Could it be possible that the heralded scientific spokesman, Neil deGrasse Tyson, hosting the re-invigorated television science program, Cosmos, is indeed one of the liberal elite that we hear about so much these days? The term “liberal elite” often carries the implicit connotation that the individuals described by the term are hypocritical. When Mr. Tyson recently broadcast his views on the age of the universe on his PBS program, his stance could easily have been taken as an implication that secular views on the age of the universe are a “done deal.”
. He based this information upon the agreed secular definitions of science fact about the speed of light and it’s true nature in the reality of the universe. The implication could very well be that everyone should just accept that as truth. This attitude is one that many today are increasingly labeling as an elitist position.
In this program he presumably de-bunked the Creationist “belief” that the universe is only around 6,000 years old. His scientific focus was upon the Crab Nebula; 6,500 light-years or so away from Earth. He explains that the nebula is the result of an exploding star larger than our own sun. The light seen from this nebula takes about 6,500 light-years to reach our eyes. This, of course, works primarily in a static or slower than light universe where nothing else moves along with or as fast as the path of light. Therefore, calculations of distance and time can be problematic.
To assume that Creationists who oppose his science fact, with their own science fact, are simply wrong because they do not rely on the secular viewpoints of the definition of science results and configurations, is to indeed find Mr. Neil deGrasse Tyson on only one side of an argument which indeed possesses alternative views to the so-called “liberal elite.” Some of these views are provided by faith to be sure, but others are also provided by good old scientific research itself. To ignore the science side of the opposing view points merely because The Bible, a spiritual book, is involved is to be less than honest toward ones own scientific veracity. If opposing views based upon science research and fact do indeed exist, than they should never be ignored by scientists.
It would be quite easy, one might attest, to claim that the Big Bang, a dearly held position on the origins of the universe, could have somehow begun and then continued in the 14th of a second that it would require, without light itself, but that would be against known physical laws. Similarly, if the universe had light at its beginning, then it follows that light has always traveled along side of an expanding universe. If the universe were only a week old, then light itself, no matter the speed of it, would not only be seen by those traveling the cosmos in the same direction with light, but light itself would only be a week old. However, this argument is not necessary considering the offerings from the Creationist science community.
What are indeed those science issues that Mr. Neil deGrasse Tyson has ignored in his “liberal elite” positions? Briefly, there are many, and some of course include the faith in a universe created with age, and fully functional to support the planned forms of life. However, not everything necessitates a reliance on a universe created with age. For one, distant starlight has never been an adequate argument against a young earth due to the lack of rigidity of the flow of time. Science knows all about the relativity of time and the inaccuracies of clocks, which exist at different physical points in relation to the varying strength of gravity at different locations, right here on our own home planet. Gravity can be so strong that it does indeed affect time and light.
Science also knows that there are multiple rotating galaxies that could not have lasted billions of years due to the laws of physics that would command them to become twisted conflagrations. Also, there are hot blue stars out in the void which themselves cannot last billions of years. Without going too deeply into any one of these science FACTS, it would be ingenuous to attest to one singular view-point toward any science proof or concept which did not present the whole of the matter as it has been unveiled by scientific process itself.
Creation science has called Mr. Neil deGrasse Tyson “on the carpet” to allow for equal time from a science view-point not singularly his own or even that of a labeled liberal élite. His response will attest to his “elitist” position and reveal to his public base the depth to which he feels science needs to be exposed to the masses even when it doesn’t necessarily line up with his own views. In the end, it will always be the people who decide if they are getting the whole story. In the interest of science, I hope Mr. Tyson can see his way to equal time for all scientific positions.
Commentary by Mark M Boudreaux