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.