After a nice vacation, creationist Sal Cordova has posted a few new articles on his blog Young Cosmos. He takes ad hominem potshots at PZ Myers and writes meaningless arguments from authority (here and here). There is a little fun, though, when he waxes philosophical on a young vs. old universe and makes claims about what would prove ID true.
Sal says that in his recent modern physics class he "went through the major experiments which led to the development of modern physics." That's good; that's what a physics class should teach a student. He also says
My experience in class only reinforces the fact that the claim that “Darwin’s theory is the central theory of science” is a falsehood promoted by Darwin’s followers. It has no basis in truth.Hmm, I don't really think he learned that in his modern physics class. I think it's much more likely that the class made zero mention of Darwin or evolution and Sal's confirmation bias twisted that actual class discussion into support of his evolution denial.
We also see that, while Sal may be a good student of science history and facts, he hasn't absorbed the methods of science
An assumption of Einstein’s relativity is that the speed of light is constant. If we accept Einstein’s theory as is, or even Maxwell’s equations as is, then the cosmos must be old and not young. Accepting an old cosmos was not a problem for me in class, because the assumption of an old cosmos is reasonable (unlike Darwin’s ridiculous idea that Darwinian processes can evolve a fish into a bird, and a cow into a whale).In effect, he says he'll accept scientific facts until he can get a degree, then cherry-pick evidence to support his discredited pet hypothesis. Sal presents himself as being open to whatever comes out of his "exploration," but typically people do not name their blogs after ideas that they're ambivalent towards [hint, it's named Young Cosmos].
I can accept old-earth ideas as a working hypothesis. However, if Einstien’s theory and Maxwell’s equations can be amended to allow temporal-spatial variations of the speed of light, then various YEC cosmologies can succeed without being inconsistent with present operational physics. I look forward to exploring the possibility of variable speed of light (VSL) and will blog on developments in VSL periodically…..
There is more evidence of ideological bias and a blatant false dichotomy in the final paragraph.
I can, as a Christian, accept an old cosmos if that’s the way it really is. However, if the universe is young, and if a VSL cosmology succeeds, it will not only prove ID, but also special creation. It will also strongly suggest the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God. It will affirm the geneology of Jesus Christ in Luke chapter 3. I pray that if the Cosmos is Young, God will help the search for evidence along those lines.Sorry, Sal. Even if there is evidence that the speed of light can change, that says zip zero zilch about ID. Any theory must stand or fall on its own merits and evidence, and ID has nothing behind it. It cannot just ride the coattails of a possible but improbable idea in an unrelated field. And under what tortured logic could a variable speed of light support the existence of a particular god? What does that have to do with the family tree of one organism out of trillions on one planet around one star out of millions in one galaxy out of billions? I think Sal has delusions of grandeur about his delusions.