It has come to the attention of the OSR that the science of cosmology has taken somewhat of a beating by the science press of late. Portents of doom for the very field of study itself have been echoed through the hallowed halls of the popular press.

And all of this centering on a recent study concerning the age of the universe. Astronomers and cosmologists have been estimating the age of the universe by measuring the distances of far away galaxies, and the speed at which they appear [underscoring mine] to be receding from the point of observation. From such information, they can calculate the rate at which the universe is expanding. Here unto known as the ‘Hubble Constant.'

Through this they ‘infer’ how much time has passed since the big bang. However, such calculations tend to generate values larger than the current estimate of the age of the universe itself. And with no concise connection between the Hubble constant and the universe at large,

[Depending on what version of the big bang theory one uses] potential errors abound.

Considering the fact that the local rate of expansion may not reflect conditions in other places at other times. It is this anomaly that will keep the science of cosmology a viable entity for centuries to come.