It is always depressing to find yet another evangelical, who feels he has to compromise the Bible, in order to believe it. Those who don't believe the Bible are more honest than those who claim that they do believe the Bible, but have to twist its meaning. For my part, I prefer a scientific explanation that accepts the account in Genesis as literal truth. The reader would do far better to look at the Answers in Genesis web site for their books about creation.The following is an engagement with one extended quote from Wilkinson's book.
"If the argument is used that science only gives an 'apparent' age, then there is a theological problem. Is there any biblical warrant for believing that God has purposefully designed the nature of the universe in order to deceive us?"
While we believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, the production of theories to explain our views should not, in itself, be classed as inspired. The argument alluded to here is the idea of the creation of 'apparent' age. The analogy given by Whitcomb and Morris, forty years ago (and they both accept better explanations today) is that because Adam was created apparently as a young adult, then there is no reason to not to believe that stars were created with apparent age. The problem with this view is that there is a difference. There is no deception in the apparent age of Adam - because the Bible has just told us that he had only just been created, even though he was mature enough to have relations with his wife. But the 'apparent' age of the stars is different - because we see events happening in the past, such as supernovae, which, if we believe the apparent-age theory, must never have happened. It is now clear that this is an untenable position.
...
Discovery that the apparent-age theory is wrong should not lead us to disbelieve Genesis. Instead it send us looking for new theories. This has occurred, for example, with Humphrey's White Hole cosmology."If the universe was created a few thousand years ago, why does it appear to be expanding from a point of origin of some 12 billion years ago? The growth of modern science stemmed from the Christian worldview that because the universe was created by God, observations of that universe could give us truth in some measure. If the universe is designed deliberately to deceive us, then the whole philosophy of the empirical method (that science is about observation) and those Biblical passages that speak of some limited revelation through nature (eg. Psalm 19:1; Acts 14:7 & 17:22-31; Romans 1:19ff;etc.) are called into question."
Wilkinson is right in his scientific analysis, but wrong in his exegesis. Humphrey's White Hole cosmology was developed precisely because of these observations. To us, it appears that the universe is expanding from a point of origin. What is less well known is that the universe appears to be expanding, with us at the centre. Why do stars seem to show red-shift, and why the further away the stars, the more red-shift they show? Even evolutionary physicists have acknowledged that this could be explained by a geocentric model of the universe. (Not that this reviewer accepts geocentrism) If the Earth is not the centre, have you wondered why some stars, at a different point in the cosmic explosion, do not exhibit blue-shift?
The evolutionary physicist explains this apparent geocentrism by postulating a four-dimensional universe. A 3D model of this would be the entire universe scattered evenly over the surface of a balloon, in 2 dimensions, expanding into the third dimension, as the balloon inflates. Such a universe is difficult to envisage. Yet this position seems to fit with scriptures, that refer to the "stretching of the heavens".
"If the alternative argument is used that modern science has got it all wrong not in minor details but in the major concept, then this denies the work of the vast majority of research scientists, both Christian and non-Christian, whose results have been tried and tested by the scientific community."
Here is where I depart from my agreement with Wilkinson. Big Bang cosmology is not testable. It is important to distinguish between experimental science and historical science. Experimental science involves research, which is carefully peer-reviewed, so that the experiments can be reproduced. Reproduction of experiments helps to verify the experiment. Historical science, however, is concerned with theoretical explanations of events that occurred in the past and are not reproducible. These events are not actually observed, but are inferred, by the interpretation of contemporary observations within a particular paradigm.
"It is sometimes difficult to communicate the huge weight of evidence for a particular scientific theory."
Actually, it's very difficult successfully to communicate the paucity of evidence for most of these origins theories.
For example, in acknowledging that current theories provide no explanation for the formation of galaxies, James Trefil says:
"There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are.... The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists."
"At the same time it is relatively easy to present holes in it because every scientific theory has its strengths and weaknesses. There are unanswered questions in both the Big Bang and evolution and scientists should be honest about that. But there is also a great deal of evidence that is more powerful than the difficulties."
This "throw-away" comment is unacceptable. The reader is being asked to accept Wilkinson's word that the evidence is more powerful than the difficulties, without this evidence being presented.
