JUST last night we posted Creation Scientist Overthrows Einstein’s Relativity — the astonishing news from Answers in Genesis (AIG) that their Jason Lisle, a “Creationist Astrophysicist,” had solved the Distant Starlight problem. The problem — for young-earth creationists — is that it should take light from distant sources literally billions of years to reach earth, yet the creationist’s universe is only 6,000 years old.
We had not yet recovered from the news that Jason will soon be publishing his research at the creationist AIG website, when we learned that the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom — has this new article at their website: Billion-Dollar Space Image Is Open to Interpretation.
The “space image” mentioned in the ICR title is shown and described at the website of the European Space Agency, right here: Planck unveils the Universe. The creationists at ICR say:
[W]ith the July 2010 release of this image came grand claims of its significance — most of which are not based on evidence, but on what the claims assume to be true.
Yes, dear reader, ICR has their own interpretation. Bear in mind that they don’t like the Big Bang theory. They especially don’t like the cosmic microwave background radiation which is the previously-predicted and then subsequently discovered residue of the BB. In fact they hate it. They say:
Since there are explanations for the radiation other than it being a signature of the Big Bang, assertions of how the radiation got there should not be confused with the definition of what it is.
Other explanations? Well, yes — there’s the Angelic Flatulence Theory™ (AFT). No one has ever disproved it. Anyway, here are some more excerpts from ICR’s article, with bold added by us:
So, how could this image represent a “baby” universe of 400,000 years, and how could the radiation photographed by Planck have been generated 13.7 billion years ago if biblical and scientific data show the universe is only 6,000 or so years old?
There are scientific solutions to this that involve far fewer assumptions and problems than the Big Bang cosmological model.
ICR is, as we understand it, offering a solution to the same Distant Starlight problem that AIG’s Jason Lisle claims to have solved. It’s fascinating, the way all these great minds are converging on the same issue. Let’s read on:
Two of them rely on Einstein’s well-established general relativity theory.
Two? There are two solutions? And they’re both consistent with general relativity? Wow! Here comes the first:
Since time is dependent on the matter in its attendant space, vast eons can elapse “out there” in only seconds of earth time. This makes distant starlight reaching earth very possible in a universe only thousands of earth years old.
What? What? Come on, guys. Even your Curmudgeon knows about relativistic time-dilation, but that’s observed because the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. Anyway, what’s ICR’s second solution?
And another scientifically and biblically consistent cosmological solution was recently promised.
They have a footnote referring to Jason Lisle’s promised solution. Even ICR is eagerly waiting for that one. Here’s how their article ends:
The Planck data does not contradict the Bible’s timeframe for the age of the cosmos, but secular interpretations of the data do. Thus, separating the interpretation from the data and considering young-world cosmological models are both key to solving the problem of starlight and time.
Yes, dear reader, it’s all in the interpretation. Interpret that as you will.
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
Both the hucksters at ICR and the Hamsters at AiG count on their target audience being 1) ignorant of the science, and 2) too lazy and/or stupid to look anything up at another source.
I can’t wait to see Doctor Jason Lisle, Ph.D. lay his
AiG ballyhooed “solution” before us.
Lisle’s got nothing. He’s a Kurt Wise creationist. In his own words, Lisle’s “world view” is fixed and no evidence will convince him otherwise. Therefore, he has to fit all evidence into his “world view” somehow.
Just search YouTube for “jason lisle” and you can listen to the lying little twerp yourselves. He’s the worst kind of creationist who actually knows the physics, but uses the audience’s supposed ignorance to spin his tale. His equivalence of Einstein’s mass-energy relation to orbital energy is a classic case of misdirection and lying. But, for Jesus, of course.
Oh, he mentions proof. Coming soon to a sermon near you.
waldteufel says:
We’ve probably seen it before. Jeremiah 10:12
What I want to know is, why the creationist think their god created a universe of billions of galaxies and trillions of stars, with all the enormous complexity therein, only a minute portion of which is visible to humans without scientific instruments, and which has zero impact on human lives. I mean, why go to the trouble of creating black holes – millions of them?
I hope young Jason’s theory addresses the relevance question. Coming up with an awkward theory to explain a 6,000 year universe without addressing why god made such a freaking large universe to begin with is just digging a deeper hole.
Ed says:
Jason gave us a hint of his profound thinking a few months ago in this article: Distant Starlight. Sample: “We should also remember that God is not limited to natural methods as we are.” It looks like he’s got the situation well in hand.
‘So, how could this image represent a “baby” universe of 400,000 years, and how could the radiation photographed by Planck have been generated 13.7 billion years ago if biblical and scientific data show the universe is only 6,000 or so years old?’
1. The science doesn’t support anything of the kind.
2. Because that part of the bible is a collection of late iron age fables with no connection to reality.
Sorted
I trust that the solution will be consistent with the “anthropic principle” that none of the parameters of physics could be different by even a very small amount without making the universe impossible for human life.
They really are doing it the hard way. Why not just say “Omphalos” and be done with it?
Let me make this simple: when the Creationsist can demonstrate a Biblically-derived cosmological theory that accurately predicts BOTH the CMBR’s observed frequency distribution & peak wavelength, and the observed angular power spectrum of the CMBR anisotropies, they can have a seat at the table of science, and not one moment sooner.
Until then, they aren’t even in the game.
Just as I always suspected: at its most fundamental level, Creationism, and all its pseudo-scientific variations, have the intellectual gravitas of a theological handjob.
When challenged for evidence, they merely increase the stroke frequency.
Longie says:
Yes, but they’ve figured out how to get paid for it. Good deal.
Look, we know that every single person associated with AIG & ICR is nuckin’ futs. It is a complete waste of time explaining the science that shows their “explanations” are totally crazy.
retiredsciguy says:
It’s not a waste of time to expose them to ridicule. If we ignore them, they’ll flourish in secret. Their existence, and their foolishness, should be widely discussed.
I can’t wait to see Doctor Jason Lisle, Ph.D. lay his AiG ballyhooed “solution” before us.
Based on what I’ve read here and other places, I’m expecting nothing new from JL. My money’s on him coming up with some trivial variation of the old creationist canard, “we are the center of the universe and therefore experiencing general [i.e. gravitational] time dilation.”