Science Article

March 2001

Problems With an Old Universe / Young Earth Model

Written by Phil Budd, RMCF Technical Advisor

It is our responsibility to be precisely aware of the very limited Scriptural and scientific information that is trustworthy, and guide RMCF accordingly. We can trust direct Scriptural revelation. We can trust historically‑witnessed and accurately recorded scientific events. We can trust physically‑repeatable scientific laws if they have remained constant through time.

Christians desire to reconcile any apparent contradiction between science and Scripture. There are two potential pit‑falls:

1.) Forcing interpretation of Scripture upon science.

2.) forcing scientific theory upon Scripture.

In both cases, assumptions are embraced as fact and imposed on the other arena of thought. For example, Hugh Ross thinks alot of scientific theory is reliable. Hugh concentrates most of his effort in attempting to pry open potential alternative interpretations of what I accept as direct Scriptural revelation. In contrast, ICR has traditionally taken the position that the catastrophic global flood of Noah's time must be responsible for deposition of most of the rock record. That is a Scriptural interpretation that ICR imposes upon scientific interpretation of the rock record.

Because trustworthy information is in short supply from both Scripture and science, we have to make decisions concerning how we choose to fill the voids in between. My priority is to avoid any teaching that appears to directly contradict Scripture (Rev. 22:18,19).

Some creation scientists propose a young Earth compatible with Biblical chronologies and an ancient universe in his attempt to reconcile Scripture with starlight from distant galaxies. The theories utilized to interpret Astronomy are extremely speculative because our information is limited to the waves we receive from afar. Particle physics theories are applied to extrapolate estimated distance and time in Astronomy. Unfortunately, particle physics theory seems to require modification every time new information is obtained. That is strong evidence that some of the foundational assumptions of those theories are wrong. I expect Special Relativity, Quantum Physics, the Bohr Model of the atom, the Big Bang, and present assumptions concerning starlight travel time to all be discredited and discarded within the next two decades.

Old universe creation scientists have  tremendous confidence in present assumptions concerning starlight travel time. It is my opinion that they are seeking to preserve as much Scripture as possible while believing that present extrapolations based upon estimated starlight travel time are reliable. One of these scientist  states, "I'm unaware of one bit of evidence for a young universe. In fact, the evidence is all to the contrary." Because he has become convinced the universe must be old, he believes some apparent Scripture should be re‑interpreted to reconcile Scripture to scientific theory, as well as ignoring many scientific observations that seem to support a young universe.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... He also made the stars... And there was evening, and there was morning ‑ the fourth day" (Gen. 1:1, 16b, 19). In my opinion, old universe creation scientists re‑interpret trustworthy Scripture to accommodate unreliable scientific theory. We at RMCF consider it more productive to invite speakers to RMCF who are challenging constantly changing  scientific theories vs. those who challenge trustworthy scripture.

Starlight travel time is probably the most difficult scientific theory that Creationists encounter. I am confident that no astronomer (including Creationist Russell Humphreys) has figured out the proper analytic method to solve the starlight travel time problem. Furthermore, we will not be able to properly interpret Astronomic data until the false assumptions that provide the foundation for present particle physics theory are corrected. That is one reason why I am so excited about David Bergman's upcoming lecture. The successful predictability of Bergman's electromagnetic‑based theory as applied by the "Lucas Model of the Atom", which you can view at www.commonsensescience.org, clearly establishes that Bergman and his associates are on the right track.

Particle physicists are certain to resist Bergman's ideas because their years of research would either be instantly invalidated or require extensive reworking:  Naturalists will resist for philosophical reasons. Particle physicists would have to "unlearn" most of the "Standard Model of Elementary Particles" concepts they presently consider reliable and re‑educate themselves to think from an electromagnetic theory perspective. Therefore, a solution to the starlight travel time problem is most likely twenty years into our future.