Gravity versus the Young-Earth Creationists

No .. but of course you know that.Starlight and Time is an attempt to rationalize a young universe with a relativistic argument that sounds good to people who don't know anything about relativity.See The Unraveling of Starlight and Time (Dr. Ross is an OEC and an astrophysicist; he knows his physics but has some really wacko ideas about biology), Errors in Humphreys' cosmological model (a PDF), and Starlight and Time is the Big Bang (another PDF). To be fair, I should include Russell Humphreys answers Various Critics, which also includes some other criticisms.Humphreys is still working on rationalizing a young universe, but his more recent work is quite different from the ideas in Starling and Time (except, of course, the level of crackpottery is about the same).

Yes, but not for review of the science it supposedly contains; the review is to ensure doctrinal compliance.

Sort of ... Humphreys certainly hasn't given up, although he's changed his claims noticably. See message 8 in this thread, especially the last link. See also Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ red shifts show and these comments. Oh, yeah. At best.

You're right, but Humphreys is saying that you're wrong; Hubble redshift looks the same from all locations, but Humphreys is saying that Hubble redshift is wrong, and that the supposed quantized redshift would look different from different locations, and especially would look as it does from Earth only from a point near the supposed center of the Universe.Quantized redshift is a theory mostly championed by Halton Arp. I don't think he ever claimed that it showed that the Earth was at the center of the Universe.Too bad for Humphreys that the idea of quantized redshifts fell apart years before he wrote that article. The final nail in the coffin is roughly contemporaneous with Humphreys' article; see No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data.