Where materialism logically leads

First there was dark matter, then came dark energy, then dark photons and now there is talk of dark stars, dark planets and even dark intelligent life, in a whole dark galaxy within our Milky Way galaxy.

Starry Night

Figure 1: (Caption excerpted from Ref. 1) Vincent van Gogh’s ‘Starry night’ painting blends reality with an other-worldly starry universe. (Photo: Museum of Modern Art, made available by Wikimedia Commons)

In an article musing on such claims,1 where the van Gogh painting “Starry night” is highlighted, in the caption to the painting is written, “Perhaps he knew something about the nature of the universe that we are just beginning to understand.” As much as I like the paintings of Vincent van Gogh, I don’t think he knew or envisaged, in the swirls illustrated in his painting (Fig. 1), anything about invisible dark matter or a dark galaxy within ours. To suggest otherwise surely must be a joke, because physicists today know nothing about so-called dark matter and dark energy. It is called dark not because of what they don’t know, but because of what they do know.

This ludicrous situation has developed in astrophysics because of the initial assumption of materialism (matter and energy is all there is) and the dogmatic insistence that it must be rigorously applied to the origin and structure of this universe. As a result when physicists observe the rotation speeds of stars not only in our own galaxy but also in many thousands of other spiral galaxies they find that the stars in the spiral disks are moving too fast. They are moving so fast that in the assumed lifetimes of the galaxies, of order 10 billion years, the galaxies should have been eviscerated because their stars should have flown away from the galaxies, which could not hold onto them.

halo DM

Figure 2: Alleged spherical halo of dark matter around a typical spiral galaxy.

To fix this, the standard approach is to posit the existence, around every galaxy, of a spherical halo of dark matter (see Fig. 2), that has just the right density, distribution and gravitational properties to solve the conundrum but neither emits nor interacts with electromagnetic radiation. Because astrophysicists cannot explain these high rotational velocities with standard tried-and-tested Newtonian physics, they have concocted the notion that galaxies really comprise between 80% to 90% dark matter—stuff that is everywhere but we cannot see or detect it by any method.2 The article1 states that the majority of today’s physicists believe this. That may well be the case, but I don’t and I’m sure I qualify as a real physicist.3 In any event, truth is not determined by majority opinion.4

Beginning about 200 years ago, scientists started to abandon the Word of God as authoritative in such matters as the creation of the universe and hence it follows today that they believe in materialism—that there is no Creator and the universe just created itself from nothing.5,6 The alternative to accepting the materialists’ explanation is to hypothesize new physics—at least on the scale of galaxies—which some have done,7,8 or, consider the possibility that the universe is not as old as they imagine (13.8 billion years) and that it was created only 6000 years ago.9 For those fast stars this would mean they have not had time to fly apart.

Materialism’s parallel universe

It seems that in order to solve an increasing number of deficiencies in the materialistic big bang, there is now a suggestion that there may exist a parallel universe10 or, more precisely, an invisible mirror universe within our visible universe. The article states:1

“Now physicists wonder if dark matter might be as complex as the visible matter in the universe, capable of forming dark atoms and molecules that can be influenced by unknown forces, much like visible matter is affected by nuclear forces and electromagnetism.” (emphasis added)

The suggestion is even made that a dark universe, comprising dark galaxies, with dark stars and planets and even a dark form of life evolved on those dark planets.

“If this is the case, ‘you can imagine a kind of mirror universe that is identical to ours, with stars and planets and even intelligent life,’ says Professor Are Raklev at the University of Oslo.”1 (emphasis added)

“Such a universe could have had forces similar to those we know, like nuclear forces and electromagnetism. The dark stars could emit a form of radiation—dark light, or light that we cannot see or measure in any way.” 1 (emphasis added)

Dark light? That is an oxymoron. It defies the concepts of basic testable physics. We use the term ‘light’ in the sense of all electromagnetic radiation, meaning that we can detect it by some means, whether it be ultra-low frequency radio waves or standard radio waves, or microwaves, or infrared, or optical, or ultraviolet, or X-rays, or gamma rays. Here it is suggested that there exists a whole new dark universe of (dark) matter and (dark) energy that cannot be detected using electromagnetic radiation that we are familiar with. The stuff emits dark light that we cannot detect in any region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Sounds more like science fiction than science fact!

However there is still some moderation there.

“But the professor says we shouldn’t get too carried away in imaging this dark parallel world.”1 (emphases added)

Maybe he meant ‘imagining’? By definition, it is impossible to image a dark galaxy or dark star, so one is only left with imagining.

Intelligent matter in Switzerland

The article ends with a comment by the same professor stating that he believes that experiments at the CERN LHC particle accelerator in Switzerland11 will be able answer “a lot more” questions about the nature of dark matter particles “within the next ten years”. But it is pure faith— blind faith in materialism that it has all the answers to not only the nature of the universe but life itself.  The article ends with the ludicrous statement:1

“This is an exciting time to be studying dark matter.”

Quite obviously if you can’t detect it—and it hasn’t been for want of trying for 40 years—then how can you say it is exciting studying it?

Several years ago I was funded to do a 3-year search for what might be called dark matter particles, not WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) but WISPs (weakly interacting ‘slim’ particles). They were hypothesized particles in the dark sector and called ‘slim’ because they were theorized as not being heavy enough to be dark matter. That is, even if detected their existence would not solve the dark matter crisis. Nevertheless hundreds of thousands of dollars of funding was made available, though we never detected anything. We essentially were ‘shining light through a wall’ 12,13 and looking for the products of putative WISPs, which were theorized to decay back to normal microwave photons which were ‘shined on’ the other side of the wall in this experiment.

But the funding to the LHC at CERN is colossal by comparison to that and it is partly driven by the desire to construct conditions similar to the alleged big bang. Again the worldview here is pure materialism. It drives this science, at least, in searching for dark sector particles.14,15 Of course, constructing conditions similar to those alleged to have existed at the time of the big bang does not prove that the big bang actually happened.  To start with, science cannot prove anything to be true, but only prove a hypothesis false,16 but, furthermore, asserting that constructing these conditions confirms the big bang is simply affirming the consequent, a logical fallacy.


It is because of a prior commitment to materialism that this situation has arisen. Dark matter, dark energy, dark light, dark planets, dark stars, dark galaxies, a dark universe all seem like one of those ‘absurd constructs’, ‘unsubstantiated just-so stories’, or ‘counter-intuitive’ and ‘mystifying’ ‘explanations’ that Richard Lewontin linked to the imposition of the constraint of materialism on the interpretation of data in science.17

Dark matter is the unknown god, the ‘god of the gaps’ for the big bang evolutionary theorist.18 They say it is not science to include the Intelligent Creator when they define Him out of the equation. Instead they place their faith in a dark god, who might have created a dark universe, with dark stars and planets and even dark intelligent beings. To me such ideas are starting to strongly resemble demons and the dark sector, which accurately yet figuratively describes the realm of the dark lord and the other rulers of darkness (Ephesians 6:12). This is the ultimate outcome of materialism.


  1. Bazilchuk, N., Dark matter: how can we know if it exists? ScienceNordic.com, April 9, 2016.
  2. Hartnett, J.G., Why is dark matter everywhere in the cosmos?, March 31, 2015.
  3. Hartnett, J.G., Who says biblical creationists aren’t real scientists?, May 14, 2015.
  4. Howard, G., Can all those scientists be wrong? Creation 36(1):20–22 January 2014
  5. Hartnett, J.G., Development of an “old” universe in science, July 30, 2015.
  6. Hartnett, J.G., On the origin of universes by means of natural selection, October 9, 2014.
  7. Hartnett, J.G., My cosmology from my book “Starlight, Time and the New Physics,” July 4, 2014.
  8. Hartnett, J.G., Starlight Time and the New Physics, Creation Book Publishers, 2nd Ed., pages 21-27, 2010.
  9. Hartnett, J.G., A biblical creationist cosmogony, Answers Research Journal 8:13–20, 2015PDF available here.
  10. Hartnett, J.G., Have scientists found evidence of a parallel universe?, December 8, 2015.
  11. Hartnett, J.G., Is the LHC opening a door to Hell? I am not conCERNed! October 18, 2015.
  12. Povey, R.G., J.G. Hartnett, and M.E. Tobar, Microwave cavity light shining through a wall optimization and experiment, Phys. Rev. D 82, 052003, September 24, 2010, http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.052003.
  13. Parker, S.R., J.G. Hartnett, R.G. Povey, and M.E. Tobar, Cryogenic resonant microwave cavity searches for hidden sector photons, Phys. Rev. D 88, 112004, December 3, 2013, http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.112004.
  14. Hartnett, J.G., Dark radiation in big bang cosmology, November 11, 2014.
  15. Hartnett, J.G., Dark Matter and the Standard Model of particle physics—a search in the ‘Dark’, September 28, 2014.
  16. Bennett, C.L., Science Title Misstep, (PDF available at http://www.psych.nyu.edu/carrascolab/people/Science-2011-Carmel-1262.pdf), “THE TITLE OF THE 6 MAY NEWS OF THE WEEK story ‘At long last, Gravity Probe B satellite proves Einstein right’ (p. 649) made me cringe. I find myself frequently repeating to students and the public that science doesn’t ‘prove’ theories. Scientific measurements can only disprove theories or be consistent with them. Any theory that is consistent with measurements could be disproved by a future measurement. I wouldn’t have expected Science magazine, of all places, to say a theory was ‘proved.’” CHARLES L. BENNETT, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA. E-mail: cbennett@jhu.edu. This is followed by Colin Norman, Science News Editor’s Response: ‘Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.’
  17. Lewontin, R., Billions and billions of demons (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
  18. Hartnett, J.G., Stars just don’t form naturally—‘dark matter’ the god of the gaps is needed, September 1, 2015.

Related Reading

6 thoughts on “Where materialism logically leads

  1. Hi John, when it comes to the various dark entities invoked in astrophysics, is it correct to say that none of them are falsifiable? If that’s correct, does this mean that any scientific article which relies on dark entities (to explain a phenomenon) qualifies as ‘not even wrong’?


      • Well that proves that’s pseudoscience, just like astrology and homeopathy. And yet these evolutionists hypocrites claim Young-Earth Creationism is pseudoscience. Well, according to them anything that doesn’t match their materialistic worldview is pseudoscience. So, if Bill Nye the Pseudoscience Guy and Neil de Grasse Tyson and other Talk.Origins and RationalWikis are so strongly against ”pseudoscience”, why do they promote bullshit like dark energy and dark matter?


      • This is a response to Michal. I think the problem is that it is easy to be part of the status quo and just be lazy. Like even in Atheism there is Modified Newtonian Dynamics, MOND for short, that tries to answer the problem honestly. Laymen also like buzzwords like dark matter so overall a lot of funding goes into that stuff.


  2. Materialism had a metaphysical beginning. The current philosophy is that all things came into existence at the big bang.
    It arose out of a quantum fluctuation or some such, or even nothing.
    But if nothing, gave rise to a material everything, isn’t that the same as believing that everything came from the immaterial God, out of nothing? The argument is just as metaphysical.

    Also, from a Christian perspective, God declares His eternal power and Godhead from things that are made.
    In other words, creation is eminently discoverable.
    If no dark matter or energy has been discovered, isn’t it logical that it wasn’t created?
    In other words, it doesn’t exist.
    There is an alternative explanation for the missing 80+% of mass.


Comments are closed.