hethenremarked,“Itdoesseemthatthelev el of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We knowitoughtnottobetaughtinhighschool,andthat’sallwe know about it.” Pattersonwentontosay:“ThenIwokeupandrealizedthat allmylifeIhadbeendupedintotakingevolutionasrevealed truth in some way.” But even more important, he termed evo lution an “anti-theory” that produced “anti-knowledge.” He also suggested that “the explanatory value of the hypothesis isnil”andthatevolutiontheoryis“avoidthathasthefunction of knowledge but conveys none.” To use Patterson’s wording, “I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematicshasnotbeenmerelyboring,notjustalackofknowl edge,Ithinkithasbeenpositivelyanti-knowledge”(1981). Dr.Pattersonmadeitclear,asIwishtodohere,thathenev er had any fondness for the creationist position. Yet he was willing to label his stance as “anti-evolutionary,” which was quite a change for a man who had authored several books in the field he eventually came to believe produces nothing but “anti-knowledge.” Colin Patterson was not the only scientist who expressed suchviews.Formorethantwodecades,thelate,distinguished British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle stressed the serious prob lems,especiallyfromthefieldsofthermodynamics,withthe ories about the naturalistic origin of life on the Universe. In 1981, Dr. Hoyle wrote: I don’t know how long it is going to be before astron omersgenerallyrecognizethatthecombinatorialar rangementofnotevenoneamongthemanythousands ofbiopolymersonwhichlifedependscouldhavebeen arrivedatbynaturalprocesseshereontheEarth.As tronomerswillhavealittledifficultyinunderstanding thisbecausetheywillbeassuredbybiologiststhatitis notso,thebiologistshavingbeenassuredintheirturn by others that it is not so. The “others” are a group of - 12
- 22. persons who believe,quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits od dly on a profession that for long has been dedicated tocomingupwithlogicalexplanationsofbiblicalmir acles.... It is quite otherwise, however, with the mod ern miracle workers, who are always to be found liv inginthetwilightfringesofthermodynamics(1981a, p. 526). In fact, Dr. Hoyle went on to remark: Thelikelihoodofthespontaneousformationoflifefrom inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it.... It is big enough to bury Darwin and thewholetheoryofevolution.Therewasnoprimeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if thebeginningsoflifewerenotrandom,theymustthere fore have been the product of purposeful intelligence (1981b, 294:148). Hethendescribedtheevolutionaryconceptthatdisordergives risetoorderinaratherpicturesquemanner.Hesaidthat“the chancethathigherformshaveemergedinthiswayiscompa rable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials there in” (1981b, 294:105). To make his position perfectly clear, he provided his readers with the following analogy: 10 At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquain tance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-im- possibilityofasolutionbeingobtainedbyablindper son moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 50 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, andtrytoconceiveofthechanceofthemallsimulta neously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at just one ofthemanybiopolymersonwhichlifedepends.The notion that not only biopolymers but the operating programmeofalivingcellcouldbearrivedatbychance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evi dently nonsense of a high order (1981a, p. 527, emp. in orig.). - 13
- 23. Hoyle, and hiscolleague Chandra Wickramasinghe (pro fessor of astronomy and applied mathematics at University College, Cardiff, Wales), employed probabilistic statistics (ap plied to cosmic time, not just geologic time here on Earth) to investigatethepossibilityofthenaturalisticoriginof life,and concluded: Oncewesee,however,thattheprobabilityoflifeorigi natingatrandomissoutterlyminusculeastomakethe randomconceptabsurd,itbecomessensibletothink thatthefavourablepropertiesofphysicsonwhichlife depends,areineveryrespectdeliberate....Itisthere fore almost inevitable that our own measure of intel ligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intel- ligences...eventotheextremeidealizedlimit ofGod (1981, pp. 141,144, emp. in orig.). HoyleandWickramasinghesuggested,however,thatthis“high erintelligence” does not necessarily have to be, as far as they areconcerned,whatmostpeoplewouldcall“God,”butabe ingwithanintelligence“eventothelimitofGod.”Theyopted instead for a “directed panspermia,” which suggests that life was “planted” on Earth, through genetic material, by a “higher intelligence” somewhere in the Universe. The point I wish to make here is that even scientists who are not creationists are able to recognize that creation is a le gitimate scientific conceptwhosemeritsdeservetobecom paredwiththoseofevolution.Andsomemakestatementsthat at least lean more toward the scientific respectability of crea tion than toward that of evolution. For example, a thought- provoking article by British physicist H.S. Lipson appeared intheMay1980issueofPhysicsBulletin.Inhisarticle,“APhysi cist Looks at Evolution,” Dr. Lipson commented first on his interest in life’s origin, and second on his non-association with anytypeofcreationtheory,butthennoted:“Infact,evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observa tions to fit with it.” Dr. Lipson then asked how well evolution has withstood years of scientific testing, and suggested that “to my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.” - 14
- 24. Afterreviewingmanyoftheproblems(especiallyfromther modynamics)thatwouldbeinvolvedinproducingsomething living from somethingnonliving, he asked: “If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?” Dr. Lipson dis missedanysortof“directedevolution”(aBritishtermforwhat people in America generally refer to as “theistic evolution”), andconcluded:“Ithink,however,thatwemustgofurtherthan this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is crea tion.” Like Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, and Patterson, Dr. Lip- son is not happy about the conclusion he has been forced to draw from the evidence. He made that clear when he said: “I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the ex perimentalevidencesupportsit”(1980,31:138,emp.inorig.). Interestingly, just two years before Dr. Lipson penned his article, Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin made the follow ing comment in the September 1978 issue of Scientific Ameri can, which was devoted in its entirety to a defense of organic evolution: Lifeformsaremorethansimplymultipleanddiverse, however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the ex ternal world in which they live. They have morphol ogies, physiologies and behaviors thatappear to have been carefully and artfully designedtoenableeach organismtoappropriatetheworldarounditforitsown life. It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the envi ronment,muchmorethanthegreatdiversityofforms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer (1978, 239[3]:213, emp. added). Of course, Dr. Lewontin then went on to try to explain in his article how nature alone—without any assistance whatsoever from a “Supreme Designer”—could account for the impres sive “apparent design” in the world around us. Three years before Dr. Lipson wrote his article, France’s preeminentzoologist,Pierre-PaulGrassé(whoseknowledge of the living world has been called by his colleagues “encyclo pedic”), authored The Evolution of Living Organisms, in which he wrote: - 15
- 25. Todayourdutyistodestroythemythofevolution,con sidered as asimple, understood, and explained phe nomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologistsmustbeencouragedtothinkabouttheweak nesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put for wardorlaydownasestablishedtruths.Thedeceitis sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely over lookrealityandrefusetoacknowledgetheinadequa cies and falsity of their beliefs. Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality, or else incapable of solvingthemajorproblemsinvolved(1977,pp.8,202, emp. added). Five years after Lipson’s statements, Michael Denton authored his classic text, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, and remarked: Inthisbook,Ihaveadoptedtheradicalapproach.By presentingasystematiccritiqueofthecurrentDarwin ian model, ranging from paleontology to molecular biology, I have tried to show why I believe that the problems are too severe and too intractable to offer anyhopeofresolutionintermsoftheorthodoxframe work,andthatconsequentlytheconservativeviewis no longer tenable. Theintuitivefeelingthatpurechancecouldneverhave achievedthedegreeofcomplexityandingenuityso ubiquitous in nature has been a continuing source of scepticism ever since the publication of Origin; and throughoutthepastcenturytherehasalways existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have neverbeenabletobringthemselvestoaccepttheva lidity of Darwin’s claims. In fact, the number of biol ogistswhohaveexpressedsomedegreeofdisillusion ment is practically endless. Theanti-evolutionthesisarguedinthisbook,theidea thatlifemightbefundamentallyadiscontinuousphe nomenon,runscountertothewholethrustofbiolog icalthought....Putsimply,noonehaseverobservedthe interconnecting continuum of functional forms link- - 16
- 26. ingallknownpastandpresentspeciesoflife.Thecon ceptofcontinuityofnaturehasexistedinthemindof man, never inthe facts of nature (1985, pp. 16,327, 353, emp. in orig). A year later, when Oxford University’s renowned evolution ist Richard Dawkins published The Blind Watchmaker, he la- mented in the preface: “The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex de sign cries out for an explanation, I give up!” (1986, emp. added). One year after that, the highly regarded Swedish bi ologist, Søren Løvtrup, wrote: After this step-wise elimination, only one possibility remains: the Darwinian theory of natural selec tion,whetherornotcoupledwithMendelism,isfalse. Ihavealreadyshownthattheargumentsadvancedby the early champions were not very compelling, and that there are now considerable numbers of empiri cal facts which do not fit with the theory. Hence, to all intents and purposes the theory has been fal sified,sowhyhasitnotbeenabandoned?Ithinkthe answer to this question is that current evolutionists fol low Darwin’s example—they refuse to accept falsifying evidence (1987, p. 352, emp. added). Again, one year later, American physicist George Green- stein wrote in his book, The Symbiotic Universe: Aswesurveyalltheevidence,thethoughtinsistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agen- cy—mustbeinvolved.Isitpossiblethatsuddenly,with outintendingto,wehavestumbleduponscientificproof oftheexistenceofaSupremeBeing?WasitGodwho stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? (1988, p. 27). [Greenstein quickly went on to voice his dissent with such a conclusion, which he considered a “heady prospect” that he labeled as “illusory” (pp. 27,38).] These quotations—and in chapter 3 I will provide several morerecentexamplesalmostidenticaltothem—arenotfrom creationists.Rather,theyarefromhighlyrespectedevolution- - 17
- 27. istswho arewellknownfortheirvigilantsupportofevolution arytheory.Yeteventhoughtheauthorsofthesestatementsare evolutionists,somethinghascausedthemtoseethatevolution simply isnot an adequate explanation, and that the Universe andthelifeitcontains“appeartohavebeendesigned”—which is my reason for quoting them here. I do not mention them to suggestthattheyarecreationists.Imentionthemtodocument the fact that there are highly respected, well-known non-cre- ationist scientists who are beginning to recognize inescapable evidence of actual (not just “apparent”) design in nature. These same scientists have expressed serious doubts in regard to evo lutionary concepts that were supposed to be able to explain such design, yet obviously have failed to do so. Thus, these scientists now are willing to call into question those concepts —onastrictlyscientificbasis—andaskquestionslike,“Havewe stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?” Upon observing such an about face, honest inquirers cannothelpbutacknowledgethepointtheseevolutionarysci entistsaremaking(evenifunwittingly):onedoesnotgetapaint ing without a painter, a law without a lawgiver, a poem with out a poet—or design without a designer! Infact,afterover120yearsofDarwinism,rapidlygrowing numbers of scientists have become convinced that the natu ral laws and processes that we now know are at work in the Universe absolutely exclude the possibility that the Cosmos could have created itself, and likewise have become convinced that the scientific evidence demonstrates that living things could not,andinfact,didnot,arisefromlowerforms.Suchscientists havebecomeconvincedthattheconceptofcreationisamuch more credible explanation of the evidence related to origins. Iinviteyourattentionasweexamineaportionofthatevidence in the pages that follow. - 18
- 28. 3 PLAUSIBILITYOF THE CREATIONMODEL Since inorigin science (under discussion here) theories do not lend themselves to the principle of falsification as do the oriesinoperationscience,theymustbeinvestigatedandeval uatedonthebasisoftheirplausibility.Buthow,then,doesone go about determining whether an origin-science scenario is plausible? Very simply, the principles of causality and uni formity can be employed. By cause we mean the necessary andsufficientconditionthatalonecanexplaintheoccurrence ofagivenevent.Byprincipleofuniformitywemeanthatthe kinds of causes that we observe producing certain effects to daycanbecountedontohaveproducedsimilareffectsinthe past. In other words, what we see as an adequate cause in the present,weassumetohavebeenanadequatecauseinthepast; whatweseeasaninadequatecauseinthepresent,weassume to have been an inadequate cause in the past. Evolutionists of ten have relied on the principles of causality and uniformity inattemptstoworkoutevolutionaryscenarios.Thaxton,Brad ley, and Olsen have addressed these points. Consider, for example, the matter of accounting for theinformationalmolecule,DNA.Wehaveobserva tional evidence in the present that intelligent inves tigators can (and do) build contrivances to channel energy down nonrandom chemical pathways to bring - 19
- 29. aboutsomecomplexchemicalsynthesis,evengene building.Maynottheprincipleofuniformitythenbe used in abroader frame of consideration to suggest that DNA had an intelligent cause at the beginning? Usuallytheanswergivenisno.Buttheoretically,atleast, it would seem the answer should be yes in order to avoid the charge that the deck is stacked in favor of naturalism. We know that in numerous cases, certain effects al wayshaveintelligentcauses,suchasdictionaries,sculp tures,machinesandpaintings.Wereasonbyanalogy thatsimilareffectshaveintelligentcauses.Forexam ple, after looking up to see “BUY FORD” spelled out insmokeacrossthesky,weinferthepresenceofasky writerevenifweheardorsawnoairplane.Wewould similarly conclude the presence of intelligent activity were we to come upon an elephant-shaped topiary in a cedar forest. In like manner an intelligible communication via ra dio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailedasevidenceofanintelligentsource.Whythen doesn’t the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analo gous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence.... We believe that if this question is considered, it will be seen that most often it is answered in the negative simplybecauseitisthoughttobeinappropriatetobring aCreatorintoscience(1984,pp.211-212,emp.inorig.). Use of the principles of uniformity and causality enhance thecreationmodel,forthesearecherishedconceptsofscien tificthinking.AlbertEinsteinoncesaidthatscientistsare“pos sessed by the sense of universal causation.” Causality confirms thateverymaterialeffecthasanadequateantecedentcause. Thebasicquestion,then,isthis:CantheoriginoftheUniverse, the origin of life, and the origin of new life forms best be ac counted for on the basis of nonintelligent, random, chance, accidental processes? Are these adequate causes? Or, are these phenomena best accounted for on the basis of a Creator (i.e., - 20
- 30. an adequate cause)capable of producing the complex, ordered, information-relating processes we see around us? Whataretheoptions?TheUniverseexists;therefore,itmust be explained in some fashion. However, there are only three ways to account for it:(1) It is eternal;(2) It is not eternal; rath er it created itself from nothing; or (3) It is not eternal, and it did not create itself from nothing; instead, it was created by something (or Someone) anterior, and superior, to itself. These three possibilities merit serious attention. IS THE UNIVERSE ETERNAL? The front cover of the June 25, 2001 issue of Time magazine announced:“HowtheUniverseWillEnd:PeeringDeepInto Space and Time, Scientists Have Just Solved the Biggest Mys tery in the Cosmos.” Comforting thought, isn’t it, to know that the“biggestmysteryintheCosmos”hasbeenfiguredout?But what, exactly, is that mystery? And why does it merit the front cover of a major news magazine? The origin and destiny of the Universe always have been important topics in the creation/evolution controversy. In the past, evolutionists went to great extremes to present scenarios that included an eternal Universe, and they went to the same extremestoavoidanyscenariothatsuggestedaUniversewith abeginningorendbecausesuchascenarioposedbothersome questions. In his book, God and the Astronomers, the eminent evolutionaryastronomerRobertJastrow,whocurrentlyisserv ing as the director of the Mount Wilson Observatory, put it like this: TheUniverseisthetotalityofallmatter,animateand inanimate, throughout space and time. If there was a beginning, what came before? If there is an end, what will come after? On both scientific and philosophical grounds,theconceptofaneternalUniverseseemsmore acceptablethantheconceptofatransientUniversethat springsintobeingsuddenly,andthenfadesslowlyinto darkness. - 21
- 31. Astronomerstrynottobeinfluencedbyphilosophical considerations.However,theideaofaUniversethat has both abeginning and an end is distasteful to the scientificmind.Inadesperateefforttoavoidit,some astronomers have searched for another interpretation of the measurements that indicate the retreating mo tion of the galaxies, an interpretation that would not require the Universe to expand. If the evidence for the expandingUniversecouldbeexplainedaway,theneed foramomentofcreationwouldbeeliminated,andthe conceptoftimewithoutendwouldreturntoscience. But these attempts have not succeeded, and most as tronomers have come to the conclusion that they live in an exploding world (1977, p. 31). What does Jastrow mean when he says that “these attempts havenotsucceeded”?Andwhydoevolutionistsprefertoavoid the question of a Universe with a beginning? In an interview hegrantedonJune7,1994,Dr.Jastrowelaboratedonthispoint. Theinterviewer,FredHeeren,askediftherewasanythingfrom physicsthatcouldexplainhowtheuniversefirstcametobe. Jastrow lamented: No, there’s not—this is the most interesting result in all of science.... As Einstein said, scientists live by their faith in causation, and the chain of cause and effect. Everyeffecthasacausethatcanbediscoveredbyra tional arguments. And this has been a very successful program, if you will, for unraveling the history of the universe. But it just fails at the beginning.... So time, really, going backward, comes to a halt at that point. Beyond that, that curtain can never be lifted.... And that is really a blow at the very fundamental premise thatmotivatesallscientists(asquotedinHeeren,1995, p. 303). Seventeen years earlier, in his book, Until the Sun Dies, Jas trowhaddiscussedthisveryproblem—aUniversewithoutany adequate explanation for its own existence and, worse still, without any adequate cause for whatever theory scientists might setforthinanattempttoelucidatehowitdidoriginate.AsDr. Jastrow noted: - 22
- 32. Thisgreatsagaofcosmicevolution,towhosetruththe majority of scientistssubscribe, is the product of an actofcreationthattookplacetwentybillionyearsago [accordingtoevolutionaryestimates—BT].Science,un like the Bible, has no explanation for the occurrence ofthatextraordinaryevent.TheUniverse,andevery thing that has happened in it since the beginning of time, are a grand effect without a known cause. An ef fectwithoutacause?Thatisnottheworldofscience; itisworldofwitchcraft,ofwildeventsandthewhims ofdemons,amedievalworldthatsciencehastriedto banish. As scientists, what are we to make of this pic ture? I do not know (1977, p. 21, emp. added). While Dr. Jastrow may not know how the Universe began, there are two things that he and his colleagues do know: (1) the Universe had a definite beginning; and (2) the Universe will have a definite ending. Admittedly,themostcomfortablepositionfortheevolution ististheideathattheUniverseiseternal,becauseitavoidsthe problem of a beginning or ending and thus the need for any “first cause” such as a Creator. In his book, Until the Sun Dies, astronomer Jastrow noted: “The proposal for the creation of matter out of nothing possesses a strong appeal to the scien tist, since it permits him to contemplate a Universe without beginning and without end” (1977, p. 32). Jastrow went on to remark that evolutionary scientists preferred an eternal Uni verse “because the notion of a world with a beginning and an end made them feel so uncomfortable” (p. 33). In God and the Astronomers, Dr. Jastrow explained why attempts to prove an eternalUniversehadfailedmiserably.“Nowthreelinesofevi- dence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynam ics, and the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; allindicatedthattheUniversehadabeginning”(1978,p.111). Jastrow—who is considered by many to be one of the greatest science writers of our age—certainly is no creationist. But as a scientist who is an astrophysicist, he has written often on the inescapableconclusionthattheUniversehadabeginning.Con sider, for example, these statements from his pen: - 23
- 33. Now both theoryand observation pointed to an ex pandingUniverseandabeginningintime....About thirtyyearsagosciencesolvedthemysteryofthebirth anddeathofstars,andacquirednewevidencethatthe Universe had a beginning (1978, pp. 47,105). [Sir] Arthur Eddington, the most distinguished Brit ishastronomerofhisday,wrote,“Ifourviewsareright, somewhere between the beginning of time and the present day we must place the winding up of the uni verse.”Whenthatoccurred,andWhoorwhatwound up the Universe, were questions that bemused theo logians, physicists and astronomers, particularly in the 1920’s and 1930’s (1978, pp. 48-49). Most remarkable of all is the fact that in science, as in theBible,theWorldbeginswithanactofcreation.That viewhasnotalwaysbeenheldbyscientists.Onlyasa result of the most recent discoveries can we say with a fairdegreeofconfidencethattheworldhasnotexisted forever;thatitbeganabruptly,withoutapparentcause, in a blinding event that defies scientific explanation (1977, p. 19). The conclusion to be drawn from the scientific data was ines capable, as Dr. Jastrow himself admitted when he wrote: The lingering decline predicted by astronomers for theendoftheworlddiffersfromtheexplosivecondi tionstheyhavecalculatedforitsbirth,buttheimpact isthesame:modern science denies an eternal ex istence to the Universe, either in the past or in the future (1977, p. 30, emp. added). In her book, The Fire in the Equations, award-winning science writer Kitty Ferguson wrote in agreement. Our late twentieth-century picture of the universe is dramaticallydifferentfromthepictureourforebears hadatthebeginningofthecentury.Todayit’scommon knowledgethatalltheindividualstarsweseewiththe naked eye are only the stars of our home galaxy, the MilkyWay,andthattheMilkyWayisonlyoneamong manybillionsofgalaxies.It’s also common knowl edge that the universe isn’t eternal but had a be ginning ten to twenty billion years ago, and that it is expanding (1994, p. 89, emp. added). - 24
- 34. TheevidenceclearlyindicatesthattheUniversehadabegin ning. The SecondLaw of Thermodynamics, as Dr. Jastrow has indicated,showsthistobetrue.HenryMorriscorrectlycom mented: “The Second Law requires the universe to have had abeginning”(1974,p.26).Indeed,itdoes.TheUniverseisnot eternal. Steady State and Oscillating Universe Theories One theory that was offered in an attempt to establish the eternalityoftheUniversewastheSteadyStatemodel,propa gated by Sir Fred Hoyle and his colleagues. Even before they offeredthisunusualtheory,however,scientificevidencehad beendiscoveredwhichindicatedthattheUniversewasexpand ing. Hoyle set forth the Steady State model to: (a) erase any possibility of a beginning; (b) bolster the idea of an eternal Uni verse; and (c) explain why the Universe was expanding. His ideawasthatatcertainpointsintheUniverse(whichhecalled “irtrons”),matterwasbeingcreatedspontaneouslyfrom noth ing.Sincethisnewmatterobviouslyhadto“go”somewhere, andsinceitisawell-establishedfactofsciencethattwoobjects cannotoccupythesamespaceatthesametime,itpushedthe already-existing matter farther into distant space. Dr. Hoyle asserted that this process of matter continually being created (the idea even came to be known as the “continuous creation” theory) avoided a beginning or ending, and simultaneously accounted for the expansion of the Universe. Foratime,Hoyle’sSteadyStatehypothesiswasquitepop ular. Eventually, however, it was discarded for a number of reasons. Cosmologist John Barrow suggested that the Steady StatetheoryproposedbyHoyleandhiscolleaguessprang“from abeliefthattheuniversedidnothaveabeginning....Thespe cific theory they proposed fell into conflict with observation long ago...” (1991, p. 46). Indeed, the Steady State theory did fallinto“conflictwithobservation”foranumberofreasons. First, valid empirical observations no longer fit the model (see Gribbin, 1986). Second, new theoretical concepts being pro posed were at odds with the Steady State model. Third (and probably most important), the theory violated the First Law - 25
- 35. ofThermodynamics,whichstatesthatneithermatternoren ergycanbecreatedordestroyedinnature.Jastrowcommented on this lastpoint when he wrote: But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science—the principle of the conservationofmatterandenergy—whichstatesthat matterandenergycanbeneithercreatednordestroyed. Mattercanbeconvertedintoenergy,andvice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is diffi culttoacceptatheorythatviolatessuchafirmlyestab lishedscientificfact.Yettheproposalforthecreation of matter out of nothing possesses a strong appeal to thescientist,sinceitpermitshimtocontemplateaUni versewithoutbeginningandwithoutend(1977,p.32). The Steady State model, with its creation of matter from noth ing, could not be reconciled with this basic law of science, and thus was abandoned. Slowly but surely, the Big Bang model of the origin of the Universe eclipsed and eventually replaced the Steady State theory. It postulated that all the matter/energy in the observ ableUniversewascondensedintoaparticlemuchsmallerthan a single proton (the famous “cosmic egg” or “ylem” as it fre quentlyiscalled).TheBigBangmodel,however,sufferedfrom at least two major problems. First, it required that whatever made up the “cosmic egg” be eternal—a concept clearly at odds with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. John Gribbin, a highlyregardedevolutionarycosmologist,voicedtheopinion of many when he wrote: “The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe is philosophical— perhapseventheological—whatwastherebeforethebang?” (1976, pp. 15-16, emp. added). Second,theexpansionoftheUniversecouldnotgoonfor ever; it had to end somewhere. These problems suggested to evolutioniststhattheywerelivinginaUniversethathadabe ginning, and that also would have an ending. Robert Jastrow addressed both of these points when he wrote: - 26
- 36. And concurrently therewas a great deal of discussion aboutthefactthatthesecondlawofthermodynamics, appliedtotheCosmos,indicatestheUniverseisrun ning down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully wound up (1978, pp. 48-49). It was apparent that matter could not be eternal, because, as everyone knows (and as every knowledgeable scientist readily admits), eternal things do not run down. Furthermore, there was going to be an end at some point in the future. And eter nal entities do not have either beginnings or endings. In a desperate effort to avoid any vestige of a beginning or any hint of an ending, evolutionists invented the Oscillating Universemodel(alsoknownastheBigBang/BigCrunchmod el, the Expansion/Collapse model, etc.). Gribbin suggested that“...thebestwayroundthisinitialdifficultyisprovidedby a model in which the Universe expands from a singularity, col lapses back again, and repeats the cycle indefinitely” (1976, pp. 15-16). That is to say, there was a Big Bang; but there also will be a BigCrunch,atwhichtimethematteroftheUniversewillcol lapse back onto itself. There will be a “bounce,”followed by anotherBigBang,whichwillbefollowedbyanotherBigCrunch, and this process will be repeated ad infinitum. In the Big Bang model,thereisapermanentend;notsointheOscillatingUni verse model, as Dr. Jastrow explained: ButmanyastronomersrejectthispictureofadyingUni verse.TheybelievethattheexpansionoftheUniverse will not continue forever because gravity, pulling back on the outward-moving galaxies, must slow their re treat.Ifthepullofgravityissufficientlystrong,itmay bring the expansion to a halt at some point in the fu ture. Whatwillhappenthen?Theansweristhecruxofthis theory. The elements of the Universe, held in a bal ancebetweentheoutwardmomentumoftheprimor dial explosion and the inward force of gravity, stand momentarilyatrest;butafterthebriefestinstant,al ways drawn together by gravity, they commence to - 27
- 37. move toward oneanother. Slowly at first, and then with increasing momentum, the Universe collapses undertherelentlesspullofgravity.Soonthegalaxies of the Cosmos rush toward one another with an in wardmovementasviolentastheoutwardmovement of their expansion when the Universe exploded earlier. After a sufficient time, they come into contact; their gases mix; their atoms are heated by compression; and the Universe returns to the heat and chaos from whichitemergedmanybillionsofyearsago(1978,p. 118). The description provided by Jastrow is that commonly re ferred to in the scientific literature as the “Big Crunch.” But the obvious question after hearing such a scenario is this: Af ter that, then what? Once again, hear Dr. Jastrow: No one knows. Some astronomers say the Universe willnevercomeoutofthiscollapsedstate.Othersspec ulatethattheUniversewillreboundfromthecollapse in a new explosion, and experience a new moment of Creation.Accordingtothisview,ourUniversewillbe melteddownandremadeinthecaldronofthesecond Creation.Itwillbecomeanentirelynewworld,inwhich no trace of the existing Universe remains.... ThistheoryenvisagesaCosmosthatoscillatesforever, passingthroughaninfinitenumberofmomentsofcre ation in a never-ending cycle of birth, death and re birth. It unites the scientific evidence for an explosive momentofcreationwiththeconceptofaneternalUni verse. It also has the advantage of being able to an swerthequestion:Whatprecededtheexplosion?(1978, pp. 119-120). This, then, is the essence of the Oscillating Universe theory. Severalquestionsarise,however.First,ofwhatbenefitwould such events be? Second, is such a concept scientifically test able? Third, does current scientific evidence support such an idea? Of what benefit would a Big Bang/Big Crunch/Big Bang scenario be? Theoretically, as I already have noted, the ben efit to evolutionists is that they do not have to explain a Uni versewithanabsolutebeginningoranabsoluteending.Acyc- - 28
- 38. licalUniversethatinfinitelyexpandsandcontractsisobviously much more acceptablethan one that demands explanations forbothitsoriginanddestiny.Practically,thereisnobenefit that derives from such a scenario. The late astronomer from Cornell University, Carl Sagan, noted: “...[I]nformation from ouruniversewouldnottrickleintothatnextoneand,fromour vantage point, such an oscillating cosmology is as definitive anddepressinganendastheexpansionthatneverstops”(1979, pp. 13-14). But is the Oscillating Universe model testable scientifically? Gribbin suggests that it is. The key factors which determine the ultimate fate of the Universe are the amount of matter it contains and therateatwhichitisexpanding....Insimpleterms,the Universe can only expand forever if it is exploding faster than the “escape velocity” from itself.... If the density of matter across the visible Universe we see to dayissufficienttohalttheexpansionwecanobserve today, then the Universe has always been exploding atlessthanitsownescapevelocity,andmusteventu allybesloweddownsomuchthattheexpansionisfirst haltedandthenconvertedintocollapse.Ontheother hand, if the expansion we observe today is proceeding fast enough to escape from the gravitational clutches of the matter we observe today, then the Universe is andalwayswas“open”andwillexpandforever(1981, p. 313). Does the scientific evidence support the theory of an “os cillating,” eternal Universe? In the end, the success or failure of this theory depends on two things: (1) the amount of mat ter contained in the Universe, since there must be enough mat ter for gravity to “pull back” to cause the Big Crunch; and (2) theamountofgravityavailabletodothe“pulling.”Theamount of matter required by the theory is one reason why Gribbin admitted: “This, in a nutshell, is one of the biggest problems in cosmology today, the puzzle of the so-called missing mass” (1981, pp. 315-316). Cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astron omersgenerallyrefertothemissingmassas“darkmatter.”In their book, Wrinkles in Time, George Smoot and Keay David son remarked: - 29
- 39. We are thereforeforced to contemplate the fact that as much as 90 percent of the matter in the universe is both invisible and quite unknown—perhaps unknow- able—tous....Aresuchputativeformsofmatterthefan tasies of desperate men and women, frantically seek ing solutions to baffling problems? Or are they a le gitimate sign that with the discovery of dark matter cosmology finds itself in a terra incognita beyond our immediate comprehension? (1993, pp. 164,171). In his June 25, 2001 Time article (which claims to “solve the biggest mystery in the cosmos”), Michael D. Lemonick dealt with this “puzzle.” Astheuniverseexpands,thecombinedgravityfrom all the matter within it tends to slow that expansion, muchastheearth’sgravitytriestopullarisingrocket backtotheground.Ifthepullisstrongenough,theex pansionwillstopandreverseitself;ifnot,thecosmos will go on getting bigger, literally forever. Which is it? One way to find out is to weigh the cosmos—to add up all the stars and all the galaxies, calculate their gravity and compare that with the expansion rate of the uni verse. If the cosmos is moving at escape velocity, no Big Crunch. Trouble is, nobody could figure out how much mat ter thereactuallywas.Thestarsandgalaxieswereeasy; you could see them. But it was noted as early as the 1930sthatsomethinglurkedouttherebesidestheglow ing stars and gases that astronomers could see. Galax iesinclusterswereorbitingoneanothertoofast;they should, by rights, be flying off into space like unteth eredchildrenflungfromafast-twirlingmerry-go-round. Individual galaxies were spinning about their centers tooquicklytoo;theyshouldlongsincehaveflownapart. Theonlypossibility:someformofinvisibledarkmat ter was holding things together, and while you could infer the mass of dark matter in and around galaxies, nobody knew if it also filled the dark voids of space, whereitseffectswouldnotbedetectable(2001,157[25]: 51). In discussing the Oscillating Universe model, astronomers speak (as Gribbin did in one of the quotes above) of a “closed” - 30
- 40. oran“open”Universe.IftheUniverseisclosed,theUniverse willceaseitsexpansion,theBigCrunchcouldoccur(theoret ically), and anoscillating Universe becomes (again, theoreti cally) a viable possibility. If the Universe is open, the expan sion of the Universe will continue (a condition known as the BigChill)andtheBigCrunchwillnotoccur,makinganoscil lating Universe impossible. Joseph Silk commented: “The bal anceofevidencedoespointtoanopenmodeloftheuniverse...” (1980,p.309,emp.added).Gribbinsaid:“Theconsensusamong astronomers today is that the universe is open” (1981, p. 316, emp.added).Jastrowobserved:“Thus,thefactsindicatethat the universe will expand forever...”(1978,p.123,emp.add ed). Evenmorerecentevidenceseemstoindicatethatanoscil latingUniverseisaphysicalimpossibility(seeChaisson,1992). Evolutionary cosmologist John Wheeler drew the following conclusionbasedonthescientificevidenceavailableatthetime: “With gravitational collapse we come to the end of time. Nev er out of the equations of general relativity has one been able to find the slightest argument for a ‘re-expansion’ of a ‘cyclic universe’ or anything other than an end” (1977, p. 15). Astron omer Hugh Ross admitted: “Attempts...to use oscillation to avoidatheisticbeginningfortheuniverseallfail”(1991,p.105). InanarticlewrittenfortheJanuary19,1998issueof U.S.News andWorldReport titled“AFewStarryandUniversalTruths,” Charles Petit stated: For years, cosmologists have wondered if the universe is“closed”andwillcollapsetoabigcrunch,or“open,” with expansion forever in the cards. It now seems open—in spades. The evidence, while not ironclad, isplentiful.NetaBahcallofPrincetonUniversityand her colleagues have found that the distribution of clus ters ofgalaxies at the perceivable edge of the universe imply[sic]thattheuniversebackthenwaslighterthan oftenhadbeenbelieved.Thereappearstobe20per centasmuchmassaswouldbeneededtostoptheex pansion and lead the universe to someday collapse again (124[2]:58, emp. added). - 31
- 41. Apparently, the informationappearing in the June 25, 2001 Time article is “ironclad,” and has dealt the ultimate deathblow totheideaofeitheraneternaloroscillatingUniverse.Inspeak ingabouttheoriginoftheUniverse,Lemonickexplained: That event—the literal birth of time and space some 15 billion years ago—has been understood, at least in itsbroadestoutlines,sincethe1960s.Butinmorethan athirdofacentury,thebestmindsinastronomyhave failedtosolvethemysteryofwhathappensattheother endoftime.Willthegalaxiescontinuetoflyapartfor ever, their glow fading until the cosmos is cold and dark?Orwilltheexpansionslowtoahalt,reversedi rection,andsend10octillion(10trillionbillion)stars crashing back together in a final, apocalyptic Big Crunch,themirrorimageoftheuniverse’sexplosive birth?Despitedecadesofobservationswiththemost powerfultelescopesattheirdisposal,astronomerssim ply haven’t been able to decide. But a series of remarkable discoveries announced in quick succession starting this spring has gone a long waytowardsettlingthequestiononceandforall.Sci entistswhowerebettingonaBigCrunchlikedtoquote thepoetRobertFrost:“Somesaytheworldwillendin fire,/somesayinice./FromwhatI’vetastedofdesire/ I hold with those who favor fire.” Those in the other camp preferred T.S. Eliot: “This is the way the world ends./Not with a bang but a whimper.” Now, using observationsfromtheSloanDigitalSkySurveyinNew Mexico,theorbitingHubbleSpaceTelescope,themam mothKeckTelescopeinHawaii,andsensitiveradiode tectors in Antarctica, the verdict is in: T.S. Eliot wins (157[25]:49-50). What,exactly,hascausedthiscurrentfurorinastronomy? And why are T.S. Eliot and the astronomers who quote him the “winners”? As Lemonick went on to explain: If these observations continue to hold up, astrophys icists can be pretty sure they have assembled the full parts list for the cosmos at last:5% ordinary matter, 35% exotic dark matter and about 60% dark energy. Theyalsohaveaprettygoodideaoftheuniverse’sfu ture.Allthematterputtogetherdoesn’thaveenough gravity to stop the expansion; beyond that, the anti- - 32
- 42. gravityeffectofdarkenergyisactuallyspeedingupthe expansion. And becausethe amount of dark energy will grow as space gets bigger, its effect will only in crease (157[25]:55). The simple fact is, the Universe just does not have enough matter,orenoughgravity,forittocollapsebackuponitselfin a“BigCrunch.”Itisnot“oscillating.”Itisnoteternal.Ithada beginning,anditwillhaveanending.AsJastrowobserved: About thirty years ago science solved the mystery of thebirthanddeathofstars,andacquirednewevidence that the Universe had a beginning.... Now both the ory and observation pointed to an expanding Universe and a beginning in time” (1978, p. 105). Six pages later in God and the Astronomers, Jastrow concluded: “Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the lawsofthermodynamics,thelifestoryofthestars—pointedto one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a begin ning” (p. 111). In1929,SirJamesJeans,writinginhisclassicbookTheUni verse Around Us, observed: “All this makes it clear that the pres ent matter of the universe cannot have existed forever.... In some way matter which had not previously existed, came, or was brought, into being” (1929, p. 316). Now, over seventy yearslaterwehavereturnedtothesameconclusion.AsLem onick put it: If the latest results do hold up, some of the most im portant questions in cosmology—how old the universe is,whatit’smadeofandhowitwillend—willhavebeen answered,onlyabout70yearsaftertheywerefirstposed. Bythetimethefinalchapterofcosmichistoryiswrit- ten—further in the future than our minds can grasp— humanity, and perhaps even biology, will long since have vanished (157[25]:56). The fact that Time magazine devoted an entire cover (and fea turestorytogowithit)tothetopicof“HowtheUniverseWill End,” is an inadvertent admission to something that evolution ists have long tried to avoid—the fact that the Universe had a beginning, and will have an ending. When one hears Sir James Jeansalludetothefactthat“insomewaymatterwhichhadnot - 33
- 43. previouslyexisted,came,orwasbrought,intobeing,”theques tion that immediatelycomes to mind is: Who brought it into being? What About the Big Bang? Whereareyourightnow?Areyousittingdownwithacup of hot tea, ready to enjoy the few brief moments you can de vote just to yourself? Where are you? Are you somewhere otherthaninyourarmchairathome?Orareyouevenathome? And if you are, in what city? In what state? In what country? And on what continent? Astronomicallyspeaking,youareonthethirdplanetfrom the Sun, in a solar system of numerous other planets, only one ofwhich—theonewhereyoureside—sustainslife.How?Why? These are intriguing questions worth pondering. Throughout the whole of human history, people have con templated not only their origin, but also their physical place in the Universe. The question of our ultimate origin weighs heavilyonthehumanpsyche.Science,tobesure,hasbrought its theories to bear on the subject. It is some of those theories that I would like to examine here. Cosmology is the study of the Cosmos in all its aspects. The Cosmos, in simplest terms, is the space/mass/time Universe andallitsarraysofcomplexsystems.Thecosmologist,wheth er underthistitleor not,has beenaroundconceptuallyforcen turies.Specifically,intherealmofscience—aslongasthisterm hasbeendefined—wereadaboutthoseoflongagosuchasEpi curus, Aristotle, and Copernicus, who sought answers to what theysawintheheavens.Morerecentlyinscientifichistory,we have people like Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630),WillemdeSitter(1872-1934),AlbertEinstein(1879 1955), Edwin Hubble (1889-1953), Georges Lemaître (1894 1966),AleksandrFriedman(1889-1925),andGeorgeGamow (1904-1968), each of whom made major contributions to un derstanding various theories and physical laws. Nowadays,thescientificcommunityincludesnumerouscon tributorsofvaryingdegrees.Many viewpoints,however,by no means implies correct beliefs. So, let us travel together - 34
- 44. downthisroadofcosmologicaldescent—fromthelong-defunct Cartesian Hypothesis tomodern versions of the Big Bang— and examine several of these theories in light of the scientific knowledge now available to us. As we proceed, let us heed the warning of the late cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), and his colleague, Chandra Wickramasinghe, in their book EvolutionfromSpace:“Be suspicious of a theory if more and more hypotheses are needed to support it as new facts be come available, or as new considerations are brought to bear” (1981, p. 135, emp. added). The Evolution of a Theory Thescienceofcosmology,asweknowittoday,began,not surprisingly,withalookintothenearestandmostreadilyob servable astronomical environment—our solar system. Due to the sizable number of theories regarding the origin of our solarsystem,Iwillreviewonlythosethatwereofprimaryim portance in the grand historical panorama. The Cartesian Hypothesis, set down by the seventeenth- century French physician, mathematician, and philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650) in his Principles of Philosophy, pos tulated that our solar system had formed from a vast system ofvorticesrunningspontaneously.Outofthesevortices,stars, comets, and planets emerged, each decaying into the next sub sequentformationofmatter,respectively.Thisparticularcon jecture did not sit well with some of Descartes’ contemporar ies,includingSirIsaacNewton,whomadehisdisdainforDes cartes’ theory poignantly clear in a letter (penned on Decem ber 10, 1692) to evangelist Richard Bentley when he wrote: “TheCartesianhypothesis...canhavenoplaceinmysystem, andisplainlyerroneous”(asquotedinMunitz,1957,p.212). Thenextfewhypothesesthatflickeredinhistoryevolved their conceptual results from an initial rotating cloud of gas and/ordustknownasanebula.[Originally,theterm“nebula” was applied to any distant object that appeared “fuzzy and ex tended”whenviewedthroughatelescope;eventually,nebu lae were identified as galaxies and star clusters.] Pierre S. La place (1749-1827), the distinguished French mathematician, - 35
- 45. presented his NebularHypothesis—a variation on the previ ously held hypotheses by Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) andImmanuelKant(1724-1804)—totheworldin1796.Laplace believedthat,asthenebularotated,itcooledandcontracted, causing a discernible increase in rotational velocity, which e ventually forced the matter that was located on the rim of the disc to overcome the gravitational attraction and be ejected fromthecloud.Theejectedmatterthencoalesced,forminga planetoutsideofthecontractingnebula.Thisspecificsequence ofeventscontinueduntilitformedacentralportionofdense, rotating gases—what we know today as our Sun—and the out lying,orbitingplanets(seeMulfinger,1967,4[2]:58).However, after failing a battery of mathematical and physical tests, these fanciful views ultimately were abandoned for the Planetesimal Hypothesis. Heralded by T.C. Chamberlain (1843-1928) and F.R. Moul ton (1872-1952), the Planetesimal Hypothesis started out with two initial stars, one of which was our Sun. The secondary star swept a near-collision path by the Sun, close enough to tear off two “arms” of matter on opposite sides. Over time, these arms coalesced to form planetesimals—tiny planets. This hy pothesisfollowedinthefootstepsofthosethathadprecededit (as well as a number of those yet to come) by failing to be sci entificallyaccurate.LymanSpitzerofYaleUniversitydemon strated these failings: (1) the hot matter ripped from the Sun wouldnotcoalesce,butinsteadwouldcontinuetoexpand;and (2) one could not reconcile the angular momentum distribu tion of the solar system resulting from the interaction of the two passing stars (see Mulfinger, 4[2]:59-60). The story of modern cosmology begins in the early parts ofthetwentiethcentury—atimewhenastronomersviewedthe Universe as static, eternal, and limited in space to our own MilkyWayGalaxy.Thoseviewsbegantochangeintheearly 1900swiththeworkoftwoAmericanastronomers—EdwinHub bleandVestoM.Slipher(1875-1969).Usingoneofthelargest andmostpowerfultelescopesavailableatthetime,Hubblecon cluded that the Universe actually was much larger than just our - 36
- 46. galaxy. He determinedthat what were then known as “spiral nebulae,” occurring millions of light-years away, were not part of the Milky Way at all, but rather were galaxies in their own right. [A light-year is the distance that light travels in a vac uum in one year—approximately 5.88 trillion miles. Distances expressed in light-years represent the time that light would take to cross that distance. For example, if an object were two million light-years away, it would require two million years, traveling at the speed of light, to traverse that distance.] Then, in1929,Hubblereportedarelationshipbetweenhisdistance information and some special analyses of light that had been carried out by Slipher (see Hubble, 1929). Redshifts, Blueshifts, and Doppler Effects Inthedecadespanning1910-1920,Slipher(usinga24-inch, long-focusrefractortelescope)haddiscoveredthecharacter istic signature of atomic spectra in various far-flung galaxies. That discovery then led to another somewhat “unusual” find ing.Examiningasmallsampleofgalaxies(which,atthetime, were referred to as nebulae), he observed that the light fre quencies those galaxies emitted were “shifted” toward the red portion of the spectrum (the concept of redshift is explained in detail below), which meant that they were receding from Earth. In 1913, Slipher reported the radial (or “line of sight”) velocityoftheAndromedagalaxy,anddiscoveredthatitwas movingtowardtheSunatarateof300kilometerspersecond (see Slipher, 1913). This was taken as evidence in favor of the hypothesis that Andromeda was outside the Milky Way. [The Andromeda Galaxy is now considered a part of the “Local Group,” which is an assortment of around thirty nearby gal axies (including the Milky Way) that is bound together gravi tationally.]In1914,Slipherreportedradialvelocitiesof13gal axies,andallbuttwowerevisualizedasredshifts.By1925,Sli pherhadcompiledalistof41galaxies,andotherastronomers hadaddedfouradditionalones.Ofthetotalof45,43showed aredshift,whichmeantthatonlytwoweremovingtowardthe Earth(seeGribbin,1998,p.76),whilealltheothersweremov ing away from us. - 37
- 47. These were, byall accounts, extraordinary observations. Usingafarmoresophisticatedinstrument(specifically,alarger, short-focustelescopethatwasbettersuitedforthistypeofwork), Edwin Hubble made the same types of discoveries in the late 1920s after Slipher had turned his attention to other projects. This“galacticredshift,”Hubblebelieved,wasanexceptionally stunning cosmic clue—a shard of evidence from far away and long ago. Why, Hubble wondered, should galactic light be shifted to the red, rather than the blue, portion of the spec trum? Why, in fact, should it be shifted at all? Fromtheverybeginning,astronomershaveattributedthese shifts to what is known as the “Doppler effect.” Named after Austrian physicist Christian Johann Doppler (1803-1853) who discovered the phenomenon in 1842, the Doppler effect re ferstoaspecificchangeintheobservedfrequencyofanywave that occurs when the source and the observer are in motion relativetoeachother;thefrequencyincreaseswhenthesource and observer approach each other, and decreases when they move apart.Bywayofsummary,theDopplereffectsayssim plythatwavelengthsgrowlonger(redshift)asanobjectrecedes from the viewer; wavelengths grow shorter (blueshift) as an object approaches the viewer (see Figure 1 on the next page). [Color actually is immaterial in these terms, since the terms themselves apply to any electromagnetic radiation, whether visible or not. “Blue” light simply has a shorter wavelength than “red” light, so the use of the color-terms is deemed con venient.] The light that we observe coming from stars is subject to the Doppler effect as well, which means that as we move to ward a star, or as it moves toward us, the star’s light will be shiftedtowardshorter(blue)wavelengths(viz.,lightthatisemit ted at a particular frequency is received by us at a higher fre quency). As we move away from a star, or as it moves away fromus,itslightwillbeshiftedtowardlonger(red)wavelengths (viz., light that is emitted at one frequency is received by us at alowerfrequency).Intheorythen,astar’sDopplermotionis a combination of both our motion through space (as the ob- - 38
- 48. Figure 1 —Blueshift/Redshift Depiction server),andthestar’smotion(asweobserveit).Asitturnsout, “the light from most galaxies exhibits a redshift roughly pro portional to the galaxies’ distance from us. Most cosmologists consider this pattern of redshifts to be evidence of cosmic ex pansion” (Repp, 2003, 39:270). Awordofcautionisinorderhere.TheDopplereffect,com binedwiththeconceptsofblueshiftandredshift,canbesome whatconfusing.Itwouldbeeasytoassumethattheexpansion of the Universe is due solely to matter “flying through space” of its own accord. If that were true, then, of course, the Dopp lereffectwouldexplainwhatishappening.Butthereissome what more to it than this. Cosmologists, astronomers, and as trophysicists suggest that the matter in the Universe is actually “at rest” with respect to the space around it. In other words, it is not the matter that is necessarily moving; rather, it is space itself that is doing the expanding. This means that, as space expands,whatevermatterispresentinthatspacesimplygets - 39
- 49. “carried along forthe ride.” Thus, the particles of matter are not really moving apart on their own; instead, more space is appearingbetweentheparticlesastheUniverseexpands,mak ing the matter appear to move. Perhaps an illustration is ap propriate here. [Bear with me; as you will see, the distinction that I am about to make has serious implications.] Moreoftenthannot,cosmologistsusetheexampleofabal loontoillustratewhattheyaretryingtodistinguishas“thetrue nature of the expanding Universe.” Imagine, if you will, that someone has glued tiny shirt buttons to the surface of the bal loon,andthencommencestoinflateit.Astheballoonincreases in size, the buttons will appear to move as they are carried along by the expansion of the balloon. But the buttons them selves are not actually moving. They are “at rest” on the bal loon,yetarebeing“pushedoutward”bytheexpansionofthe mediumaroundthem(thelatexoftheballoon).Now,cosmol ogists suggest, compare this example to galaxies in space. The galaxies themselves can be “at rest” with respect to space, yet appeartobeflyingapartduetotheexpansionofthemedium around them—space. Almost all popular (and even most technical) publications advocate the view that the redshifts viewed in the expansion of the Universe are, in fact, attributable solely to the Doppler effect. But if it is true that the galaxies are actually at rest (al though, admittedly, being “carried along” in an outward di rection by the expansion of space itself, with its “embedded” galaxies), then the redshifts witnessed as a result of the expan sion are not true Doppler shifts. To be technically correct, per haps the galactic redshift should be called the “cosmological redshift.” On occasion, when the “perceived motion” of the galaxies(asopposedto“realmotion”)isacknowledgedatall, it sometimes is referred to as “Hubble flow.” One of the few technical works with which I am familiar that acknowledges thisfact(andevenprovidesdifferentformulaefortheDoppler expansion versus the Hubble flow expansion) is Gravitation, by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (1973; see chapter 29). - 40
- 50. Interestingly,asIwasintheprocessofresearchingandwrit ingthismaterial,mathematicianAndrewReppofHawaiiau thored a fascinating,up-to-date article on the nature of red shifts. In his discussion, Dr. Repp correctly noted that there are several known causes of redshifts (see Repp, 2003). One of the causes that he listed was the concept of “Hubble flow” expansionthatIintroducedabove—which(again,interestingly) he labeled as “cosmological redshift” (39:271). As Repp re marked, this “expansion redshift” (a synonym for Hubble flow or cosmological redshift) “is caused by the expansion of space throughwhichthewaveistraveling,resultinginan‘expansion’ (redshifting)ofthewaveitself....[T]heexpansionredshiftwould betheresultofthemotionofspaceitself.”Yes,itwould—which isexactlythepointIwasmakingintheaboveparagraphs.And, as Repp went on to acknowledge concerning expansion red shift: “It is the commonly accepted explanation for the red shifts of the distant galaxies” (39:271). Yes, it is. But that is not quite the end of the story. There is evidence to support the idea that the galaxies themselves may, in fact, actually be moving, rather than simply being “at rest” while beingcarriedalongbytheexpansionofspace.TheAndrom edaGalaxy(knownasM31),whichisamongournearestneigh boring galaxies, presents a light spectrum that is blueshifted. IftheUniverseisexpanding,howcouldthatbe?Apparently, the Doppler motion is large enough blueward to negate the cosmological redshift expansion, thereby allowing us to view a galaxy that has a blueshift. The implication of this is that the galaxy itself must be moving. Whatcouldberesponsibleforthat?Someastronomershave suggested that such movement may be attributable to the lo calizedforcesofgravity.Galaxiesareknowntoclumptogether into clusters that can contain anywhere from a few dozen to a fewthousandgalaxies.[Clustersofclustersareknownas“super clusters.”]What holds these structures together? Presumably, it is gravity. That would imply that the objects composing the structures have orbits—which produce motion that are indeed Doppler in nature. - 41
- 51. Andrew Repp expoundedupon the concept I am discuss ing here, under the title of “gravitational redshift” in his arti cle reviewing the various causes of redshifts, and specifically mentionedthat“theexpansionredshiftdiffersfromthegrav itationalredshift”(39:272).Yes,itdoes.AsDr.Reppcommented, whereas the expansion redshift is the result of the motion of space itself, “gravitational redshift is the result of...the effects of gravity on spacetime” (39:271). That being true, the light spectrum of any given galaxy will exhibitshiftsthataretheresultof boththeDopplereffect(due toactualmotion)andthe“cosmologicalredshift”(expansion redshift/Hubbleflow—duetoperceivedmotion).Andhow,ex actly,wouldastronomersdifferentiatebetweenthetwo?They wouldn’t;observationally,thereisnowaytodoso—whichmeans thatnoonecansaywithaccuracyhowmuchofeachexists.In fact,asRepponceagaincorrectlynoted,theBigBangModel does not allow for “large-scale pattern of gravitational attrac tion, the mass distribution being assumed homogeneous; hence itpredictsexpansionredshiftsbutnot(large-scale)gravitational redshifts” (39:272, parenthetical item in orig.). In point of fact, however, the commingling of cosmological redshift and grav itational redshift may well be one of the reasons that the cal culation of the Hubble constant (discussed below) has been so problematicovertheyears.AndthisiswhyIstatedearlierthat the important distinction being discussed in this section has serious implications (different values for the Hubble constant result in varying ages for the Universe). AccordingtothestandardDoppler-effectinterpretationthen, a redshifted galaxy is one that is traveling farther away from itsneighbors.Hubble,andhiscolleagueMiltonHumason(1891 1972),plottedthedistanceofagivengalaxyagainstthevelocity with which it receded. By 1935, they had added another 150 points to the expansion data (see Gribbin, 1998, p. 81). They believed that the rate at which a galaxy is observed to recede is directly proportional to its distance from us; that is, the far therawayagalaxyisfromus,thefasterittravelsawayfromus. This became known as “Hubble’s Law.” Today, the idea that - 42
- 52. redshiftisproportionaltodistanceisacrucialpartofdistance measurement in modernastronomy. But that is not all. The concepts of (a) an expanding Universe, and (b) the accu racy of redshift measurements,formacriticallyimportant partofthefoundationofmodernBigBangcosmology.Asmath ematician David Berlinski put it: “Hubble’s law embodies a general hypothesis of Big Bang cosmology—namely, that the universeisexpanding...”(1998,p.34).Onewithouttheother is not possible. If one falls, both do. I will have more to say on this important point later. Hubble and Humason’s work gave cosmologists clues to thesizeoftheUniverseandthemovementofobjectswithinit. Butwhileastronomerswerepeeringthroughtheirtelescopes at the Universe, theoretical physicists were describing that Universeinnewways.ThefirsttwomodelscamefromAlbert Einstein and Willem de Sitter in 1917. Although they arrived at their models independently, both ideas were based on Ein- stein’s General Theory of Relativity, and both scientists made adjustments to prevent expansion, even though expansion ap peareda natural outcome of General Relativity. However, as knowledge about redshifts became more widespread, expan sionwasintroducedasamatteroffact.[Redshiftandexpan sion inevitably became the “twin pillars” upon which much of modern Big Bang cosmology was built. Interestingly, ex pansion itself also was built upon two pillars—homogeneity (matter is spread out uniformly) and isotropy (matter is spread out evenly in all directions). I will have more to say about all of this later, as well.] This was the case in 1922 with a set of so lutions produced by Russian mathematician and physical sci entist Aleksandr Friedman. Five years later, in 1927, the Bel gian scholar Georges Lemaître produced a model incorporat ingaredshift-distancerelationveryclosetothatsuggestedby Hubble. If the Universe is expanding now, Lemaître calculated, thentheremusthavebeenatimeinthepastwhentheUniverse was in a state of contraction. It was in this state that the “pri mevalatom,”ashecalledit,expandedtoformatoms,stars,and galaxies. Lemaître had described, in its essential form, what - 43
- 53. is now knownas the Big Bang, and scientists even today speak frequently of FL (Friedman-Lemaître) cosmology, which as sumestheexpansionoftheUniverseanditshomogeneity(see Illingworth and Clark, 2000, p. 94). The Big Bang Theory WhileitwascreditedtoLemaîtreinhisobituary,theeven tualwidespreadacceptanceofthishypothesiswasduemainly toitsleadingconstituent,Gamow.Eventhoughitprobablyis notknownwidelytoday,theBigBang—initsoriginal“standard” form—actuallycamebeforetheadventoftheSteadyStateThe oryand,ironically,wasgivenitsname(intendedtobederog atory) by Hoyle as a result of a snide comment he made on a radio show for which he served as host (Fox, 2002, p. 65). In this section, I will discuss only the “standard” form of the Big Bang,leavingthediscussionoftheBigBang’smostrecentvar iations for later. Inthebeginningwastheylem...orsothetheoristssay.The “ylem”—an entirely hypothetical construct—was a primordial substance 10 14 times the density of water, yet smaller in vol ume than a single proton. As one writer expressed it: Astonishingly, scientists now calculate that everything in this vast universe grew out of a region many billions of times smaller than a single proton, one of the atom’s basic particles (Gore, 1983, 163:705). 10 The ylem (a.k.a. the “cosmic egg”) was a “mind-bogglingly denseatomcontainingtheentireUniverse”(Fox,p.69).[Where, exactly, the cosmic egg is supposed to have come from, no one knows; so far, no cosmic chicken has yet been sighted.] At some point in time, according to Big Bang theorists, the ylem reached its minimum contraction (at a temperature of 32 Celsius—a 1 followed by 32 zeros!), and suddenly and vi olentlyexpanded.Withinanhourofthisevent,nucleosynthe sis began to occur. That is to say, the light atoms we know to day(e.g.,hydrogen,helium,andlithium)hadbeenmanufac turedintheintenseheat.AstheUniverseexpandedandcooled, theatomsstarted“clumping”together,andwithinafewhun dredmillionyears,thecoalescing“clumps”begantoformstars - 44
- 54. and galaxies (seeFigure 2 on the next page). The heavier ele ments are assumed to have formed later via nuclear fusion within the cores of stars. WhiletheSteadyStateTheoryhadbeenwidelyacceptedfor morethanadecadeafteritsintroduction,1948alsowasagood year for the competing Big Bang Theory. The first boost came fromGeorgeGamowandRalphAlpher(currently,distinguished professor of physics, Union College, Schenectady, New York). They applied quantum physics to see how the Big Bang could make hydrogen and helium (plus minute amounts of lithium) —the elements thought to form 99% of the visible Universe— in a process called nucleosynthesis (see Gribbin, 1998, pp. 129 134).However,theirtheorywasunabletoaccountforelements heavier than helium; these would have to be made elsewhere. GeoffreyandMargaretBurbidge,WillyFowler,andFredHoyle obliged—bysuggestingthattheseotherelementsweremanu factured in stars. To cap it all off, Fowler, Hoyle, and Robert Wagoner showed that the proportions of certain lighter-weight elements produced during the Big Bang matched almost ex actly the proportions thought to exist in the solar system. This result, published in 1967, convinced many astronomers that theBigBangwasthecorrectdescriptionoftheUniverse’sor igin. A decade later, the Big Bang was in full bloom. Robert Jas trow of NASA parroted the standard Big Bang refrain when he commented that, in the beginning, “all matter in the Uni verse was compressed into an infinitely dense and hot mass” that exploded. Then, over the many eons that followed, “the primordial cloud of the Universe expands and cools, stars are born and die, the sun and earth are formed, and life arises on the earth” (1977, pp. 2-3). With these statements, he was de scribing, of course, the essence of the Big Bang Theory, a con cept that reigns supreme—in one form or another—as the cur rent evolutionary explanation of the origin of the Universe. Berlinski assessed the theory’s popularity as follows: Asfarasmostphysicistsareconcerned,theBigBang is now a part of the structure of serene indubitability - 45
- 55. Random documents withunrelated content Scribd suggests to you:
- 56. 42. Th. T.om. yet; (Ff. has ne.) Th. T. slepe; Ff. S. slepte; F. B. slept. 43. S. naught likith vnto me; Th. T. Ff. is not lyke to me; F. B. is vnlike for to be. 45. Th. darte. 47. Th. howe. 48. Th. amonge. 50. Th. cuckowe. 51. Th. thought. 52. T. Ff. whider; S. quhider; F. B. whedir; Th. where. 54. Th. none herde. F. B. T. this; Ff. the; Th. S. that. 55. S. thridde; T. thridd; Th. F. B. thirde. 56. S. than; rest om. Th. aspyde. 58. Ff. to; Th. T. vnto; F. B. into; S. in. Th. wodde; F. B. wode. 59. Th. T. went; F. B. wente. Th. forthe. Th. boldely; Ff. T. boldly; rest priuely. 60. Th. helde. F. B. S. my; Th. Ff. the; T. me the. Th. downe. 61. F. B. come; S. cam; Th. T. came (read com). 62. All in; read inne. S. has in y-ben. 63, 64. B. transposes. 64. F. B. gras; S. greses; Th. greues; T. Ff. grenes. S. ylike; F. B. al I-like; Th. T. Ff. lyke. 65. Th. els. 66. Th. sate; downe. 67. Th. sawe; birdes. Th. trippe; T. trip; S. flee; F. B. crepe. 68. Th. T. Ff. om. had. S. thame rested; rest rested hem. 70. Th. T. om. That. All began; read begonne. Ff. to don hir; Th. T. for to done. F. B. of Mayes ben her houres (!); S. on mayes vss thair houres. 72. S. lusty (for lovely). S. straunge; rest om. 73. Ff. lowe. T. hade; rest had. S. compleyned. 74. Th. voice yfayned. 75. Ff. S. all (2); rest om. Th. Ff. T. the ful; S. fulle; F. B. a lowde. 76. F. B. pruned. All made; read maden. 80. Th. Feuerere; T. Feuirȝere; rest Marche (!). All upon; read on. 81. S. eke; rest om. 83. Th. T. with; rest to. T. Ff. briddes; S. birdis; Th. byrdes; F. B. foules. S. T. Ff. armonye; Th. armony; F. B. ermonye. 84. Th. thought. All best (!). 85. Th. myght; yherde. 86. All delyte. S. therof; rest om. Th. wotte; F. B. note; S. wote; T. wot. F. B. ner (for never). Th. howe. 87. Th. swowe; Ff. swough; S. slowe (!); B. slow (!). 88. F. B. S. on slepe. 89. Th. swowe; thought. 90. F. B. Ff. That; rest the. F. B. Ff. bridde; S. T. brid; Th. byrde. Th. Cuckowe. 91. All fast. 92. Th. yuel apayde. 93. Th. Nowe. F. B. vpon (for on). 94. Th. the. 95. Th. nowe. 96. Th. cuckowe. Th. T. thus gan; Ff. now gan; S. gan to; F. B. gan. 97. Th. B. busshe; Ff. T. bussh; F. busshes (!); S. beugh. F. B. me beside. 100. Th. T. Ff. om. out. Ff. the greues of the wode (better). 101. Th. Ah. Ff. S. thenne; T. thanne; rest
- 57. then. 102. Th.haste. Ff. S. T. henne; rest hen. 103. F. B. lewde; S. lewed; T. Ff. loude (!). (The line runs badly.) 104. F. B. om. hast. 105. Th. T. om. that. Th. yuel fyre. Th. S. her; rest him. Th. bren; rest brenne. 106. Th. nowe; tel. 107. Th. laye. (The line runs badly; read longë or swowening.) 108. Th. thought; wyst. Th. T. what; rest al that. 109. Th. sayd. 110. T. hade; rest had. 111. Th. om. And. Th. T. there (for than). 112. Th. Nowe good. 113. Th. lette. 114. Th. the. 116. F. B. she (for he). Th. the. 118. Th. songe; playne. 119. Th. T. And though; rest Al-though. Th. crakel; T. crakil; S. crekill; Ff. crake; F. B. breke hit (!). Th. vayne. 120. Th. doest; S. dois; rest dost. Th. Ff. S. neuer; T. not; F. B. ner. 122. Th. done; T. S. Ff. do; F. B. om. Th. the. 123. Th. haste. Th. T. Ff. nyce queynt(e); S. queynt feyned; F. B. queint. 124. F. B. S. herd the; T. the herd; Th. the herde. Th. sayne; T. seyn; F. B. seye; S. sing. 125. Th. Howe. F. B. Who myghte wete what; S. Bot quho mycht vnderstand quhat. 126. Th. Ah; Ff. T. A; rest O. Th. foole; woste. Th. T. Ff. it; rest that. 128. Th. meane; fayne. 129. Ff. alle; S. all; rest al. Th. T. Ff. they; rest tho. Th. yslayne. 130. Th. meanen. S. aȝeines; F. B. ayen; T. again; Th. agayne. 131. F. B. al tho were dede; Th. T. Ff. that al tho had the dede. S. And al they I wold also were dede. 132. Th. thynke; T. think; S. thinkith; Ff. thenke; F. B. thenk. F. B. S. Ff. her lyue in loue. 133. Th. S. who so; rest om. so. Th. T. Ff. place not after wol. 134. Th. T. F. B. Ff. he is; S. om. he. Th. Ff. T. om. for. 136. Th. Eye; cuckowe. F. B. insert ywis before this. 137. Th. T. Ff. That euery wight shal loue or be to-drawe; F. B. That eyther I shal love or elles be slawe. 139. Th. myne. F. B. neyther; S. nouthir; Th. T. Ff. not. 140. Th. T. Ff. Ne neuer; rest om. neuer. Th. T. on; rest in. 141. Th. S. ben; Ff. T. bene; F. B. lyven (for been). 142. Th. moste (twice); disease. 143. Th. moste. F. B. S. enduren; Th. Ff. T. endure. 144. So F. B. (with of her for of); Th. T. Ff. And leste felen of welfare; S. And alderlast have felyng of welefare. 145. S. aȝeynes; Th. B. ayenst; F. T. ayens. 146. S. Quhat brid quod. Th. arte. 147. Th. T. Ff. might thou; F. maist thou; B. S. maistow. Th. Ff. churlnesse; T. clerenes (!); F. B. cherles hert; S. cherlish hert. 148.
- 58. Th. seruauntes. 149.Th. none. 152. S. Honestee estate and all gentilness; Th. T. F. Ff. Al honour and al gentylnesse; B. Al honour and al gentillesse. 153. Th. ease. 154. Th. Parfyte. F. B. ensured. 155. S. and eke. 156, 157. All but the first words transposed in Th. T. 158. F. B. S. and for; Th. T. Ff. om. and. Th. done. 160. Th. T. Ff. om. 1st to. 161. F. B. Ff. om. this. F. B. S. al; Th. T. Ff. om. 162. Th. T. om. bothe. 163. F. B. S. rede I; Th. T. Ff. I rede. Th. that thou. 164. Th. T. Ff. om. Ye. F. B. she; rest he. Th. T. om. god. 165. Th. T. vnto; F. B. Ff. S. to. F. B. thy (for that). 167. F. B. the sothe; S. full sooth. Th. T. Ff. is the sothe contrayre. 168. F. B. S. Ff. loving; Th. T. loue. Th. folke. 169. Th. folke; F. B. Ff. om. F. B. hit is; Th. T. om. Th. great. 170. Th. moste (twice). F. B. he; S. it; Th. T. Ff. om. 171. F. mony an; B. mony a; Th. T. S. Ff. disease and. 172. Th. So sorowe; rest om. So. Th. many a gret. F. B. om. greet. 173. Th. Dispyte debate. I supply and. 174. F. Repreve and; B. Repreff and; S. Repref and; Th. T. Deprauyng. 175. Th. T. B. Ff. om. 1st and. Th. mischefe. S. pouertee; Ff. pouerte; rest pouert. 176. Th. T. Ff. om. What. Th. dispayre. 177. B. T. oo; S. o; F. oon; Th. one. Th. fayre. 178. Th. getteth; S. get (better). Th. blysse. 179. F. B. om. if. F. B. S. Ff. therby. 180. Th. heyre; T. eyre; S. aire; F. B. crie (!); Ff. heiere. 181. F. B. therfor Nyghtyngale. Th. therefore holde the nye. 182. Th. Ff. T. S. queynt; F. B. loude. 183. Th. T. Ff. ferre. F. of (for or). 184. Th. T. S. ben; F. B. be (read been). 185. Th. Ff. than; F. B. T. then (read thanne); S. om. F. B. shalt thou. 186. Th. the. 188. Th. T. worse. Th. folde. 189. Th. one; Ff. on; F. B. om. S. ar; rest is. 190. T. hade (twice); rest had. 191. Th. T. Ff. put evermore after For. Th. seruauntes; F. B. seruant. 192. Ff. T. euel; S. euell; Th. yuel; F. B. om. F. tachches; S. stachis (!). F. B. him. 193. F. B. him. F. B. as eny; T. right as a; Ff. right as; Th. right in a. S. be brynnyng as a. Th. fyre. 195. Th. whan; T. when; Ff. whanne (for whom). F. B. Ff. him; S. he; Th. T. hem. Th. ioy. 196. F. B. Ye (for Thou). Th. sayd. T. F. B. S. Ff. hold the; Th. be. Th. styl. 197. F. B. S. Ff. his; Th. T. it is. Th. wyl. 198. F. B. Ff. sithe; Th. T. tyme; S. tymes. Th. folke; easeth. 199. Th. folke. Th. T. Ff. he
- 59. displeaseth; rest om.he. 200. F. B. And (for That). Th. corage; rest grace. Th. spyl. 201-205. From F. B. Ff. S.; Th. T. omit. 201. Ff. wille; F. wolde; B. wull; S. wole. 202. F. B. blynde; S. blynd. S. alweye; F. B. Ff. om. 203. Ff. And whom he hit he not, or whom he failith (best); F. B. And whan he lyeth he not, ne whan he fayleth; S. Quhom he hurtith he note, ne quhom he helith (!). 204. So Ff.; F. B. In; S. Into. Ff. S. his; F. B. this. F. B. selde. 205. F. B. dyuerse. 206. Th. toke. 207. Th. T. Howe she; F. B. S. om. Howe. Th. T. Ff. om. herte. 208. Th. sayd. 209. Th. not say one; T. nouȝt sey oo. 210. Th. that worde; rest om. worde. F. B. on (for out). Th. om. for. 212. Th. leude; Ff. false; rest fals. T. B. brid; Ff. bridde; Th. byrde; S. bird. F. B. Ff. to; rest om. 214. Th. helpe; some. 215. Th. cuckowe ben. 216. S. thocht; rest thought (read thoughte). F. B. S. that I; T. Ff. I; Th. he. 217-219. Th. T. omit. 217. S. gat; F. B. gatte. 218. S. hardily; F. B. Ff. hertly. 219. Ff. flyeȝ; F. flyed; B. flye; S. gan flee (read fley, as in 221). 220. Th. om. when. Th. agon; T. S. agone; Ff. goon; F. gone; B. gon. 221. F. B. fley; Th. flaye; Ff. S. flay; T. flai. 222. Th. T. om. He. Th. sayd. Th. popyngaye; F. B. papyngay; S. papaIay; Ff. papeiay. 223. T. hade; rest had. F. B. Ff. thoght me; S. as thocht me (read thoughte me); Th. me alone (to rime with 217). 224, 225. Th. T. omit. 225. F. B. Ff. sight away. 226. Th. S. than; F. B. T. then; Ff. thanne. F. B. T. S. come; Th. Ff. came. 227. F. B. seyde; Th. sayd. Th. the. 228. Th. haste. F. B. thus; S. for; Th. T. Ff. om. T. rescow; rest rescowe. 229. Th. one. Ff. I wol avowe; F. B. I avowe; Th. T. make I nowe. S. And rycht anon to loue I wole allowe. 231. Th. apayde; T. apaied. 232. F. B. Ff. S. amayed; Th. T. dismayde. 233. Th. herde. F. B. er; Th. T. Ff. erst. 235. Ff. nexte; rest next. Th. affrayde; T. affraied. 236. Th. one. 237. S. leue; rest loue (!). Th. cuckowe ne his; F. B. S. om. ne his. 238. Th. stronge leasyng. 239. F. B. S. Ff. there (for therto). T. man (for thing). 240. F. B. S. Fro; Th. T. Ff. For (!). So Ff. F. B. S.; Th. T. and it hath do me moche (T. myche) wo. 241. F. B. Yee; S. Ya. S. thou schalt vss. Th. T. Ff. om. thou. 242. Ff. F. B. er; rest or. Th. T. Ff. om. that. 243. F. B. S. fressh flour; Ff. Th.
- 60. T. om. flour.S. dayeseye. 245. Th. greatly. B. lisse; F. Ff. lyssen; Th. T. S. lessen. S. om. thee. 246—end. Lost in S. 247. Th. one. Ff. my; rest the. 248. Th. the. 249. Th. T. Ff. than; F. B. then (read thanne). Th. songe. 250. F. B. Ff. hem al. Th. ben; T. bene. 251. Ff. hadde; T. hade; rest had. 252. Th. Nowe. F. most; B. must; Th. Ff. mote; T. mot. 254. Ff. mochel; F. B. mekil; T. mykil; Th. moche. Th. the. 255. So F. B. Ff.; Th. T. As any yet louer he euer sende. 256. Th. T. Ff. taketh; F. B. toke. Th. leaue. 257. Th. T. Ff. om. he. 259. Th. cuckowe. 260. Ff. noon; F. B. non; Th. T. not. T. Ff. brid; F. B. bridde; Th. byrde. 261. F. B. fley; T. fleigh; Ff. fleȝt; Th. flewe. 262. Th. byrdes; rest briddes. B. the vale; F. the wale; Th. T. Ff. that dale. 263. Th. T. gate; F. B. gat. 264. All put hem after besoughte. Ff. bysought; rest besoughten (!). 265. Th. T. disease. 266. Ff. Ye wyten; F. B. Ye knowe; Th. T. The cuckowe (!). F. B. fro yow hidde; Th. T. for to hyde (!). 267. F. B. How that; rest om. that. Th. T. Ff. fast; F. B. om. Th. chyde; T. chide; F. B. Ff. chidde. 268. Th. Ff. daye; rest dayes. 269. Th. Ff. praye; rest pray (prey). Ff. alle; rest al. 270. Th. bride; T. Ff. brid; F. B. bridde. 271. Th. o; rest oon. T. all; rest al. Th. one; T. oon; F. B. om. 273. Th. om. fewe. Th. byrdes. 274. All soth. Th. cuckowe. 276. T. Ff. lord; rest lorde. 277. T. Ff. record; rest recorde. 278. Th. cuckowe. 279. Ff. Th. T. om. And. Th. There. Th. T. yeue; F. yeuen; B. yeuyn; Ff. youe. 280. F. B. make summe; Th. T. fynally make. 281. Th. without; rest withouten. Th. T. Ff. om. any. 282. F. B. of; Th. T. Ff. after. 283 Th. T. Ff. a; F. B. the. Th. fayre. 284. Th. wyndowe. 285. Th. wodestocke; F. B. wodestok. 286. F. B. thanketh. Th. leaue toke. 287. F. B. fleye; Th. T. om. Th. T. Ff. an; F. B. a. Th. hauthorne; T. hauthorn. All broke. 288. All sate. T. Ff. song; rest songe. Th. T. that; F. B. the; Ff. a. 289. I supply my. Th. T. Ff. lyfe; F. B. lyve. After 290, Ff. has Explicit Clanvowe. XIX. ENVOY TO ALISON. O lewde book, with thy foole rudenesse, Sith thou hast neither beautee n'eloquence,
- 61. Who hath theecaused, or yeve thee hardinesse For to appere in my ladyes presence? 5 I am ful siker, thou knowest her benivolence Ful ágreable to alle hir obeyinge; For of al goode she is the best livinge. Allas! that thou ne haddest worthinesse To shewe to her som plesaunt sentence, 10 Sith that she hath, thorough her gentilesse, Accepted thee servant to her digne reverence! O, me repenteth that I n'had science And leyser als, to make thee more florisshinge; For of al goode she is the best livinge. 15 Beseche her mekely, with al lowlinesse, Though I be fer from her [as] in absence, To thenke on my trouth to her and stedfastnesse, And to abregge of my sorwe the violence, Which caused is wherof knoweth your sapience; 20 She lyke among to notifye me her lykinge; For of al goode she is the best livinge. Lenvoy. Aurore of gladnesse, and day of lustinesse, Lucerne a-night, with hevenly influence Illumined, rote of beautee and goodnesse, 25 Suspiries which I effunde in silence, Of grace I beseche, alegge let your wrytinge, Now of al goode sith ye be best livinge.
- 62. Explicit. From F. (Fairfax16); collated with T. (Tanner 346); and Th. (Thynne, ed. 1532). 1. F. boke; T. Th. booke. Th. foule. 2. All beaute. 3. All the (twice). 5. So all. 6. Th. abeyeng (!). 7. F. T. goode; Th. good. Th. best; F. T. beste. 9. All somme, some. Th. plesaunt; F. plesant. 10. T. thurugh; F. thorgh; Th. through. 11. All the. 12. All ne (before had). 13. So all (with the for thee). 14. Th. good. Th. best; F. T. beste. 16. I supply as. 17. T. Th. trouth; F. trouthe. 18. F. abregge; Th. abrege; T. abrigge. T. sorow; F. sorwes; Th. sorowes. 20. All amonge. T. Th. notifye; F. notefye. 21. T. Th. al; F. alle. F. T. goode; Th. good. Th. Lenuoye; T. The Lenuoye; F. om. 24. Th. T. Illumyned; F. Enlumyned. F. Rote (with capital). All beaute. F. and of; Th. T. om. of. 25. F. Suspiries; Th. Suspires. 26. T. beseke. Th. alege. 27. F. goode; Th. T. good. After 27: Th. Explicit; F. T. om. XX. THE FLOWER AND THE LEAF. When that Phebus his chaire of gold so hy Had whirled up the sterry sky aloft, And in the Bole was entred certainly; Whan shoures swete of rain discended †soft, 5 Causing the ground, felë tymes and oft, Up for to give many an hoolsom air, And every plain was [eek y-]clothed fair With newe grene, and maketh smalë floures To springen here and there in feld and mede; 10 So very good and hoolsom be the shoures That it reneweth, that was old and deede In winter-tyme; and out of every seede
- 63. Springeth the herbë,so that every wight Of this sesoun wexeth [ful] glad and light. 15 And I, só glad of the seson swete, Was happed thus upon a certain night; As I lay in my bed, sleep ful unmete Was unto me; but, why that I ne might Rest, I ne wist; for there nas erthly wight, 20 As I suppose, had more hertës ese Than I, for I n'ad siknesse nor disese. Wherfore I mervail gretly of my-selve, That I so long withouten sleepë lay; And up I roos, three houres after twelve, 25 About the [very] springing of the day, And on I put my gere and myn array; And to a plesaunt grovë I gan passe, Long or the brightë sonne uprisen was, In which were okës grete, streight as a lyne, 30 Under the which the gras, so fresh of hew, Was newly spronge; and an eight foot or nyne Every tree wel fro his felawe grew, With braunches brode, laden with leves new, That sprongen out ayein the sonnë shene, 35 Som very rede, and som a glad light grene; Which, as me thought, was right a plesaunt sight. And eek the briddes song[ës] for to here Would have rejoised any erthly wight. And I, that couth not yet, in no manere,
- 64. 40 Here the nightingaleof al the yere, Ful busily herkned, with herte and ere, If I her voice perceive coud any-where. And at the last, a path of litel brede I found, that gretly had not used be, 45 For it forgrowen was with gras and weede, That wel unneth a wight [ther] might it see. Thought I, this path som whider goth, pardè, And so I folowèd, til it me brought To right a plesaunt herber, wel y-wrought, 50 That benched was, and [al] with turves new Freshly turved, wherof the grenë gras So small, so thik, so short, so fresh of hew, That most lyk to grene †wol, wot I, it was. The hegge also, that yede [as] in compas 55 And closed in al the grene herbere, With sicamour was set and eglantere, Writhen in-fere so wel and cunningly That every braunch and leef grew by mesure, Plain as a bord, of on height, by and by, 60 [That] I sy never thing, I you ensure, So wel [y-]don; for he that took the cure It [for] to make, I trow, did al his peyn To make it passe al tho that men have seyn. And shapen was this herber, roof and al, 65 As [is] a prety parlour, and also
- 65. The hegge asthik as [is] a castle-wal, That, who that list without to stond or go, Though he wold al-day pryen to and fro, He shuld not see if there were any wight 70 Within or no; but oon within wel might Perceive al tho that yeden there-without In the feld, that was on every syde Covered with corn and gras, that, out of dout, Though oon wold seeken al the world wyde, 75 So rich a feld [ne] coud not be espyed [Up]on no cost, as of the quantitee, For of al good thing ther was [greet] plentee. And I, that al this plesaunt sight [than] sy, Thought sodainly I felt so sweet an air 80 [Come] of the eglantere, that certainly, Ther is no hert, I deme, in such despair, Ne with [no] thoughtës froward and contrair So overlaid, but it shuld soone have bote, If it had onës felt this savour sote. 85 And as I stood and cast asyde myn y, I was ware of the fairest medle-tree That ever yet in al my lyf I sy, As full of blossomës as it might be. Therin a goldfinch leping pretily 90 Fro bough to bough, and, as him list, he eet Here and there, of buddes and floures sweet. And to the herber-sydë was joining
- 66. This fairë tree,of which I have you told; And, at the last, the brid began to sing, 95 Whan he had eten what he etë wold, So passing sweetly, that, by manifold, It was more plesaunt than I coud devyse; And whan his song was ended in this wyse, The nightingale with so mery a note 100 Answéred him, that al the wodë rong So sodainly, that, as it were a sot, I stood astonied; so was I with the song Through ravishèd, that, [un]til late and long Ne wist I in what place I was, ne where; 105 And †ay, me thought, she song even by myn ere. Wherfore about I waited busily On every syde, if I her mightë see; And, at the last, I gan ful wel aspy Wher she sat in a fresh green laurer-tree 110 On the further syde, even right by me, That gave so passing a delicious smel According to the eglantere ful wel. Wherof I had so inly greet plesyr That, as me thought, I surely ravished was 115 Into Paradyse, where my desyr Was for to be, and no ferther [to] passe As for that day, and on the sotë gras I sat me doun; for, as for myn entent, The birdës song was more convenient,
- 67. 120 And more plesauntto me, by many fold, Than mete or drink, or any other thing; Thereto the herber was so fresh and cold, The hoolsom savours eek so comforting That, as I demed, sith the beginning 125 Of the world, was never seen, or than, So plesaunt a ground of non erthly man. And as I sat, the briddës herkning thus, Me thought that I herd voices sodainly, The most sweetest and most delicious 130 That ever any wight, I trow trewly, Herde in †his lyf, for [that] the armony And sweet accord was in so good musyk, Thát the voice to angels most was lyk. The Leaf. At the last, out of a grove even by, 135 That was right goodly and plesaunt to sight, I sy where there cam singing lustily A world of ladies; but to tell aright Their greet beautè, it lyth not in my might, Ne their array; nevertheless, I shal 140 Tell you a part, though I speke not of al. †In surcotes whyte, of veluet wel sitting, They were [y-]clad; and the semes echoon, As it were a maner garnishing, Was set with emeraudës, oon and oon, 145 By and by; but many a richë stoon
- 68. Was set [up-]onthe purfils, out of dout, Of colors, sleves, and trainës round about; As gret[e] perlës, round and orient, Diamondës fyne and rubies rede, 150 And many another stoon, of which I †want The namës now; and everich on her hede A richë fret of gold, which, without drede, Was ful of statly richë stonës set; And every lady had a chapëlet 155 On her hede, of [leves] fresh and grene, So wel [y-]wrought, and so mervéilously, Thát it was a noble sight to sene; Some of laurer, and some ful plesauntly Had chapëlets of woodbind, and sadly 160 Some of agnus-castus ware also Chápëlets fresh; but there were many tho That daunced and eek song ful soberly; But al they yede in maner of compas. But oon ther yede in-mid the company 165 Sole by her-self; but al folowed the pace [Which] that she kept, whos hevenly-figured face So plesaunt was, and her wel-shape persòn, That of beautè she past hem everichon. And more richly beseen, by manifold, 170 She was also, in every maner thing; On her heed, ful plesaunt to behold, A crowne of gold, rich for any king;
- 69. A braunch ofagnus-castus eek bering In her hand; and, to my sight, trewly, 175 She lady was of [al] the company. And she began a roundel lustily, That Sus le foyl de vert moy men call, Seen, et mon joly cuer endormi; And than the company answéred all 180 With voice[s] swete entuned and so small, That me thought it the sweetest melody That ever I herdë in my lyf, soothly. And thus they came[n], dauncing and singing, Into the middes of the mede echone, 185 Before the herber, where I was sitting, And, god wot, me thought I was wel bigon; For than I might avyse hem, on by on, Who fairest was, who coud best dance or sing, Or who most womanly was in al thing. 190 They had not daunced but a litel throw When that I herd, not fer of, sodainly So greet a noise of thundring trumpës blow, As though it shuld have départed the sky; And, after that, within a whyle I sy 195 From the same grove, where the ladyes come out, Of men of armës coming such a rout As al the men on erth had been assembled In that place, wel horsed for the nones, Stering so fast, that al the erth[ë] trembled;
- 70. 200 But for tospeke of riches and [of] stones, And men and hors, I trow, the largë wones Of Prester John, ne al his tresory Might not unneth have bought the tenth party! Of their array who-so list herë more, 205 I shal reherse, so as I can, a lyte. Out of the grove, that I spak of before, I sy come first, al in their clokes whyte, A company, that ware, for their delyt, Chapëlets fresh of okës cereal 210 Newly spronge, and trumpets they were al. On every trumpe hanging a brood banere Of fyn tartarium, were ful richly bete; Every trumpet his lordës armës †bere; About their nekkës, with gret perlës set, 215 Colers brode; for cost they would not lete, As it would seme; for their scochones echoon Were set about with many a precious stoon. Their hors-harneys was al whyte also; And after hem next, in on company, 220 Cámë kingës of armës, and no mo, In clokës of whyte cloth of gold, richly; Chapelets of greene on their hedes on hy, The crownës that they on their scochones bere Were set with perlë, ruby, and saphere, 225 And eek gret diamondës many on;
- 71. But al theirhors-harneys and other gere Was in a sute àccording, everichon, As ye have herd the foresayd trumpets were; And, by seeming, they were nothing to lere; 230 And their gyding they did so manerly. And after hem cam a greet company Of heraudës and pursevauntës eke Arrayed in clothës of whyt veluët; And hardily, they were nothing to seke 235 How they [up]on hem shuld the harneys set; And every man had on a chapëlet; Scóchones and eke hors-harneys, indede, They had in sute of hem that before hem yede. Next after hem, came in armour bright, 240 Al save their hedes, seemely knightës nyne; And every clasp and nail, as to my sight, Of their harneys, were of red gold fyne; With cloth of gold, and furred with ermyne Were the trappurës of their stedës strong, 245 Wyde and large, that to the ground did hong; And every bosse of brydel and peitrel That they had, was worth, as I would wene, A thousand pound; and on their hedës, wel Dressed, were crownës [al] of laurer grene, 250 The best [y-]mad that ever I had seen; And every knight had after him ryding Three henshmen, [up]on him awaiting;
- 72. Of whiche †thefirst, upon a short tronchoun, His lordës helme[t] bar, so richly dight, 255 That the worst was worth[y] the raunsoun Of a[ny] king; the second a sheld bright Bar at his nekke; the thridde bar upright A mighty spere, ful sharpe [y-]ground and kene; And every child ware, of leves grene, 260 A fresh chapelet upon his heres bright; And clokes whyte, of fyn veluet they ware; Their stedës trapped and [a]rayed right Without[en] difference, as their lordës were. And after hem, on many a fresh co[u]rsere, 265 There came of armed knightës such a rout That they besprad the largë feld about. And al they ware[n], after their degrees, Chapëlets new, made of laurer grene, Some of oke, and some of other trees; 270 Some in their handës berë boughës shene, Some of laurer, and some of okës kene, Some of hawthorn, and some of woodbind, And many mo, which I had not in mind. And so they came, their hors freshly stering 275 With bloody sownës of hir trompës loud; Ther sy I many an uncouth disgysing In the array of these knightës proud; And at the last, as evenly as they coud, They took their places in-middes of the mede, 280
- 73. And every knightturned his horse[s] hede To his felawe, and lightly laid a spere In the [a]rest, and so justës began On every part about[en], here and there; Som brak his spere, som drew down hors and man; 285 About the feld astray the stedës ran; And, to behold their rule and governaunce, I you ensure, it was a greet plesaunce. And so the justës last an houre and more; But tho that crowned were in laurer grene 290 Wan the pryse; their dintës were so sore That ther was non ayenst hem might sustene; And [than] the justing al was left of clene; And fro their hors the †nine alight anon; And so did al the remnant everichon. 295 And forth they yede togider, twain and twain, That to behold, it was a worldly sight, Toward the ladies on the grenë plain, That song and daunced, as I sayd now right. The ladies, as soone as they goodly might, 300 They breke[n] of both the song and dance, And yede to mete hem, with ful glad semblance. And every lady took, ful womanly, Bý the hond a knight, and forth they yede Unto a fair laurer that stood fast by, 305 With levës lade, the boughës of gret brede; And to my dome, there never was, indede,
- 74. [A] man thathad seen half so fair a tree; For underneth it there might wel have be An hundred persons, at their own plesaunce, 310 Shadowed fro the hete of Phebus bright So that they shuld have felt no [greet] grevaunce Of rain, ne hail, that hem hurt[ë] might. The savour eek rejoice would any wight That had be sick or melancolious, 315 It was so very good and vertuous. And with gret reverence they †enclyned low [Un]to the tree, so sote and fair of hew; And after that, within a litel throw, †Bigonne they to sing and daunce of-new; 320 Some song of love, some playning of untrew, Environing the tree that stood upright; And ever yede a lady and a knight. The Flower. And at the last I cast myn eye asyde, And was ware of a lusty company 325 That came, roming out of the feld wyde, Hond in hond, a knight and a lady; The ladies alle in surcotes, that richly Purfyled were with many a riche stoon; And every knight of greene ware mantles on, 330 Embrouded wel, so as the surcotes were, And everich had a chapelet on her hede; Which did right wel upon the shyning here,
- 75. Made of goodlyfloures, whyte and rede. The knightës eke, that they in hond lede, 335 In sute of hem, ware chapelets everichon; And hem before went minstrels many on, As harpës, pypës, lutës, and sautry, Al in greene; and on their hedës bare Of dyvers flourës, mad ful craftily, 340 Al in a sute, goodly chapelets they ware; And so, dauncing, into the mede they fare, In-mid the which they found a tuft that was Al oversprad with flourës in compas. Where[un]to they enclyned everichon 345 With greet reverence, and that ful humblely; And, at the last[ë], there began anon A lady for to sing right womanly A bargaret in praising the daisy; For, as me thought, among her notës swete, 350 She sayd, 'Si doucë est la Margarete.' Thén they al answéred her infere, So passingly wel, and so plesauntly, Thát it was a blisful noise to here. But I not [how], it happed sodainly, 355 As, about noon, the sonne so fervently Wex hoot, that [al] the prety tender floures Had lost the beautè of hir fresh coloures, For-shronk with hete; the ladies eek to-brent, That they ne wist where they hem might bestow.
- 76. 360 The knightës swelt,for lak of shade ny shent; And after that, within a litel throw, The wind began so sturdily to blow, That down goth al the flourës everichon So that in al the mede there laft not on, 365 Save suche as socoured were, among the leves, Fro every storme, that might hem assail, Growing under hegges and thikke greves; And after that, there came a storm of hail And rain in-fere, so that, withouten fail, 370 The ladies ne the knightës n'ade o threed Drye [up]on hem, so dropping was hir weed. And when the storm was clene passed away, Tho [clad] in whyte, that stood under the tree, They felt[ë] nothing of the grete affray, 375 That they in greene without had in y-be. To hem they yedë for routh and pitè, Hem to comfort after their greet disese; So fain they were the helpless for to ese. Then was I ware how oon of hem in grene 380 Had on a crown[ë], rich and wel sitting; Wherfore I demed wel she was a quene, And tho in greene on her were awaiting. The ladies then in whyte that were coming Toward[ës] hem, and the knightës in-fere 385 Began to comfort hem and make hem chere.
- 77. The quene inwhyte, that was of grete beautè, Took by the hond the queen that was in grene, And said, 'Suster, I have right greet pitè Of your annoy, and of the troublous tene 390 Wherein ye and your company have been So long, alas! and, if that it you plese To go with me, I shal do you the ese In al the pleisir that I can or may.' Wherof the tother, humbly as she might, 395 Thanked her; for in right ill aray She was, with storm and hete, I you behight. And every lady then, anon-right, That were in whyte, oon of hem took in grene By the hond; which when the knightes had seen, 400 In lyke wyse, ech of hem took a knight Clad in grene, and forth with hem they fare [Un]to an heggë, where they, anon-right, To make their justës, [lo!] they would not spare Boughës to hew down, and eek treës square, 405 Wherewith they made hem stately fyres grete To dry their clothës that were wringing wete. And after that, of herbës that there grew, They made, for blisters of the sonne brenning, Very good and hoolsom ointments new, 410 Where that they yede, the sick fast anointing; And after that, they yede about gadring Plesaunt saladës, which they made hem ete, For to refresh their greet unkindly hete.
- 78. Welcome to ourwebsite – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com