Here's an example of when science does not discover what it expects to discover and scrambles:
Scientists cannot find many of the
galazies that should exist around the Milky Way galaxy.
According to cosmological theory, says MIT
astrophysicist Simona Vegetti, "there should be thousands of dwarf
galaxies in the Local Group." That's because the earliest days of the
cosmos were not a tidy time, and after the big galaxies came into being a
lot of debris ought to have been left behind — "debris," in this case,
meaning little galaxies, made partly of what's known as cold dark
matter. The fact that we don't see the galaxies, she says, is due to one
of three things: Either they're simply too faint to detect, or there's
something unusual about the local cosmic neighborhood that would explain
why it departs from the larger rule. Or — and this is the troubling
alternative — maybe the theory itself, which has been generally accepted
for the past 30 years or so, is fundamentally wrong in some way.
So what does this mean?
The cosmological theory may be fundamentally wrong - as in, incorrect.
The presented alternatives as to why these galaxies are missing are as follows, with my response:
1. These galaxies are just to faint to detect. It is hard to believe that some of our closest neighbors would be invisible to the technology that allows us to peer across billions of light years to incredibly distant galaxies.
2. Our galaxy doesn't follow the cosmological rules for some reason. It seems difficult to accept that there may be some mysterious reason why our galaxy
might not have behaved as every other galaxy is expected to during its
creation.
3. The theory is fundamentally wrong in some way. I think this means that scientists are
discovering that they cannot prove one of the fundamental things that
should exist if the Big Bang did indeed form our galaxy. They aren't
willing to state that they believe the theory is incorrect at this
point, just that it may be flawed.
Here are a few unanswered questions that I have after reading this brief article:
1. Have the expected "debris" been seen in other galaxy neighborhoods? If not, then why is this theory even proposed? Does the theory itself exist strictly on the basis that the Big Bang would have had to result in such "debris" existing?
2. If "debris" has been documented elsewhere, were those galaxy neighborhoods larger or smaller in size when compared to the Milky Way? If the answer is yes and the neighborhood is larger than the Milky Way galaxy, then it leads me to alternative #2 above, which naturally points us to alternative #3. If the answer is yes and the neighborhood is smaller, then I fail tun understand why we cannot find our own "debris" and dismiss alternative #1 to land at #3, after a brief time at alternative #2. If the answer is no, then it leads me directly to alternative #3.
From my own personal Christian perspective, I believe that this leads me to the alternative not mentioned, which is that God made it all and placed it all exactly where He wanted it to be. Perhaps the reason they cannot find the "debris", which resulted from quickly moving masses colliding with one another to form galaxies over time, is because it didn't happen that way. Perhaps these galaxies were created in space as they are by a God who wanted to display His magnificence and splendor on a canvas that is wider than mankind ever imagined was even in existence.
"
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished..." -
Genesis 2:1
"When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?" -
Psalm 8:3-4
