Yes, I used to be a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) but these days they like to call themselves Biblical Creationist, whatever that means. OK, I know what it means but I don’t want to waste my time in this post to dissect their stupid name change as if that would help them with their underlying flawed theology and science.
I stumbled on this video “Why No One Has Measured the Speed of Light” This is an idea that YEC like Jason Lisle have espouse for some time. This is the reason why I am no longer a YEC. I used to think “secular” scientists misuse the data from science to attack the Bible but YEC scientists are the ones who correctly show how science supports our Biblical interpretation. But when I start to really dig into the YEC arguments I find it not only lacking but many times misleading. Which led to a crisis of faith. YEC have linked their interpretation of the Bible to their scientific worldview that if they admit their science is wrong the Bible is wrong. And if the Bible, as the Words of God is wrong, then maybe there isn’t a God. It is very difficult for a YEC to give up their young earth view because to them it is like giving up their faith.
I digress. The video above is one example of how YEC misrepresents science in order to support their faulty interpretation of the Bible for a young earth. Dr. Jason Lisle study astrophysics in school and as soon as he graduated, he went into full time creation ministry. So, in essence he has not done any professional work and has not contributed to any research or published any paper outside of his young earth community. But with his understanding of physics, he explains to us that according to Einstein’s theory of relativity we can’t really know what the one-way speed of light is. It is true Einstein does mention in his paper on special relativity that the two-way speed of light is a convention that he adapted. So, all measurements of the speed of light are based on a round-trip time of travel.
He goes on to give an example of bouncing a beam of light to the reflector on the Moon and measuring the time it takes for the light to come back. This gives us a round-trip time of about 2.56 seconds. So according to Einstein’s two-way convention, the speed of light is the same for all frames of reference. This means it takes light 1.28 seconds to reach the moon and 1.28 seconds to return with a combined time of 2.56 seconds.
This is what I dislike about YEC the most and what final drove me away from YEC. They will pick out these ambiguities in established scientific theories and claim, see secular science has been lying to you it does not prove the universe is old, it is actually young. An old universe is only a threat to YEC. It does not threaten Biblical theology or creationism. But when YEC pushes these kinds of loopholes in science it is nothing more than a negative argument at best. It is not a positive proof for young earth. And worse they almost invariably get proven wrong. Which is what happened to me when I believe so much of what they were promoting and when I found out they were wrong it was like a dam breaking and I experienced a crisis of faith.
So, what does Jason Lisle say is the problem with the way we look at the data? He said like Einstein we assume that light that bounces off the moon and returns back is equal to the time it takes going to the moon. But according to special relativity that was just an assumption by Einstein, there is nothing to stop us from adopting another relativity assumption. In Lisle’s convention it would take the light beam 2.56 seconds to go from the Earth to the moon and zero time for it to come back. All the light from the furthest part of the universe reaches us instantaneously. We are observing the universe in real time not billions of years ago due to how long it would take for light to travel to us.
He goes on to give a dig at his detractors by saying, “for people who are experts in physics, they know that”, experts with a PhD in astrophysics who has never worked professionally in the field like him. “it’s the layman who think they know something about physics, who think that’s a powerful argument.” True a lowly layman like myself who think I know something about physics does think that is a powerful argument and Lisle is wrong. Do they put out this type of argument deliberately to deceive people in the YEC choir? Or have YEC become such a cultish followers of their own young earth interpretation of the Bible they have to twist everything to fit their pontificated belief.
Here’s a comment from that video.
“There is one flaw in your one-way speed hypothesis. Why does light only travel instantaneously in one-way with respect to Earth? In your example, you send a signal from Earth to Mars, it takes 20 minutes to reach Mars and instantaneously to return. Why? Why couldn’t it be instantaneously to Mars and 20 minutes to return. But the bigger problem is if we can assume that one-way light speed is not geocentric and it is the same for all observers.
Here is what would happen. You send a signal from Earth to Mars. From Mars’s perspective the light will reach it instantaneously. If your signal was to tell your friend on Mars to take 2 steps to his right. Immediately after receiving your signal, he takes 2 steps to his right. If you sent the signal at 12:00pm you might think it takes 20 mins to get to your friend but he got it instantaneously because for him all lights coming toward him is instantaneous. So, he takes two steps to his right at 12:00pm Earth time. But the light from Mars to Earth happens in real time so you would see your friend take two steps to his right also at 12:00pm Earth time. Or basically whatever the lag is between when your friend sees the signal and his move to the right. This has to be the case if all incoming light is instantaneous for all observers everywhere. Unless Earth is the special observer that we are the only one who can see light in real time.”
Yes, it is that easy to disprove YEC arguments because they are not actually doing science they are looking for loophole and ambiguity in establish scientific research to make a claim and wedge young earth creationism into science. This is why it is important that although Lisle has a PhD in astrophysics he has never worked as a professional astrophysicist. As a real astrophysicist you can’t just throw out some conjecture and call it a day. You have to do the rigorous research and experiment to show how the existing theory is wrong and your new perspective is right. Please take notice he never proved Einstein’s convention of constant light speed is wrong. He only shows that relativity allows him to have a different two-way light speed, but offers zero proof that his convention is any better than Einstein’s. It is his word against mine argument. I don’t have a PhD in astrophysics but I can make as valid an argument as Lisle using his logic. Adding to the comment above, instead of Lisle’s claim that light travels out to the moon in 2.56 seconds and returns instantaneously. I say the light travels out to the moon instantaneously and returns in 2.56 seconds. That would make everything we see in the universe twice as old as we current think it is. Instead of a young universe it has become twice as old. Prove me wrong.
I think the problem is everyone have this myopic view of clocks and synchronizing them. Forget clocks. It is irrelevant unless we have a geocentric speed of light. We are unique in the universe that light can reach us at infinite speed and leave us at C/2. We have already proven this cannot be the case. Voyagers at a minimum of 13 million miles from Earth. Send a signal out to Voyager to change course. Do we see that in real time? No. But if one-way speed of light is true, Voyager would receive the signal instantaneously, because from the Voyager’s perspective light come to it at infinite speed and moves away from it at C/2. It sends a signal back at C/2, as far as Voyager is concern thinking we won’t receive it for hours. But Earth’s perspective the incoming signal(light) reaches us instantaneously. Is this our empirical reality? No. Because one-way light speed is inane.
The YEC likes to accuse OEC of acquiescing to secular science which is anti-Bible (their definition). YEC claim the Bible says that the Noahic flood was global. Science says there is no evidence of a global flood. So if we accept the science then the Bible is in error and since the Bible is the Word of God it can’t be in error therefore science is false.
So when the OEC argues that science shows that the Noahic flood is local and that actually fits with what the Bible says. YEC will say we are twisting the Bible and making science over the Word of God. It would never occur to them to think that they are the ones who have twisted the Bible to fit their interpretation. If they are wrong then science does not contradict the Bible. But no they are the sole absolute authority of Scripture who alone have the right to pontificate the correct interpretation of the Bible.
So they attack OEC of using science and make scientific arguments for why the age of the earth cannot be 6,000 to 10,000 years old. But we are not the only one trying to use science to support the Bible. YEC creationists for some reason feel it necessary to use science to support their interpretation of the Bible. But instead of doing real research and science to show how the earth is young they try to look for loopholes and gaps in scientific knowledge to claim see the OEC are misinterpreting the data or worst lying to you. The problem is that they are not the ones doing the research, you can’t just say they are not interpreting their data correctly when you have no research data of your own to support a young earth. And beyond that no one is claiming they have perfect knowledge, science is a process of discovery.
I would respect YEC a lot more if they just admit they think this is what the Bible say and I don’t care what the evidence is, do not confuse me with the facts. In truth this is what they are doing. I am not being derogatory. In essence they have admitted this Lisle admits that he starts from the Bible and interprets science according his interpretation of the Bible. His presupposition starts with the Bible. That is his worldview. That might be fine if his presupposition is correct but it is not. Notice I said his presupposition of his interpretation of the Bible is wrong not the Bible is wrong.
YEC also claims because so many cultures have legends of this great flood and a lone survivor motif that this is strong evidence for a global flood. First, I don’t know how many of these claims are actually true and how these claims are substantiated. But even if I would stipulate that the flood motif is widespread in all cultures that is not evidence of global flood. A local flood of the known world at the time would have killed everyone and everything in the flood zone. OEC do not dispute that all creatures certainly all Man in the known world at the time except for Noah and everyone in the ark were saved. OEC do not dispute we are all descendants of Noah.
What is the point of saying that culture around the world have similar flood myths? That people were living in South America, Europe or Africa when the flood occurs. Because it was global they kept records of the flood and those records survived the flood? Or Noah somehow knew there were people living in these other places and they are all going to be dead. So he told his descendants to keep a record that people died at wherever you spread out to.
But if all the cultures that we have today came from Noah whether South America, Europe or Africa were flooded or not does not change what they would pass down as their record. As far as Noah and his sons were concerned there was a great flood that killed everyone and everything in their known world.