Maybe in your view, but not in mine. I think this sums up the status of evolutionary biology pretty accurately:
In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history’s inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike “harder” scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.”
As far as cosmology, this echoes my views from the secular quarters, I see stuff like this all the time, and it reflects the dissatisfaction that lurks among some faculty and grad students.
Nobel laureate Adam Riess of Johns Hopkins University, the leader of the Supernovae, H0, for the Equation of State of Dark Energy (SH0ES) project, was awaiting these results. “In expectation of that, we have bee
The year Riess’ got his nobel prize was the year finished my class work at his school. Some professors there and elsewhere, who shall not be named, had skepticism over his prize. For that matter even Riess himself pointed out his value of the cosmological constant was at variance with other models.
But troubling is the possible need of MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) or the gyrations researchers go through to reconcile spiral arms of galaxies. But one anomaly I can’t run from is this.
If the universe is old, and evolved and distant starlight travelled at a constant rate, we should see (by way of metaphor) a progression from young to old like this (give or take few fractions of a billion years):
instead, with some adjustment for the bluer stars far away, the relative ages of big galactic structures look (metaphorically) like this:
This is a known problem in cosmology.
The Guth/Linde or whatever early inflationary model postulates the early universe expanding at thosands to millions of times the speed of light. So distasteful was this “solution” that Joao Magueijo and others proposed variable speed of light (VSL). Zippy light models. Though Magueijo’s model won’t work with YEC, it opened the conversation, and a little known fact, even Einstein himself entertained the possibility of VSL.
Beyond that, Ron Hatch, who rejects Einsteinian relativity is a neo-Lorentzian. His Hatch Fitler is in GPS satellites!!! When John Sanford visited my home in 2016, I told John I was working on reconstructing the Cahill Interferometer, and Dr. Sanford mentioned his acquaintance with Hatch. And then I looked him up, and there I saw him with my old boss at MITRE, Marty Faga, on the US Government GPS council! I thought to myself, “how did an anti-Einsteinian get on the GPS council.” Turns out GPS won’t work without the filter Hatch himself made, and which formed some of the basis of Hatch’s neo-Lorenzian views.
Next are the interferometer and other experiments. Some have been reconstructing interferometers in non-Vaccum refractive media and claiming fringe changes in line with a neo-Lorenzian/ether like model. Anyway, Cahill re-analyzed Michelson-Morely and Dayton Miller’s experiments in refractive (non-vaccum media) and argues this as evidence of a neo-Lorentzian relativity. He also cited de Witte’s belgacom experiments.
Soo, no, I’m not going to say the evidence is very very good against YEC. The jury is still out for YEC/YCC. And I also think the fossil record is young because of chemical and radiometric data – it doesn’t mean the Earth is young, but it means the time of death was relatively recent.
The Proton-21 lab experiments have opened the door to alternative nucleosynthesis and radio-active decay models.
And finally, Abiogenesis and Evolutionary theory are not emperically justified disciplines.