Et de plus en Francais. Pour l'education il n'y a aucun horizon.
The above article was linked from Thunderbolts.info, here:
Faster Than Light: Part One
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/a...5light.htm
(This is not a creationist site, but a site devoted to the concept of an electric universe, which is gradually growing as a respectable and scientific alternative to current "Big Bang" orthodoxy).
As they explain, clearly the current orthodox theology of the age of the universe is based on Hubble's premise about redshift, that "redshift correlates with distance" - which may turn out to be a flawed premise.
I continue to remain baffled why so many Christians seem to have adopted Big Bang theology, based on relatively weak premises which can be looked at in more than one way.
I guess it's because, when it was first introduced, it replaced Steady State Theory, and it sounded much more like Genesis 1:1 - so the Big Bang was seen by Christians as the saviour of Genesis.
But quite frankly, Genesis 1 does not tell us specifically how He created the heavens and the earth, and nowadays there are much better models that do not rely on inventing fictional entities to take into account major flaws in the math - such as dark matter, and dark energy... which are needed in current models, to make the math have a chance of working. (These things have historically been indications that the main model itself is deeply flawed.)
What I'm surprised at is the general lack of interest in discussing anything other than Stephen Hawking theology. I'm just reading Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, and even he says that proposing the existence of God (what he calls The God Hypothesis) is scientific. And this is from an athiest!
So what is wrong with looking at, and scientifically considering, alternative methods by which our universe could have come into existence? Especially as the Big Bang model seems to grow bigger and bigger holes, and requires more and more imaginary ("dark") entities, as science learns more.
Grand Unified Theory? :D Perhaps... but I think that will mean them having to re-examine the premises of their current theories.