Cosmology at Creationism Conference

The 2018 International Conference on Creationism met last week from July 29 to August 1 in Pittsburgh. This conference meets every 5 years, bringing together many well-known creationists, and features their latest research.

Conveniently, the full presentations can be downloaded at the conference site. Some papers that I found particularly interesting were:

Y Chromosome Noah and Mitochondrial Eve, by R.W. Carter, S. Lee, J.C. Sanford and Designed Genetic Diversity in Adam and Eve, by J. C. Sanford et al, both show that human genetics can readily be interpreted to be consistent with Biblical history.

The Case for the LXX's Chronology in Gen 5 & 11, by H.B. Smith, argues that the genealogy numbers are best preserved by the Septuagint, which places creation at about 5554 BC and the Flood at about 3298 BC.

Creationist Cosmologies

My prime interest in this post, however, is to discuss the presentations dealing with creationist cosmology. 

Dr. Danny Faulkner gives a handy overview in his paper The Current State of Creation Astronomy II. He discusses, among other things, various views on the nature of the "expanse" created on Day 4, the "waters above the expanse", the cause of redshifts, and various astronomical indicators of young-age. 

One of the biggest challenges is to solve the Light Travel Time Problem: how can we see galaxies apparently billions of light years away if these were created only 6000 years ago? Faulkner lists 7 different proposals, but doesn't critique them. Three other conference papers present possible solutions:

1. One proposal, by Dr. B.M. Johnson in Towards a Young Universe Cosmology, is that the speed of light c varies with position. His main idea is that c might much greater in regions of low gravitational potential. The gravitational potential near the Sun is dominated by our Galaxy. In Johnson's model, it still takes light 8000 years to travel to us from the Galactic Center, and presumably even longer from more distant galaxies. Moreover, c would not be expected to vary much from us to the nearest stars. Thus, if Sirius (the brightest star in our sky), 9 light years distant, were created on Day 4, Adam would not see its light until 9 years later, when it would suddenly become visible. If stars are to be visible by Day 7, this approach certainly won't work.

Johnson explore also the possibility that light might travel faster in regions of low particle density. The density in the interstellar medium, and between galaxies, is much lower than that of the best vacuum we can reach experimentally. Yet, the difference in c as measured in air and as measured in our best vacuum is so small that it is highly doubtful that c would be any different in a perfect vacuum. 

2. A second proposal, by Dr. P.W. Dennis in Young Earth Relativistic Cosmology, is a very sophisticated model stitching a young earth neighbourhood to an older remote universe. This paper contains some interesting ideas, but is not very easy to read, particularly not for those not well versed in general relativity and cosmology. The key idea seems to be that "God advances the (cosmic) time of the spacelike hypersurfaces at a non-uniform rate during the miraculous creation week", thus solving the distant light problem.

It would have been helpful if the author had spelled out more clearly, without math and technical jargon, what this actually means. Does the miraculous advancement of cosmic time mean that cosmic time differs from earth time? or that light travelled faster, or that all physical processes were speeded up, as measured by earth clocks? Further, are galaxies created full-blown, or formed from primordial matter? Since this model relies, ultimately, on miraculous events, it is not clear to me that the cosmological details are necessary, or even helpful.

3. Finally, we consider the presentation Creation Time Coordinates Solution to the Starlight Problem by T.G. Tenev, J. Baumgardner, M.F. Horstemeyer. This approach is similar to that of Jason Lisle (2010). It is based on the fact that, in special relativity, we cannot measure the one-way speed of light. All measurements of the speed of light ultimately involve a two-way average speed in two opposite directions. Hence, to synchronize distant clocks, one can use different conventions. The usual convention, adopted by Einstein, is to assume that light travels the same speed in all directions. An alternative convention, applied by the authors, is to assume that light travels infinitely fast in one direction (i.e., towards the earth) and c/2 in the opposite direction (i.e., away from the earth). With this convention (called CTC, for " creation time coordinates") light from distant stars arrives at the earth instantaneously, thus solving the distant light problem. Stars and galaxies are created mature, fully formed, and are seen to be only 6000 years old. They should thus, according to the authors, exhibit indications of youth.

One might well ask, is CTC merely a convention for setting distant clocks and dating astronomical events, or does it assume that light really move infinitely fast towards the earth? This paper isn't clear on this.

Considering CTC as merely a clock convention entails that we date an astronomical event to when it is observed at the earth, rather than when it actually occurred. In this view, Genesis 1 tells us when starlight first reached the earth, rather than when it was actually created. This  implies that stars and galaxies were created in a contracting spherical shell, centered on the earth, so that their light all reached the earth at the same time on Day 4 (i.e., galaxies x billion light years away were created x billion year before Day 4).

This would mean that starlight was first created billions of years before Day 4. But this conflicts with the stars being placed "in the expanse" (i.e., space), which was not created until Day 2. Since space itself was created only 2 earth days before the stars, the stars could not have been formed before that.

The authors contend that their CTC convention is divinely-prescribed. Their argument seems to be that when God created the stars on Day 4 they immediately became visible. But Genesis implies at most that the stars became visible sometime on Day 4, which could be consistent also with other models, such as mature creation or a changing speed of light.

Moreover, Genesis 1 relates creation from the perspective of God. God said "let their be lights"....and saw that it was good. Being omnipresent, he would have seen the light when He created it, not just when it arrived at the earth.

What about the other option: that light actually travels infinitely fast towards the earth? The authors seem to think that the one-way speed of light is not an objective physical quantity, and that this is therefore not a physically meaningful question. However, simply because humans can't measure it doesn't mean that God doesn't know what the case is. Surely photons are moving at some particular speed. 

Intuitively, it makes more physical sense to consider the speed of light to be the same in all directions within the background space, or ether, than that it approaches the earth with infinite speed.

A Simpler Solution

A simple solution to the distant starlight problem is that of mature creation: the notion that the entire universe, including light rays, was created instantaneously some 6000 years ago.

Many creationists reject this solution since this entails that the light we view from distant galaxies never actually came from those galaxies. This, the objection goes, makes God deceptive. Hence other, more theologically viable, solutions should be sought.

Yet, the previous model (and presumably also the other two) posit that galaxies were created instantaneously, 6000 years ago, in mature form, apparently with full gravitational and radiative cohesion. But then each galaxy would include "light created in transit". If this is permissible in other galaxies, why not in our own Galaxy? And, if mature creation is postulated for individual galaxies, why not for clusters of galaxies? and, indeed, why not for the entire universe? 

The models discussed above all rely upon miraculous mature creation of some sort, plus some hypothetical new physics, unusual time convention, or the like. It seems to me that the plus part is general implausible, unlikely to convince opponents, open to potentially disproof, and unnecessary.

Finally, regarding the deception alleged to be associated with mature creation, note that Genesis tells us only that the stars were made on Day 4, and presumably became visible from the earth later that day, or by Day 6. Thus, stars, and starlight, need not have been created instantaneously. Rather, Genesis leaves open the possibility that stars, galaxies, and their light were very rapidly formed, on Day 4, via a miraculous process. In this "rapidly matured creation" [see my post] the starlight we see actually did come from stars, galaxies bear signs of actual past formation, etc.  Of course, analyzing these observations in terms of currently observed natural laws will yield wrong conclusions about the distant past, since these laws were not operative on Day 4. See the discussion in my post Is Mature Creation Deceptive? 

*****