Today's feature article at www.AnswersInGenesis.org dealt with a new publication by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. To read the article, please click on this link: www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/big_bang.asp.
The article is, as always, very well-written. Basically, a segment of prestigious secular scientists have attacked the Big Bang Theory. They challenge many of the BBT assumptions, including the speculation that the universe has no center and no edge.
This should not alarm the evolutionists out there. If it's all in the pursuit of "science", there is no reason that this would make the secular world upset. It's just the rejection of the current model in favor of a new idea . . . that, incidentally, would allow for a young earth.
However, this should alarm Hugh Ross and kids like Gabriel Bertilson (no offense, Gabe, I'm just identifying you as a progressive creationist). In his book about progressive creationism, Hugh Ross basically claims that he got the Big Bang/Day-Age idea directly from scripture without any significant outside input. He tried to fit the Genesis account around the BBT. Now, if "science" changes its mind (as it is prone to do; Scripture never changes), does he have to re-interpret his re-interpretations to fit the new scientific model?
As AiG scientists have observed so many times, if you marry your theology to secular science, you are likely to be widowed tomorrow.
Let's make it a point to stand on God's Word ALONE, the only thing that never changes!