Saturday, January 28, 2012

Brief Overview of Creationist Cosmology

How should a Christian approach cosmology, the scientific study of the origin and structure of the universe as a whole?

As in any science, we have to distinguish between what we actually observe—the radiation that reaches our telescopes-- and theories that are constructed to explain those facts.
Since many different theories can explain the same facts, scientists choose theories that best agree with their worldview. Naturalist scientists will limit their theories to purely natural laws and events; most believe in Big Bang Cosmology.

Bible-believing scientists, on the other hand, will insist that theories be consistent with biblical facts. Regarding cosmology, the Bible says little regarding the universe’s present physical structure. What is revealed is that God made the universe from nothing, in six days, and continues to uphold it each instant. In the future, when Christ returns, the universe will be renewed. Also, the Biblical universe is much larger than the 3-dimensional physical world that we see; it includes also a heavenly realm with angels, centered about God’s throne.

Cosmology, as a science, can study only the physical aspect of our universe, in terms of known physical causes. It must thus ignore such things as the unseen realm, angelic and demonic forces, and miraculous events. Hence, our cosmological models may be very inaccurate reflections of reality.

Is it possible - and desirable - to construct cosmological models that are in accord with the Bible?

A. Various Creationist Models

A prime aim is to solve the distant starlight problem: If the universe is only a few thousand years old, how can we see galaxies that seem to be several billion light-years away? A second goal is to explain why stars and galaxies have the particular patterns and structures that we observe. As noted by James Upton (2011), in his article "Beyond Distant Starlight", creationist cosmologies have thus far concentrated on the first goal.

Let’s look at some recent models.

1. Slow Earth Clocks
In general relativity, the rate at which a clock ticks depends on its speed or the local gravitational field. It might thus be possible to construct a cosmological model where, in the past, Earth clocks ticked much slower than those on distant galaxies.

Russell Humphreys (2008)proposes that the earth is near the center of a spherical universe surrounded by an invisible shell (the “waters above the heavens”), much more massive than all the galaxies. The rapid expansion of this shell, accompanied by the creation of galaxies throughout the universe, caused a moving zone of “timelessness”. This allows the earth to experience only a few days while the distant galaxies experience billions of years.

An alternative model by John Hartnett (2007) uses an extension of general relativity—the 5-dimensional cosmology of Moshe Carmeli. Here, too, the Earth is taken to be near the center of a spherical universe that expanded rapidly during the creation week, thereby causing the desired slowing of the earth’s clock.

How well do these models succeed? Both are highly speculative, involving novel physics or peculiar mass distributions. Both have various theoretical difficulties to overcome (e.g., getting sufficient time dilation at the earth, getting the observed red shifts relations, etc.). Further, the special conditions (e.g., sudden acceleration and, later, sudden deceleration) seem to require special supernatural effects.

These models accept that, far from the Earth, at least, the universe is billions of years old, as dated by mainstream methods. A further advantage is that mainstream theories can be applied for the formation of stars, galaxies and other structures.

One challenge, however, is to get strong time dilation only near the solar system. It seems likely that also clocks on nearby stars, and in our own Galaxy, would be significantly slowed down. Hence, there would be insufficient time for these celestial objects to have been formed naturally; they must have been created in “mature” form.

Moreover, if one is to embrace an old age for distant galaxies, it seems much simpler to conjecture that the rotation of the Earth on Day 4 took billions of years. After all, the basic biblical unit of time is the Earth-day—a period of light and darkness. This would avoid the need to postulate mature creation for any celestial object, not even the sun. Of course, this does leave one with the problem of how to preserve the vegetation created on Day 3 during the long night following Day 3. Note that this approach does not facilitate biological evolution, since creation Days 5 and 6—covering the creation of animals—were presumably normal solar days.

2. C-Decay
Barry Setterfield (2009) proposed that the speed of light c was virtually infinite at Creation, after which it decreased to its present value. Hence, the light from distant galaxies could reach us in a short time. The stability of atoms, as well as the observed constancy of the hydrogen spectrum from distant stars, entail that a change in the speed of light requires corresponding changes also in some other fundamental physical "constants", such as Planck’s constant h and the electron mass m. This, in turn, predicts much larger the decay rates of radio-active substances in the past, thereby accounting for the large apparent radio-dates of many rocks.

Setterfield’s model explains these effects by means of a changing “zero-point energy field” (ZPE), the intrinsic quantum energy inherent in a vacuum. Combining this with plasma physics, he accounts also for the rapid formation of planets, stars and galaxies.

There is some observational evidence that the values of c, h, and m may have varied slightly during the last two centuries. But these historical results are marred by fairly large experimental uncertainties, so that their statistical conclusiveness has been debated. Strangely, over the last few decades—just as more sensitive measuring technology is available—c, h and m seem to be constant. Even if a small, recent change in c were observationally established, this in itself would not confirm that c was virtually infinite only six millennia ago. Nevertheless, such speculations are not easy to disprove.

Other variations on the C-decay theme are possible. For example, perhaps the speed of light varies with position in space, rather than with time, approaching infinity at the edge of the universe. Or perhaps the speed of light depends on gravity—the speed of light being very great in inter-stellar space but slow near stars or planets. No doubt a mathematical formula could be concocted that would yield suitably small light travel times for distant star-light while still satisfying all the observational data.

Such hypotheses would, however, have less explanatory power than Setterfield's theory, because the proposed variations in light speed are not tied to any physical mechanism, nor do they account for radio-dating data.

3. Asymmetric Light-speed
Jason Lisle (2010) suggests that the speed of light c depends on its direction—it is infinitely fast moving towards the earth and c/2 when moving away from the earth. Experimentally, the speed of light in one particular direction can’t be measured directly. All measurements of the speed of light ultimately involve a two-way average speed in two opposite directions. Special relativity assumes that the speed c is the same in all directions. But this is just a convention. One could explain all the observed relativistic effects just as well by adopting Lisle’s convention. This entails revising the relativistic equations but leaves us with exactly the same observational results.

In Lisle’s model we see distant galaxies just as they are right now. It took their light almost no time at all to get here. In this case the universe is young; the stars and galaxies are all created in mature form.

Physically, this seems very counter-intuitive. Why should light—whether a particle or a wave—move at such vastly different speeds in opposite directions? And why should the earth be the point of attraction for light? Yet, observationally and mathematically, it seems impossible to disprove. Indeed, Lisle's convention makes no observational predictions and therefore can’t be tested. Hence, critics object that it falls outside of the realm of science. Of course, an idea that can’t be experimentally tested might nevertheless still be true.

4. Mature Creation
Lisle’s model invokes a high degree of mature creation, the notion that stars and galaxies were created full-blown, along with their light. Don DeYoung (2010) extends mature creation to the entire astronomical universe. The star-light we observe may then not have all originated from actual stars.

A common objection is that the details of starlight seem to refer to specific historical events, such as supernova explosions. If such events never really occurred, does this not make God deceptive?

Yet, how could God could create an entity that did not have an apparent history? Science assumes that the cosmos operates through time by a continuum of physical cause and effect. At creation, we can apply physical laws to calculate not only future states but also apparent past states. Thus, at creation, the universe inevitably appears to have had a previous history.

Moreover, it seems plausible that God created the universe not just mature, but coherently mature, so that apparent histories from different light-rays give consistent results. Since the same physical laws are assumed, the actual future states will appear to be of a very similar nature to the apparent past states. Created stars and galaxies would look as if they had actually formed in space. In particular, if future states include supernovae, so should past states.

In short, mature creation does not involve divine deception. Rather, people deceive themselves by rejecting what God has revealed in the Bible, by their lack of knowledge of God's methods, and by assuming that mature creation is false. (Mature creation is discussed in more detail in my post On Mature Creation).

B. Assessment
1. Many creationist models have features that are decidedly ad hoc--invented solely to save the theory from observational disproof. Yet, such ad hoc theorizing is very common in cosmology. Also Big Bang cosmology has many ad hoc concepts--such as inflation, dark matter, dark energy—that were invented to overcome various deficiencies. See my post Deflating Cosmology for some recent problems with Big Bang cosmology. Presumably, further research might well find improvements for both models.

2. Many different creationist cosmologies can be constructed. Which one is correct? We don’t know what the completed universe looked like on Day 7, what methods God used, how universal our physical laws actually are, how the spiritual realm affects the physical world, etc. Thus we should treat any particular cosmology as merely a hypothetical possibility, rather than as the solution. It is prudent not to stake everything on one model but, rather, to be open to various theoretical possibilities.

3. Christian cosmologies may serve to link astronomical observations to biblical truths, thereby supporting the consistency between God’s world and God’s Word. Nevertheless, we must be careful not to base our faith in God’s Word on the apparent plausibility of our human models. After all, the scientific account of universal history is necessarily based on various unverifiable assumptions. Thus, to the extent that biblical truths cannot be explained by scientific models, this merely reflects the inadequacy of our scientific speculations.

●D.B. DeYoung (2010) Mature creation and seeing distant starlight. Journal of Creation 24, no. 3:54–59.
● John Harnett (2007) Starlight, Time and the New Physics. Creation Book Publishers
●D. Russell Humphreys (2008) New time dilation helps creation cosmology, Journal of Creation 22(3):84-92.
●Jason Lisle (2010) Anisotropic Synchrony Convention-A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem , Answers Research Journal 3:191-207.
●Barry and Helen Setterfield (2009) “Data and Creation: The ZPE-Plasma Model”.
●James Upton (2011) "Beyond Distant Starlight", Answers Research Journal 4: 1-9.


JohnV said...

This entry was very helpful to me, as I had contemplated a few of those alternate hypotheses on my own. I especially was encouraged with your concluding remarks; I share your concern in point 2 of your Assessment. Thank you.

QuantumGreg said...

"Yet, how could God could create an entity that did not have an apparent history? Science assumes that the cosmos operates through time by a continuum of physical cause and effect. At creation, we can apply physical laws to calculate not only future states but also apparent past states. Thus, at creation, the universe inevitably appears to have had a previous history."

Up until now I had considered "apparent history" taboo and had searched for other cosmologies like Hartnett and Humphreys. But the above makes so much sense, I'm satisfied with it! Thanks.

Steve Drake said...

Quantum Greg,
Good to see you hear cuz. We've got to get back in touch.

Steve Drake said...

Quantum Greg,
Are you Greg of Drake Co.-Virginia fame? What I meant to say above is that it it good to see you here at Dr. Byl's site enjoying his articles. If you are my cuz Greg, you can email me off line at

JohnV said...

One problem I've encountered with possible cosmologies is that going back to earlier stages of process infers an innumerable amount of possibilities, while projecting into possible future progress from any one stage also infers innumerable possibilities. At any stage the possibilities going backwards or going forwards are endless.

The idea of a possible cosmology is to suggest a reason why things went as they did. And this, it seems to me, is impossible. For there could also be reasons why things might have gone differently, or could have gone as they did for other reasons.

It seems to me that the real question is not which possible cosmology is correct, but rather whether Genesis 1 is trustworthy.

Some say, "Yes, but not for science" or, "Yes, but not for history"; but I say in response, "You have not proven this. So I say simply, "Yes, it is trustworthy"

Steve Drake said...

Hi John,
'At creation, we can apply physical laws to calculate not only future states but also apparent past states. Thus, at creation, the universe inevitably appears to have had a previous history.'

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here in the first sentence above. Can you give an example of what you mean here about calculating future states as well as past states?

john byl said...

Hi Steve

This is discussed in more detail in my post "On Mature Creation".

Science assumes that the cosmos is characterized by a continuum of physical cause and effect operating through time.

For example, suppose that at creation (t=0) the Sun and Moon are in particular positions in the sky. Applying the laws of physics we can predict their positions at some later time t>0 after creation.

However, by those same assumptions we could also calculate where the Sun and Moon would apparently have been at some time t<0 before creation.

Thus, the state of the universe immediately after creation, if interpreted via general scientific assumptions, appears to have had a prior history.

Steve Drake said...

Hi John,
So if I understand your explanation correctly here, at t=0 the light created on Day 1 reaching the earth and engulfing it would be coming from a direction that the sun and stars would be placed on Day 4 as light-bearers. The earth is rotating on its axis with normal 24-hour light and dark cycles just as we have today, yet that light if we 'could' calculate it at t<0 would have an apparent history, even an apparent history of a Supernova explosion in its past, and this apparent history is not deceptive on God's part in the same way the Sun created on Day 4 would be in thermonuclear equilibrium with photons already emanating from its surface and on their way across the solar system or mature trees created on Day 3 would have growth rings and fruit, or Adam created on Day 6 as a mature male would have hair under his arms?

And to question why there is a supernova explosion in the light trail would be in the same sense to question why the mature tree has so many growth rings or why the mature rocks have so much radioactive decay of daughter elements in them? We just don't know, and scientifically, we'll never know, it being superfluous to try and find out. We'll never be able to investigate what the conditions were at t=0.

Have I summarized it correctly?

john byl said...

Yes, that's the basic idea.

Henry said...

Hello Dr Byl,

I note that you favor something along the lines of the Faulkner (2013) proposal as the solution to the light time travel problem:

(Noted in a comment at the bottom of this post:

Have you any thoughts on this recent article in the Guardian, suggesting the testable possibility of an historically infinite speed of light?:

john byl said...

João Magueijo's theory, that the speed of light was infinite at the big bang, has been around for about 20 years. It would be interesting if it could be tested as proposed. However, Faulkner's proposal is that all celestial processes are accelerated during Day 4, not just light. Just like Jonah's vine that grew miraculously overnight. This would not be testable, since after Day 4 those processes ran at the normal rate. Unlike Magueijo's theory, we have no mathematical formula for processes on Day 4, nor for their transition to current values.

age2age said...

Dr. Byl, thank you for the article. I provide this link to a creationist cosmology.

ajderxsen said...

"Strangely, over the last few decades—just as more sensitive measuring technology is available—c, h and m seem to be constant."

Hmm, so you believe that "ever since the fathers fell asleep, [c, h and m] are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation"? 😉

"Yet, how could God could create an entity that did not have an apparent history? . . . At creation, we can apply physical laws to calculate not only future states but also apparent past states. Thus, at creation, the universe inevitably appears to have had a previous history."

The devil is in the details. If we traveled back in time and didn't know where/when we were, and if we met Adam and Eve outside the Garden, we'd naturally assume they'd grown from zygote to adult as per normal.

So, up to a point, yes - creating anything from nothing requires apparent age.

But would God have created Adam with a scar from a wound that never happened? No, because that isn't required for Adam to exist. Had God done so, that would've been deceptive.

This applies directly to the examples you gave re. the cosmos: "the details of starlight seem to refer to specific historical events, such as supernova explosions. If such events never really occurred, does this not make God deceptive?"

If God had created the apparent aftermath of a supernova - when no supernova actually occurred - and that apparent stellar remnant wasn't necessary to fulfill the purposes of the stars as given in Genesis 1 - then how could this not be deceptive?

I would argue that when we see such phenomena, their "apparent" histories are real, not just apparent.

Thus I think we're forced to go with, at least in part, Faulkner's suggestion of hyper ageing on Day 4. Or perhaps a mashup of Faulker and Setterfield's theories.

"Science assumes that the cosmos operates through time by a continuum of physical cause and effect."

But that wouldn't be a reasonable assumption when applied to Creation Week, would it?

A. de Bont said...

Hi John,

I would like to notify you that the website of Bary Setterfield had crashed and that he now has a new one, perhaps you can adjust this in the references so it can be found?
This is the functioning url:

God bless, A. de Bont