Response to the Columbus Dispatch Article Titled:
"Big Bang theorists create 'primordial soup' in laboratory
Research sheds light on origin of universe"
Last Updated Friday, February 24, 2012
In order to avoid possible copyright infringements, we do not quote the entire Columbus Dispatch article in our response. To obtain a copy of original Dispatch article, click here.
excerpts from original article = green | our responses = black
See also this link: Quotable quote: Primeval soup failed paradigm
The Columbus Dispatch wasn't the original author of this story. They received it as wire story from the Associated Press. It appears that the Dispatch does some editing on it before they publish it. While the Dispatch isn't at fault for most of the misleading content of the article, we do have concerns about their handling of this story anyway.
A comment on the excerpt below. In the two places where the word "think" are highlighted in red, the Dispatch substituted "think" for the word "believe". It actually said "believe" in the original AP wire version. More on that below.
Scientists trying to understand the origins of the universe said Thursday they have moved a step closer, creating a ``primordial soup'' of subatomic particles they think resembles the universe during the earliest moments of creation. The discovery is a breakthrough in the attempt to study the exact moment of the Big Bang, the fiery explosion in which scientists think the universe was born.
Two things are clear from this excerpt. First, they admit they've only taken "a step closer" in their attempt to recreate the big bang. In other words, they have NOT yet scientifically demonstrated that the big bang was possible using the scientific method. And if you read this article in its entirety, it is obvious that they're still a very long way away from doing it. So the next time you hear an evolutionists talk about the "big bang" being a "fact", or "well proven", remember this admission.
The second and perhaps more profound concern about this is that we see solid proof that the alleged scientific "evidence" for the big bang is really just a "belief" (based on the wording of the original AP version of the story). This article isn't the only quote we've found that supports our assertion that the big bang is based on the personal biases and personal world views of the scientists who believe it occurred. Here are a few additional quotes from other evolutionists (we could provide many more similar quotes):
"The first, and main, problem is the very existence of the big bang. One may wonder, What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first: the universe or the laws determining its evolution? Explaining this initial singularitywhere and when it all beganstill remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology." (1)
- Linde, André
"There are three major problems with the big bang model. First, as a theory of physics, it breaks a cardinal rule by violating the law of conservation of matter and energy. At the instant of the big bang the entire Universe is created in what is known as a singular event, or singularity. Physics is believed to apply only after this instant. Secondly, the microwave background is believed to be the strongest evidence for the big bang. Yet such a fundamental feature of the radiation as its temperature cannot be deduced from any calculations of the early Universe. Its value is assumed. "The third problem is that big bang cosmology is supposed to explain the origin of most light nuclei. But although it can with some success explain the formation of helium and deuterium, it runs into problems with other nuclei such as lithium, beryllium and boron. Even with deuterium it places such stringent upper limits on how much baryonic matter (ordinary matter, in the form of neutrons and protons) is allowed in the Universe that it forces astronomers to suggest that the dark matter thought to make up most of the mass is in some exotic form. Furthermore, the most popular version of the big bang model, that involving inflation, implies a total age for the Universe that is uncomfortably small compared with the ages of our Galaxy of globular clusters and other galaxies. "The knots into which big bang theorists have tied themselves in the post-COBE era convinced Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge and myself that we should seriously explore an alternative theoretical framework for cosmology. (2)
- Narlikar, Jayant
Both the Big Bang model and the theoretical side of elementary particle physics rely on numerous highly speculative assumptions. Extrapolating back and forth between the present state of the observable universe and an ultimate cosmological singularity involves an incredible amount of faith in the completeness of our physical knowledge. (3)
- Oldershaw, Robert L
Did the Columbus Dispatch 'spin' on this article to be more favorable to evolutionists? Decide for yourself.
1. We saw no other stories in the Dispatch providing an opposing view. Perhaps it's too early for that, though. I spoke with the Dispatchs' science reporter a week or two ago, and he told me that sometimes he doesn't see what's in other sections of the paper until it's actually published. Therefore, we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and wait a few days to see if anything shows up from a young earth creation scientist (or even an evolutionist) to present an opposing view. We'll come back to this response in a few days and provide an update. 2. We found two instances where the Dispatch editor changed the word "believe" to "think" (mentioned above). They are both highlighted in red in this excerpt from the Dispatch version of the article. This is subtle, but important. "Believe" implies more certainty than "think". We wonder if the editor was trying to make the scientists appear more objective than they actually may be. 3. We found one instance where the Dispatch editor changed the words "have long believed" to "have long thought".
Original AP wire version
Scientists have long believed that in the moments after the explosion, quarks and gluons the smallest known particles floated freely in space.
Dispatch edited version
Scientists long have thought that in the moments after the explosion, quarks and gluons the smallest known particles floated freely in space.
Again, "believed" implies more certainty than "thought". And by removing "believed" both here and above, it makes it more difficult for creationists to point to this article and claim that the evolutionists referred to are "believing" before they actually have concrete scientific evidence.
4. There was an important excerpt from the original article that was omitted. Perhaps it's just because there wasn't enough space for it. A lot of the original article was omitted. Decide for yourself if you think it was a space issue, or if the Dispatch was trying to 'spin' this story to be more favorable to evolutionists by omitting this excerpt.
The CERN plasma was small and ``very polluted by the fragments of the initial nuclei,'' said Professor Luciano Maiani, CERN's director-general. ``That's not the condition of the Big Bang.''
Alexander G. Higgins, reporter, Associated Press Wire story, 2/11/2000
There does seem to be quite a disparity between this missing excerpt and the headline the Dispatch chose for this article:
Big Bang theorists create 'primordial soup' in laboratory
Research sheds light on origin of universe
Footnotes: 1. Linde, André, "The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe," Scientific American, vol. 271 (November 1994), page 48. 2. Narlikar, Jayant, "Challenge for the Big Bang," New Scientist, vol. 138 (June 19, 1993), pp. 28-29 3. Oldershaw, Robert L., The Continuing Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology, Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 92 (May 1983), page 354 Oldershaw was at Dartmouth College.
Contact us with your comments or questions.
If you have concerns about the highly biased, pro-evolutionary reporting by the Dispatch (where this article was published), we suggest that you contact the following people at the Columbus Dispatch:
Letters to the Editor: firstname.lastname@example.org
Insight Editor, Mark A. Fisher: email@example.com
Science Reporter, David Lore: firstname.lastname@example.org
President, Associate Publisher: Mike Curtin, email@example.com
Editor: Ben Marrison, firstname.lastname@example.org