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,
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.
prime interest in this post, however, is to discuss the presentations
dealing with creationist cosmology.
Danny Faulkner gives a handy overview in his paper
The Current State of Creation Astronomy II.
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.
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:
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.
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
A second proposal, by Dr. P.W.
Young Earth Relativistic Cosmology,
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
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.
Finally, we consider the presentation Creation Time Coordinates Solution to the Starlight Problem
T.G. Tenev, J. Baumgardner, M.F. Horstemeyer.
approach is similar to that of Jason
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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?