Rating: 
Summary: A Breath of Fresh Air
Review: This is a fantastic book. Humphreys is not only a sincere Christian, he is incredibly accomplished in his field(http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/humphreys.html)
Here, he makes a credible effort at formulating a cosmology consistent with the Bible. His theory is based solidly in Einsteins General Theory of Relativity. The only differences are his starting assumptions. The Big Bang starts with the assumption that the universe is infinite and has no center and and no edge. Humphreys (biblical) assumptions are that the universe is finite with a center and an edge.
In the recent past, he has made a number of successful scientific predictions based on biblical assumptions. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1120.asp)
He also brings a refreshing humility to the field of science that is all too often missing from his secularist counterparts. Some reviewers have dismissed him as a crank. Other reviewers have (to their credit) addressed the science of his theory. Some of the 'scientific' reviewers have found Humphreys either less than honest or less than competent.
For those who question his honesty, I wonder if they have cast equal contempt on secular scientists in their attempts to deal with the intractable difficulties of the Big Bang.
For instance, the present day existence of comets is a problem for the Big Bang.(http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4108.asp)
As well as the Big Bang's own light-travel-time issue; the Horizon Problem.(http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp)
Both problems have prompted scientists to propose all manner of fanciful explanations.
To explain away the comets, a 'comet nusery' called the 'Oort Cloud' is postulated. Never mind that here is NO observational evidence for the Oort Cloud, it simply MUST exist; because 'we know' the universe is billions of years old.(http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0221oort_cloud.asp)
For the Horizon Problem, there are the various far-flung theories with little or no scientific support
This is not scientific behavior, it is religious behavior (i.e. faith).
The fact that the Big Bang has to be constantly propped up by such ad hoc explanations has lead a multitude secular scientists to condemn it with a public statement published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004 (www.cosmologystatement.org).
It seems that while evolutionists have been accusing creationists of invoking a 'God of the gaps' to slove problems, they have themselves been invoking a 'Materialism of the gaps' to reslove their own difficulties. One must then ask why is it acceptable for a scientist with an a priori committment to materialism to engage in such behavior, but if a scientist with an a priori committment to bibilical theism does so (not that Humphreys is), he must be scorned and mocked?
As for those who challenge his science, I have a suggestion. Since publication of his theory in 1994, there had been a vigorous debate.(http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-338.htm) and (http://www.icr.org/starlightandtime/starlightwars.html)
This debate was 'hosted' in the peer-reviewed creation science journal TJ, published by AiG.
This debate tapered off in 2001 with the silence of Humphreys' critics. Humphreys was stridently challenged by other qualified scientists who had a deep motivation to falsify his theory (Hugh Ross, et al). It seems Humphreys not only successfully answered his detractors; he issued counter-challenges that have yet to be reckoned with.
Therefore, I propose that anyone who thinks that they have found fatal scientific flaws with Humphreys' theory submit critiques for publication in TJ laying out their case. I'm sure Humphreys would welcome the challenge, even from non-creationists, atheists or agnostics. I'm also confident that the editors of TJ would be delighted to publish your papers. Unlike the secularist scientific journals, they do not suppress dissent. (Consider that TJ, which is an unapologetically 'young earth creationist' publication, repeatedly published critiques of Humphreys' theory by those who believe in billions of years).
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp) and (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/195.asp)
As for those who won't believe something until an anti- or non-creationist proposes it, consider that two mainstream scientists recently proposed a White Hole Cosmology similar to Humphreys'.
(http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/20/11216?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=WHITE+HOLE&searchid=1091563054170_10381&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0) and (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030917072015.htm).
One last word. A previous reviewer (a blow to the creationist movement.. 1 star) states that AiG is "AIG is well known for its unbiblical tactics, its attacks on believers, biblical distortions and bad science". No citations are provided in support of this charge. Apparently, the reviewer is referring Hugh Ross' complaints about AiG (there is somehwat of a long-standing fued between Ross and AiG). Ross claims that AiG is divisive and the whole bit. First, this is nonsense. Got to AiG's wwebsite and type 'Hugh Ross' into the search engine and read all of the articles about him. Judge for yourself if they are unfair, unscientific or unbiblical. Also consider that Ross himself has likened AiG to first century heretics, among other things.
As to the reviewer referring the reader to Ross for "real biblical studies of science', read Danny Fualkner's (a fellow Ph.D. in astrnomy) has to say about Ross' science on AiG's webiste. Or get Refuting Compromise. This book lays out both the biblcal and scientific cases against Ross' position.
Lastly, Ross' approach to 'biblical studeis' is as sloppy as his science. For a thorough account of this, see either
Creation And Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross.
Rating: 
Summary: Humphreys is outside his field and mistaken about this topic
Review: 1. Humphreys himself admits that astrophysics and cosmology are not his fields of physics, and that (due to its lack of application to his own field) he had neglected the general theory of relativity since graduate school. Commenting on his study of Setterfield's unsuccessful attempt to explain distant starlight by changes to the speed of light, Humphreys wrote:
"The monograph [by Barry Setterfield] revived my interest in Einstein's general theory of relativity, which I had neglected since graduate school. Physicists like me often use Einstein's special theory of relativity dealing with the effects of high speeds and have found it indispensable. Few of us have occasion to use general relativity, which deals with effects of gravity and acceleration not easily attainable in the laboratory. But it is an essential tool for astrophysics and cosmology."
(...)
2. Those who know and understand the general theory of relativity and who are experts in the physics addressed by "Starlight and Time" have found unrepairable errors and fundamental misunderstandings in the ideas of this book, and have published refutations.
(...)
3. In a more recent defense called "New Vistas of Spacetime Rebut the Critics", Humphreys quietly abandons key ideas that were presented in the book "Starlight and Time". Under scrutiny, even Humphreys does not stand by key points of the theory of the original book! His attempts at revision are also fatally flawed.
(...)
It is sad to see that this book is still sold. Humphreys is outside of his field and those who understand this subject well have consistently found his understanding to be incorrect.
The problem is not that he is controversial. The primary problem is that he does not understand the theory that he is incorrectly trying to use, and even some who are committed to the young earth position have acknowledged this. (...)
Rating:
Summary: Revolutionary
Review: Assuming a young earth (created by God, as described in the Biblical book of Genesis, and less than ten thousand years old), and in complete accordance with all of Einstein's equations on relativity, Humphreys contructs an alternative cosmology for the universe that explains, quite credibly, why and how people standing today on a "young" earth can be gazing at starlight that is billions of year old.
Don't listen to the naysayers who poo-poo this work. Instead let them invalidate it mathematically if they can.
There is a VCR tape available too, which you might want to share with friends, or in Sunday School.
Rating:
Summary: Mind expanding!
Review: Dr. Humphreys presents an alternative view of the creation of the universe that definately expanded my horizons. Of course, orthodox evolutionists will dismiss it out of hand so that nothing upsets their house of cards. But for those with an open mind, and a willingness to challenge the high priests of science who demand nothing less than submissiveness, the book offers fascinting possibilities.
Rating:
Summary: Original and sound answer to common bibliosceptical problem
Review: How can we see light from stars billions away if the Bible says that creation occurred in six consecutive normal days?Dr Russell Humphreys, a nuclear physicist working with Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, provides a fascinating answer. He has developed a new cosmology which uses the same theoretical foundation as all modern cosmologies including the 'big-bang': Einstein's theory of general relativity. Dr Humphreys changes one assumption in the 'big bang' cosmology, and that is that matter in the universe is unbounded, that is, all space is completely filled with matter. This is *not* how non-experts normally imagine the cosmos. The 'big bang' is based on another assumption called the *cosmological principle*, which states that an observer's view of the universe depends neither on the direction in which he looks nor on his location. He replaces those assumptions with another -- a universe whose matter is bounded, that is, matter surrounded by empty space for some distance beyond the matter. That is how non-experts normally imagine the cosmos, but *not* how expert 'big bang' cosmologists picture it. The importance of General relativity is that it teaches us that time is not the same everywhere in this universe, but instead can run at very different rates. Indeed, Einstein's theory of general relativity indicates that the rate at which time passes depends on the strength of the surrounding gravitational field. With certain initial conditions at the Creation, a literal day or two could have passed on the Earth while from 'the light's point of view', it had millions or even billions of years to get here. So the entire universe was created in six ordinary Earth-rotation days, 6,000 years ago by earth clocks. Such things are possible as a consequence of general relativity, which simply is a description of the universe as valid as we are able to currently determine. So far, his cosmological model has withstood all sceptical attacks to date -- he has firmly refuted Rossite attacks in the CEN Technical Journal, and the attacks and his answers are posted on the Answers in Genesis site. Many of these bibliosceptics don't even realise the unproven *philosophical assumption* behind the 'big bang', and fail to realise that it's equally physically valid to use Dr Humphreys' alternative assumption. Dr Humphreys' book is written at a layman's level, but has a technical appendix. Dr Humphreys is humble enough not to believe that his model is necessarily the final word, but that Christians should base their faith on the Bible, which is the final Word of One who was there and knows everything.
Rating:
Summary: Essential material for the christian reader.
Review: I am 17, and having heard wonderful things from my father concerning this books new and the innovative concept/theory of how the universe came into existence and how it fits the biblical model, answering in particular the seemingly daunting question of distant starlight on a young earth, i picked it up and read through the easily understood material (referring to the two inital chapters, not the extensive notes) using it as the material and subject of a physics project/report. The teacher was delightfully intrigued, as was I. There is also a movie to go with the book, which adds very helpful images to the process described. i LOVED this book, it was helpful, insightful, and an overly powerful tool in ansering the long standing question. To anyone seeking truth and order in this giant accident called 'universe', take a look and see how creative God can be in a purposeful and rigidly scientific yet divine sort of way.
Rating: 
Summary: Intriguing Theory
Review: I don't have a Ph.D in physics so I can't make a relevant argument for or against the theory proposed by Dr. Humphreys, but what I will say is that this is a very intriguing theory. The book is short and Dr. Humphreys only goes over the basics of his theory. Only get this book if you are interested in hearing a new theory about the beginning of the universe. You will not get thorough arguments against other theories as that does not seem to be the objective of the book.
Rating:
Summary: This is a very interesting theory of cosmology
Review: I would like to see it more rigorously investigated. The book is very short. It is split in three sections. A laymen's explanation of the theory, a scriptural refence showing where he chose his starting points for the equations we have from the theory of relativity, an advanced physicist's paper on the theory. Preliminary evidence lends some weight to his theory. Our observations of our own galaxy are limited by our position in it. Nevertheless currently pulsars (a form of very ancient star) have not been found in our galaxy and obervable evidence of supernovae can be accounted for comfortably in a mere 7,000 years. This is a short read. It is an interesting theory that should be investigated further and either falsified by the evidence or extended by it.
Rating:
Summary: Something to think about: A "White-Hole" Cosmology
Review: I've been discussing this book with my Cosmology professor. I have to admit that this book is not universally accepted in the scientific arena, and there are obvious reasons for that--Humphreys attempts to prove that cosmological data can fit the Biblical interpretation of a young universe made only 6,000 years ago. However, it has to be admitted that Humphreys presents some things to at least seriously consider. The goal of the book is the help resolve the apparent contradiction of starlight and a young universe. If light can only travel at a set speed, then how can we see stars made only 6,000 years ago when it should take a lot longer for us to see them? Humphreys proposed that the theory of general relativity can allow for time dilation to slow down earth time in relation to the rest of creation, so that while the earth might have been created in six literal earth days, the universe was expanding for thousands of years. Time dilation is supported by Einstein's theory of general relativity. According to the theory of relativity, time slows down as objects approach the speed of light. Regardless of whether or not the speed of light can change, as proposed by George(?) Setterfield, Russell Humphrey's main objection to the Big Bang theory is that it is based on certain presuppositions, like whether the universe is bounded, which is fair to say. Other scientists argue that the Big Bang cosmology predicts that clock rates change only about 10% to the furthest galaxies. However, the young-universe models do not follow the standard Big Bang(black hole) predictions to begin with. The question may not be "How much has the speed of light changed?" but "How fast has time changed?" Also, at the point of singularity, it is impossible to say whether or not the same laws of physics would apply. The book has been under a lot of discussion, and suggests an interesting idea, though time will tell if the theory can hold. It should be noted that the author has worked for Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project. My cosmology professor's complaint was that if the speed of light changed and time slowed down, then that might present problems with atomic structure, but it seems as though this author should know a lot about that from working in atomic and nuclear physics, considering the author's credentials. I can think of a few Bible verses that could support his application of General Relativity to creation. My only complaint was that I prefer not to interpret Genesis as saying that the earth is at the center of the universe, as Humphrey's idea suggests--though he does admit that his interpretation of how Creation might have unfolded is purely speculation. Anyway, his ideas on GR certainly leaves room for other possibilities. The book is a quick reading that definitely gives the reader some interesting things to think about.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding defense of young earth creationism!
Review: In this new book, Dr. Russel Humphreys proposes a new theory of cosmology (an alternative to the Big Bang theory). Being a young-earth creationist, Dr. Humphreys believes the earth was created in six literal days about 6,000 years ago (contrary to what is taught by most scientists today). He uses Einstein's general theory of relativity, which is the best theory of gravity we have today, to prove his theory. Dr. Humphreys opens his book by proposing a solution for the "unsolvable problem" of how distant starlight can be seen on a young earth. Dr. Humphreys attempts to show "that gravitational time distortion in the early universe would have meant that while a few days were passing on earth, billions of years would have been available for light [from distant stars] to travel to earth." He goes on to discuss the Big Bang theory, the idea of a bounded universe versus a non-bounded universe, how expansion affects the time difference, black holes and event horizons, and white holes. He shows why the universe must be bounded as opposed to unbounded. The initial assumption of an unbounded cosmos, when fed through the mathematical mechanisms of general relativity produces the Big Bang cosmology. However, when Humphreys feeds the base assumption of a bounded cosmos through those same mathematical mechanisms, he gets a drastically different cosmology, which he calls White Hole cosmology. The second chapter of the book presents "a possible scenario" of the Creation Week. He leads us through the first six days of the universe showing how the Biblical account of Creation coincides with his new theory. This book was originally produced as a chapter intended for a larger book called Thousands, not Billions: Exciting, Easy-To-Understand Evidence for a Young World. Humphreys considers it only the outlines of a theory which he says "is not yet well enough developed to make detailed quantitative predictions which would observationally distinguish it from conventional theories." In addition to the two chapters discussed above, he includes three appendixes. The first appendix summarizes the previous four Creationist theories of the subject, and gives his objections to each one. The second two appendixes are technical papers that he has written which explain in more detail some of the fine aspects of his theory. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS BOOK to anyone has ever wondered HOW DISTANT STARLIGHT CAN BE SEEN ON AN EARTH THAT IS ONLY ABOUT 6,000 YEARS OLD.
|
