<HTML>Garrett Fagan wrote:
> > So, hard science of astronomy (Van Flandern) requires
> > interpretation? What doesn't?
>
> The astronomical data might be self-evident (I'm not an
> astronomer, so I don't know)
I am an astronomer (though not a cosmologist – Dave Moore is better versed than I in that realm).
Whilst van Flandern makes valuable criticisms of current cosmological theory and is, IMHO, worth reading just for that, he does not represent the mainstream of cosmological thinking and, again IMHO, some of his interpretations are not far short of speculation.</HTML>
