Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Young-Earth creationism and the problem of telescopes (part 2)

Young-Earth creationism and the problem of telescopes (part 2)

Last updated on: April 3, 2014 at 7:19 pm by Fred Clark

Young-Earth creationism and the problem of telescopes (part 2) 2014-04-03T19:19:20-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Broadly speaking, young-Earth creationists offer four different versions of that mumbling reply to the problem of telescopes. They’re worth looking at, briefly, because each reveals something about the character of these folks and of their ideology.

1. Deny, deny, deny.

If the vast distances of space are a visible rebuttal of creationist claims about the age of the universe, then the simplest thing for creationists to do is to deny that such vast distances exist. If just looking up at the night sky threatens your ideology, then don’t look up. If the heavens declare the glory of God in a way that doesn’t allow you to control and contain that glory, then don’t allow the heavens to declare anything.

A friend of mine attended a private Christian “school” in central Fracksylvania that taught an extreme form of this denial. An adult employed by that school, bearing the ludicrously inappropriate title of “science teacher,” explained to students there that stars are actually much smaller and much, much closer than those lying secular-humanist scientists claim. This “science teacher” even cited biblical support for this claim — suggesting that this was what the (King James) Bible meant wherever it referred to the stars as “lesser lights.”

A somewhat less extreme form of this denialism focuses on the methodology that astronomers use to measure the distance to very distant objects in the observable universe. Astronomy is actually extremely precise when it comes to such measurements up to about 500 light years, but it gets a lot trickier and more complicated when considering the mind-boggling distances beyond that. So some creationists happily concede that, yes, Sirius is, in fact, 8.6 light years away, and Aldebaran is, in fact, 65 light years away, but then they challenge and deny and derail every step and every variable of the calculations involved in determining the distance of any objects farther away than the 6,000 or 7,000 years they’ll allow for the age of the universe.

This is pretty much the same strategy creationists take in denying carbon dating methods. It allows them to string together lots of science-y words and thus to sound vaguely scientific, but it leads to some spectacular nonsense.

Just consider, for example, the claim that the Andromeda Galaxy is not 2.5 million light years away from the Earth, but only something less than 6,000 light years away. And also less than 6,000 light years across. I’m not an astronomer, so I can’t calculate the exact size of the explosion that would result from placing all of the stars of the Andromeda Galaxy and all of the stars of the Milky Way Galaxy within such close proximity, but I’m pretty sure that the only calculation needed to disprove this creationist theory is pointing out that we’re not all dead already.

2. The Omphalos hypothesis.

“Omphalos” is a Greek word for belly button. If Adam and Eve were created as fully grown adults — complete with belly buttons — then it seems that God likewise created the entire universe fully grown, complete with apparent evidence of a birth it never actually experienced.

The Omphalos theory claims a hidden “reality” that cannot be discerned from the appearance of the universe. Appearance and reality, it says, are separate and contradictory. There’s a weird elegance to that, in that such a theory can never be falsified or disproved — either by logic or by counter-evidence. (This is a theory that was designed to feed on counter-evidence.) But just as the claim that God created an apparently ancient universe a mere 6,000 years ago cannot be disproved, so too the claim that God created an apparently ancient universe a mere five minutes ago cannot be disproved. Thus another mocking nickname for this theory: “Last Thursday-ism.”

The benefit of Last Thursday-ism is that it allows its adherents to do credible science. They are free to study the apparent laws of the apparent universe, accepting its apparent age and all of the apparent implications of the apparent fossil record, the apparent cosmic evolution apparently seen through telescopes, and all of the apparent evidence of apparent geology, apparent biology, apparent astronomy, etc. Apart from that stipulation that everything we can observe or measure is but a dream within a dream, they can go about science just the same as any other scientist.

The ugly downside of this approach is that it makes God out to be a liar. Not an apparent liar, but a gleeful, deliberate deceiver.

While most Christians who believe in a young universe would balk at the idea of God sneakily burying Trilobite fossils all over the place in order to trick future paleontologists, they’re more inclined to embrace an Omphalos hypothesis explanation for the light from distant stars. Sure, that’s another form of divine deception, but it’s a pretty one. Maybe God just wanted us to be able to enjoy a night sky full of stars and so, on the fourth day of Genesis 1, God created all those stars and galaxies and nebulae with their light already reaching our sky here on Earth.

3. Some day, all of this science will be proved false.

The most vocal proponent of this theory is Southern Baptist blogger and seminary-destroyer Al Mohler. If science ever seems to contradict his interpretation of the Bible, Mohler says, then the science must be wrong, because his interpretation of the Bible is unquestionably right.

(Well, that’s what Mohler means, but he of course never speaks of his interpretation of the Bible. He just talks about the Bible as the authoritative, inerrant, infallible synonym of his interpretation of it. For Mohler, there is no such thing as the Bible apart from his interpretation of it.)

We just have to have faith, Mohler says. Have faith in [his interpretation of] the Bible and trust that [his interpretation of] it is true even when all of modern science seems to disprove [his interpretation of] it. After all, science is always changing. Just recently, for example, a new study suggested that the Black Death spread too quickly to have been borne mainly by fleas and rats. The new study suggests it must have been airborne. Scientists used to be so arrogantly confident in telling us all that the plague was spread by rats and fleas, and now all of a sudden they’re claiming something different. Those same arrogant scientists now seem so confident in claiming that the universe is more than 6,000 years old, but just you wait. Some day, they’ll correct that mistake too. They’ll come to realize that everything they think they knew about the supposedly ancient universe was wrong and that [Al Mohler’s interpretation of] the Bible was right. They’ll see. You’ll see. Some day all of these arrogant scientists will be hailing the truth and the genius of [Al Mohler and his interpretation of] the Bible.

Mohler is a gifted public speaker, so he makes this egotistical ignorance sound much more spiritually refined, but as you can see it boils down to something even less credible than the piffle being peddled by that so-called “science teacher” who claimed that stars are tiny little balls of fire suspended in a tiny little universe. At least that “science teacher” had the courage to admit to the kind of nonsense he was advocating. Mohler’s “just have faith that the science will be disproved” approach is more cowardly, refusing to take any specific stand on what it is he believes the coming “correct” science will actually say.

4. Reverse the polarity of the phlebotinum.

The same vast inter-stellar distances that provide stark evidence that young-Earth creationism is false also create problems for many would-be storytellers.

It’s a different kind of problem, of course. Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas weren’t claiming that their starship stories were true — much less that anyone who fails to embrace them as revealed truth will be damned for eternity. But even if you’re just telling a story for entertainment, you want it to seem possible and plausible. If the story you’re telling involves spaceships that travel between the stars, then you’re going to need to come up with some explanation for how they do that when we do not yet know of any way to achieve the faster-than-light speeds such travel would require. So the storyteller has two options: 1) Invent some new technology allowing for faster-than-light speed; or, far easier, 2) Reassure your audience that the characters in your story have done so and suggest just enough detail that your audience is willing to suspend disbelief enough to accept this.

Such suspension of disbelief is a standard part of any story involving not-yet-existent technology and/or magic. Such stories frequently involve problems arising from such technology/magic that will thus require some technical/magical solution. “Reverse the polarity!” the ensign cries from the bridge of the starship. What does that mean? We don’t know, but it sounds good enough to believe that the ensign knows, and so we as the audience are willing to play along. “Yes, yes,” we think. “Reverse the polarity, that might work!” (Reversing the polarity almost always works.)

Joss Whedon and the other writers for Buffy the Vampire Slayer didn’t have to worry about starships traveling faster than light (at least not until they started work on Firefly), but their stories were full of magical and mystical mumbo jumbo that needed to seem plausible if we, the audience, were to suspend disbelief and play along. They referred to this semi-explanatory appeal to the audience as “phlebotinum.”

Young-Earth creationism involves more phlebotinum than any science fiction or fantasy epic ever written. And it functions exactly the same. It is a magical talisman made of Handwavium, a bit of techno-babble and mumbo jumbo tossed forth to induce the audience to continue suspending disbelief so that they can continue to enjoy an impossible story.

I do enjoy such stories. I’m a long-time fan of good science fiction and fantasy tales. Heck, I’m also a long-time fan of bad science fiction and fantasy tales. And as a fan, I find a strange kind of enjoyment from trying to follow all the twists and turns of YEC’s labyrinthine logic. The extravagant work of imagination that falls under the heading of “flood geology,” for example, can be quite entertaining if one views it as a form of alternative-universe world-building — the author’s notes for an unwritten fantasy epic, perhaps. Sure, it’s utter nonsense as geology or biology or theology, and the entire thing is premised on an epic failure of basic reading comprehension. But bracket all of that and just regard it as a series of puzzles and problems to be solved and it’s kind of wacky fun. How are we going to get the koalas from Ararat to Australia? Oooh, tricky. What if we reverse the polarity?

A generation ago, most young-Earth creationists were still fruitlessly responding to the problem of telescopes by denying that space was as spacious as those telescopes showed it to be. Nowadays, though, the most vocal and most visible YECs actually accept the vast scope of the universe … sort of. They accept light-years as a measure of distance, but not as an indication of time.

So what does that mean for the problem of telescopes? Prepare to be dazzled by some world-class phlebotinum-spinning from Dr. Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist who works with Answers in Genesis. Ensign, reverse the polarity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83brK_yohRA

Dr. Lisle starts with his personal favorite, an appeal to “The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention” — or, rather, an appeal to authority premised on the notion that you’ll take his word for it as a certified astrophysicist that he’s not torturously straining Einstein’s use of the word “convention” there. Don’t care for that one? Fine, how ’bout a “gravitational well” that makes the rest of the cosmos age more quickly than the Earth? (There’s a fun discussion of that idea here, with some links to its loopier proponents, whose “biblical” cosmology includes ideas such as the entire universe being surrounded by water.) What does he mean by a “gravitational well”? If you have to ask, then he must understand it better than you do, so he must be right.

But Lisle isn’t done yet. How about Carmellian physics? Boom. That’s a tachyon pulse right to the dilithium-crystal heart of any would-be skeptic.

The great thing Lisle has going for him here is the intrinsic weirdness of real science. “Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it,” Niels Bohr wrote. The stuff seems implausibly wacky and strange to a layperson — and even more so to a scientist. Lisle appeals to this strangeness directly by referring to problems with an outdated version of the Big Bang. Basically, he suggests that none of what he’s saying is any weirder than what someone like Neal deGrasse Tyson or Andre Linde is saying about “inflation” in the Big Bang. Lisle argues that his theories are no stranger than this:

Do you understand what you’re looking at there? Probably not. So how can you be sure that’s any more true than any of the phlebotinum Lisle is offering?

Lisle’s trump card, though, is the ultimate in phlebotinum — a holy grail made of kryptonite-encrusted unobtanium: “God may have used a supernatural mechanism. After all, God is not bound by the laws of nature as we are. Especially during the creation week …”

I like how that makes the story in Genesis 1 sound like Spring Break. Woo-hooooo! No rules! Party!

That oxymoronic phrase “supernatural mechanism” hints at the slippery trick Lisle is attempting here. If there is a “mechanism,” then it ain’t supernatural. (“What does God need with a starship?”)

Whether or not God is “bound by the laws of nature” is irrelevant here. What matters is that nature is bound by the laws of nature. Or else it is not. I appreciate Lisle’s head-feint in the direction of reasonableness, where he dismisses the Omphalos theory because it would make God a liar and would mean that “we really couldn’t trust our senses.” That’s correct, but it’s just as correct for any attempt to dismiss the problem of telescopes that simply says, “maybe it was something supernatural.”

My point here, though, isn’t about the specifics of Lisle’s reply to the problem of the light from distant stars. As with all appeals to applied phlebotinum, the specific details aren’t what’s important. What matters is the function of the appeal.

Lisle isn’t defending the claim of a young universe against the observable evidence that the universe is ancient. He is, instead, striking a bargain with the audience, offering a token gesture of semi-plausibility in exchange for which he hopes we will agree to suspend disbelief enough not to change the channel on the story he is telling.

In other words, this is not really a defense of young-Earth creationism or even a claim that young-Earth creationism is defensible. It’s not an argument presented to convince us that it is true. It is an invitation to play along.

Previous Post

April 3, 2014

Young-Earth creationism and the light of distant stars

Next Post

April 4, 2014 I know what I want, I know what I need

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which prophet predicted God would pour out His Spirit on all people?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Micah Amos Hosea Joel