Disagreements on Dark Matter

It amazes this child that sciency folks believe in things they cannot see or test, but dark matter is at the top of the list along with the Big Bang, cosmic and biological evolution, deep time, and all that good stuff. Creationists tend to reject dark matter because it is a rescuing device for the Big Bang. Also, it can only be inferred, not observed.

When searching for images at NASA, I noticed that there were numerous articles where scientists were amazed because the supposed dark matter did not behave in a manner that secular cosmologists expect. Some are getting on the prod about how it constantly defies explanation, and are proposing a replacement.

Hubble image of galaxies, NASA, ESA, & J. Lotz & HFF Team (STScI) (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

A few secular cosmologists believe in Modified Newtonian Dynamics. It is thought that this approach to science offers better explanations for what is observed that trying to use dark matter. Of course, the majority rules so often in science circles, so this MOND idea needs more supporters. The truth is often believed by a minority, and the truth is that God created the universe a few thousand years ago. He said so.

Will dark matter vanish in the light of evidence and logic? Will it be remembered as a bad dream? If that happens, the change in thinking will be monumental—a story for textbooks on the history of science. Dark Matter theory has ruled cosmology for half a century. What if it was all for naught?

. . .

Astrophysicist Indranil Banik at the University of St. Andrews is a proponent of MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics), an alternative to dark matter theory held by a minority of cosmologists. First, a little background.

You can read the rest at "Will Dark Matter Theorists See the Light?" Come back, though, because we have a disagreeing position from a creationist for your consideration.

Here is another instance where creation scientists disagree. Most reject the dark matter concept, but Danny Faulkner believes it is real and should be given serious consideration. (This is something he mentioned in his lecture, "How Do Black Holes Fit the Young-earth Creation Perspective?") Who ya gonna think is right, the rocket scientist who wrote the above article, or the astronomer? Both are biblical creationists.

In a recent article, Dr. Faulkner emphasizes that dark matter was not manufactured as a rescuing device for the Big Bang, but has been around quite a while. (I'll say again that they do use it for that purpose, however.) Unfortunately, he subscribes to the same "evidence" that secular scientists use, and seems to miss the parts where they are amazed and confused by its absence or disobedience to secular expectations. To read his article, click on "Dark Matter Doesn’t Exist? Not so Fast!"