The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Creation cosmology

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
(Redirected from Creation cosmologies)
Jump to: navigation, search
Hubble Ultra Deep Field

Cosmology is a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure and space-time relationships of the universe. It is derived from two Greek words, cosmos meaning "universe" or "order," and logos meaning "word." Creation cosmology encompasses not only the observable physical or natural world but also the metaphysical means by which God governs and sustains creation. Cosmology therefore deals with time and seeks to understand God's relationship with His creation, from the beginning to the end of time. The commonly accepted age of the universe is far beyond what a typical creation scientist would countenance. In response, several young universe creation cosmologies have been proposed.

Positional Cosmologies

Main Article: Cosmic center


Main Article: Geocentricity

Geocentricity is the belief that the Earth is located at the center of the universe. Biblical creationists generally view the creation of the cosmos as an Earth-centered event, and the space beyond our world created simply to "declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1 ). Therefore, it is largely assumed the Earth is at the relative center of the cosmos.

However, most creationists have abandoned the notion that the Earth is at the literal center of the universe, largely because the mathematical corrections that geocentricity requires (epicycles, eccentrics, and equants) make geocentricity far too complex than is warranted.


Main Article: Galactocentricity

Galactocentricity is the proposition that the Galaxy in which we live is at the center of the universe. A number of observations suggest a galactocentric universe, among them:

  1. All objects in the universe beyond our galaxy have a red shift in their spectrum. None have a blue shift, which would imply an approaching object.
  2. The degree of redshift varies directly as the distance of the object from our galaxy (Hubble's Law).
  3. Quantized redshift, or the organization of extragalactic objects into distinct bands, is the strongest single observation that suggests galactocentricity.

Cosmic Center Universe

Robert Gentry has also suggested an anthropocentric cosmology, based on a static universe with a shell of matter creating cavity energy in our region. His theory is sophisticated and appeals to gravitational and relativistic red shift caused by vacuum gravity repulsion.

The theory is explicated in detail in several papers available at the Orion Foundation. Andrew Repp, a creationist, has posted a challenge to his cosmology in the Creation Society Research Quarterly. Gentry responds to this and other criticism in Big Bang Collapse and other reports found on his Published Reports Page. Brian Pitts has also criticized Gentry's model.

The seminal paper describing Gentry's view is A New Cosmic Center Cosmology. He claims a collection of several things this theory either accounts for or explains:
  1. The Hubble Redshift Equation
  2. A CBR Relation fitting all known CBR data
  3. The recently discovered velocity dipole of radiogenic galaxies
  4. The time dilation of SNe Ia time curves
  5. The Sunyaev-Zeldovich Thermal Effect
  6. Olber's Paradox
  7. A modified Tolman relation
  8. SN dimming for Z<1
  9. Enhanced brightness of SN for Z>1 that fits SN 1997ff findings
  10. The existence of extreme [z>10] objects (this separates it qualitatively from Big Bang)
  11. The high Fe/O ratios found in BAL quasar, which Gentry claims to be contrary to current cosmology
It should be noted that Gentry's model is predictive in nature. He looks for the observation of very distant objects, which are predicted by his model but not for current cosmologies. He also used the model to predict with some accuracy the size of the vacuum energy density parameter before it was measured.

Cosmic fine tuning

Main Article: Cosmic fine tuning

The cosmos appears to have been fine-tuned in such a way to make complex life possible. A great many parameters have been identified that are required for life to exist, and which if altered even slightly would make the existence of life impossible. When the probability of these parameters forming by pure chance are multiplied, it becomes clear that the universe and the Earth were very specifically formed with one purpose in mind, to host complex life. Such fine-tuning of the cosmos is a powerful argument for intelligent design.[1]

Examples of tuning include the perfect position of the Earth within the solar system, as well as the position of the solar system within the galaxy, or perfect size and distance of the Earth's moon. And because there is no life observed anywhere else in the universe, such perfection demands intelligence. Other examples of fine-tuning include:

  1. If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. [See Davies, 1982, pp. 90-91. (As John Jefferson Davis points out (p. 140), an accuracy of one part in 1060 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.)
  2. Calculations indicate that if the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be impossible. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 4, 35; Barrow and Tipler, p. 322.)
  3. Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. (Davies, 1984, p. 242.)
  4. If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and thus life would not be possible. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 39-40 )
  5. If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life would be impossible, for a variety of different reasons. (Leslie, 1988, p. 299.)

Atheists and evolutionists argue that this argument is not valid, due to the fact that the universe is merely "randomly" going in the right direction, and that life could have arisen under different conditions. There are a number of problems with this objection, however. The first is that there is no life found anywhere else in the cosmos, not even on Mars, whose conditions are closest to those of Earth. In order to argue that Earth's conditions are not the only ones required for life, evolutionists must show how there is life in an environment totally different from ours, which is quite impossible. Secondly, evolutionists cannot even show that life came about under Earth's conditions, let alone in some different environment. That being said, the "fine-tuned universe" argument stands as an argument for the existence of outside intelligence.

Age of the Cosmos

Main Article: Cosmic chronology

The currently estimated age of the universe is far beyond what a typical creation scientist would countenance. In response, several young universe cosmologies have been proposed to address the issue of age.

White Hole Cosmology

Main Article: White hole cosmology

A white hole near the earth at the beginning of the universe has been proposed to explain the existence of distant starlight in a young universe. This would cause, due to relativistic considerations, a change in apparent time. While this setup is acceptable to those assuming a creationist paradigm, it can be attacked on anthropocentric grounds by secular science. Russell Humphreys, the author of this cosmology, has been criticized by those upset by his model. A repository of criticism and his response can be found here.

Cosmological relativity

Main Article: Cosmological relativity

Dr. John Hartnett has developed a young Earth creation cosmology based on Dr. Moshe Carmeli's theory of cosmological relativity. Like Russell Humphreys' white hole cosmology, it uses time dilation in a bounded universe. But this dilation results from a rapid expansion of space rather than the gravity of a white hole. Thus it explains a persistent criticism of the white-hole model, namely that if our galaxy were at the bottom of a gravity well, then incoming light should display a blue shift, not a red.

Hartnett’s cosmology readily explains the large scale structure of the universe without either dark matter or dark energy. In addition, it readily explains how starlight from far-distant objects can reach a young earth.


C-decay proposes a continuously changing speed of light, which would explain both the age of the universe (and earth) due to radiometric dating, and also indicates that the doppler shift, the common method of dating far objects, is not caused by kinematic or relativistic red shift. This cosmology has the merit of explaining quantized red shift, which present cosmologies fail to do. However, John Hartnett points out that c-decay would predict that the stars would "disappear" from our sky and then "reappear," something to which that neither the Bible nor any other historical record testifies.

Distant Starlight

'The Pearlman Spiral' cosmological redshift hypothesis and cosmology model reconciles distant starlight with a universe 5,776 years old. It explains why the empirical evidence of our natural observations of Cosmological Redshift not only reconcile with The Biblical/Torah narrative but attest to a Young Earth Creation, while falsifying (rendering invalid) all deep time dependent scientific hypothesis. link to the first public review edition of The Pearlman Spiral cosmological redshift hypothesis and cosmology model at: kindle: paperback:


  1. Collin, Robin. The Fine-Tuning Design Argument: A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God Discovery Institute: Center for Science and Culture, September 1, 1998.

See Also