Reconsidering YEC with an open mind

[RamistThomist]

I've been functionally Old Earth for the past 20 years or so, mainly because of the problem of star light information. I never pushed that line too hard, though, since I know my knowledge of science, aside from a few conspiracy theories of mine, is limited.

I'm rereading Doug Kelly's Creation and Change and I can't shake his criticism of the Gap theory. I'm open to reputable young earth thinkers. I want to avoid the worst elements of Answers in Genesis types.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Yeah. I think old earth makes more sense to me when listening to scientists and trying to figure things out about earth. But I choose to believe young earth with a dose of faith, believing that's what the Bible seems to teach. If I'm wrong, I would rather error on the safer side.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Man, 16 PB views in 20 minutes. That's pretty awesome.

PS - Creation was a miracle. And you can't examine a miracle by the scientific method.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hi Jacob, I found this to be a good one, In the Beginning: Listening to Genesis 1 and 2, by Cornelis Van Dam.

 

[StevieG]

I've always wondered how everyone is able to accept that God made everything in the earth in a mature state - Adam didn't start the way we did, but God chose to make the universe itself over millions of years. If God is infinite, eternal and all powerful surely it is no bigger job to create a mature universe by the power of his word than Adam.

Is there anything in particular in Kelly's book that stands out to you?

 

[Ploutos]

I've been functionally Old Earth for the past 20 years or so, mainly because of the problem of star light information. I never pushed that line too hard, though, since I know my knowledge of science, aside from a few conspiracy theories of mine, is limited.

I'm rereading Doug Kelly's Creation and Change and I can't shake his criticism of the Gap theory. I'm open to reputable young earth thinkers. I want to avoid the worst elements of Answers in Genesis types.

Since I haven't read Kelly's book, can you summarize his main argument against the gap theory?

Maybe 2 years back, I read Meredith Kline's articles - "Because It Had Not Rained", and the sequel he wrote some years later. I also read E.J. Young's rebuttal to the first one. In my mind there was no doubt that Young's arguments were stronger, but your mileage may vary. I'd be interested in reading more of Young's writings on the topic.

It's not a scholarly take, but I thought Matthew Everhard made a good introductory case for YEC. The material in that video is drawn from his sermons on Genesis 1, which I highly recommend if you have time to listen to them.

For me, it comes down to two things. First, presuppositions: how does one reconcile apparent discrepancies between our best understanding of Scripture and our best understanding of what science indicates? How much weight is accorded to each one? It has been my experience that most non-YEC views give the palm to science here. Kline's articles are illustrative here. They're so beautifully written, but underneath his elegant prose and clearly brilliant mind, I actually find the articles rather silly. He makes a single phrase the exegetical hinge on which his interpretation of the creation account hangs and I don't think there's a good reason to do so, unless you come in with the presupposition that biblical exegesis has to be tailored to fit the latest claims of the scientific community.

Second, Scripture itself - based on the testimony of the text, what's the most reasonable and likely interpretation?

It's not so much that I'm avidly YEC or anti-OEC - it's just that the OEC arguments I've seen generally seem to raise some red flags in those two areas. But I'm also not much of one for science, so it's easier for me to hold YEC views when I can't fully appreciate the tension, I suppose.

EDIT: error in the hyperlink has been corrected

 

[Ed Walsh]

I'm open to reputable young earth thinkers.

I don't know how reputable I am, but here's my take.

Do you believe Jesus divided the loaves and fishes and that the disciples gave them to the crowds on several occasions? If a scientist got hold of any one of those fish, he would know certain things. He would have no doubt but that the fish spawned, grew, and is now maybe four years old. He would also know that the fish was caught, cleaned, and cooked. This is the best that the scientific method could come up with. But he would be wrong!

Consider also the creation of Adam. The world's best scientists would all come up with the fact that Adam was probably about 30 years old. And they would be right according to the scientific method. That's as far as the scientist can go.

Consider also that liberals have no problem at all seeing that the Bible teaches six-day Creation. But then the liberal would look up from the Bible and say, "Isn't that ridiculous that the Bible teaches that Creation was done in a literal six days?"
Wrong again.

The fact is that miracles cannot be analyzed accurately by the scientific method.

So why do we get so anxious over 6-day Creation? It's listening to scientists, no doubt, who have assured us that the world is millions of years old.

Ed

 

[RamistThomist]

I don't know how reputable I am, but here's my take.

Do you believe Jesus divided the loaves and fishes and that the disciples gave them to the crowds on several occasions? If a scientist got hold of any one of those fish, he would know certain things. He would have no doubt but that the fish spawned, grew, and is now maybe four years old. He would also know that the fish was caught, cleaned, and cooked. This is the best that the scientific method could come up with. But he would be wrong!

Consider also the creation of Adam. The world's best scientists would all come up with the fact that Adam was probably about 30 years old. And they would be right according to the scientific method. That's as far as the scientist can go.

Consider also that liberals have no problem at all seeing that the Bible teaches six-day Creation. But then the liberal would look up from the Bible and say, "Isn't that ridiculous that the Bible teaches that Creation was done in a literal six days?"
Wrong again.

The fact is that miracles cannot be analyzed accurately by the scientific method.

So why do we get so anxious over 6-day Creation? It's listening to scientists, no doubt, who have assured us that the world is millions of years old.

Ed

Starlight contains mathematical information, so it would be akin to saying the math is self-contradictory, which doesn't seem like something God would do. That's not the same thing as saying Adam was made to resemble a 30 year old. But I'm not as convinced on the star angle as much any more.

Since I haven't read Kelly's book, can you summarize his main argument against the gap theory?

The Gap theory posits a creation and cataclysmic destruction between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. But God looks at everything in Genesis 1 and calls it "very good."

 

[DanM]

The problem with distant starlight is that there is light from galaxies, supernovae, etc... that are measured to be greater than 14 billion lightyear away thus contradicting the common value of a 13.8 billion year old universe. So various theories are proposed by YEC, OEC and atheists alike to explain this fact but there is no consensus I've found yet. So I wouldn't reject YEC solely on the basis of distant starlight as distant starlight is a shared and unsolved problem across these views

 

[Theoretical]

The problem with distant starlight is that there is light from galaxies, supernovae, etc... that are measured to be greater than 14 billion lightyear away thus contradicting the common value of a 13.8 billion year old universe. So various theories are proposed by YEC, OEC and atheists alike to explain this fact but there is no consensus I've found yet. So I wouldn't reject YEC solely on the basis of distant starlight as distant starlight is a shared and unsolved problem across these views

I don’t think that proves much if anything that’d be in favor of a YEC position. 13.8 billion isn’t a fixed star to the old earth view at all. A billion here or there isn’t going to affect an old earth theory at all beyond which numbers are plugged in: they’re still orders of magnitude higher than a debate over whether the creation is this thousand or that thousand years old.

 

[RamistThomist]

The problem with distant starlight is that there is light from galaxies, supernovae, etc... that are measured to be greater than 14 billion lightyear away thus contradicting the common value of a 13.8 billion year old universe. So various theories are proposed by YEC, OEC and atheists alike to explain this fact but there is no consensus I've found yet. So I wouldn't reject YEC solely on the basis of distant starlight as distant starlight is a shared and unsolved problem across these views

I'm aware of that and it is a good point.

 

[No Other Name]

Good morning all,

I hope everyone had a great Lord's Day and is enjoying the secular holiday today (even if you have to work haha)

As a fan of @RamistThomist I am delighted he started this thread.

Jacob, I want to first commend your teachable spirit and your desire to honor the Scriptures. Your willingness to re-evaluate what you think has always been a profound testament to a humble mind seeking the truth. May God grant that to us all.

The fact is that miracles cannot be analyzed accurately by the scientific method.

So why do we get so anxious over 6-day Creation? It's listening to scientists, no doubt, who have assured us that the world is millions of years old.

Ed

Ed, I deeply appreciate your desire to defend the miraculous nature of creation, and you are entirely right that God created a functionally mature universe. Adam was indeed created as a grown man to tend the garden, and the loaves and fishes (and the wine at Cana) were created ready to provide immediate physical nourishment.

However, when Jacob answered:

Starlight contains mathematical information, so it would be akin to saying the math is self-contradictory, which doesn't seem like something God would do. That's not the same thing as saying Adam was made to resemble a 30 year old.

Jacob is correct here. Adam (and bread and fish and wine) are not in the same category as distant starlight. Starlight is not merely illumination; it carries highly specific historical and mathematical information. For example, when we observe a distant supernova (like SN 1987A), we are analyzing spectral absorption lines, red shifts, and isotopic decay curves.

This means I emphatically deny the "Light in Transit" or "Appearance of Age" theory for starlight (as well as deny these theories for any other line of inquiry re: origins where we are met with mystery).

Holding to these theories would mean God created photons en route to Earth depicting a star that never existed and an explosion that never actually happened in physical space. This goes far beyond functional maturity like a fish appearing mature out of nothing; this would effectually create a phantom history.

As confessionally Reformed as we are, we know the light of nature manifests the goodness, wisdom, and power of God so as to leave men inexcusable. If natural revelation contains a fabricated history of events that never occurred, it undermines the epistemological foundation of Romans 1 and inadvertently calls the truthfulness of the Creator into question.

The problem with distant starlight is that there is light from galaxies, supernovae, etc... that are measured to be greater than 14 billion lightyear away thus contradicting the common value of a 13.8 billion year old universe. So various theories are proposed by YEC, OEC and atheists alike to explain this fact but there is no consensus I've found yet. So I wouldn't reject YEC solely on the basis of distant starlight as distant starlight is a shared and unsolved problem across these views

Thank you for this. And you are not entirely wrong. However, we must be incredibly careful to use accurate physics when defending the faith, lest we inadvertently place an intellectual stumbling block before others.

In standard secular cosmology, this distance discrepancy is not an unsolved problem or a contradiction. "Co-moving distances" are a basic, well-understood feature of the Friedmann equations. Because space itself is expanding, the light from a distant galaxy may take 13 billion years to reach us, but during that transit time, the space behind the light has continued to stretch.

Therefore, the current "co-moving distance" to that galaxy is calculated to be much further away. In fact, the observable radius of the universe in secular models is actually around 46 billion light-years. (Yes, this means the entire diameter of the observable universe is 92 billion light years across).

To rely on this misunderstanding of expansion-sans -co-motion" is unnecessary to defend a young earth.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

Holding to these theories would mean God created photons en route to Earth depicting a star that never existed and an explosion that never actually happened in physical space. This goes far beyond functional maturity like a fish appearing mature out of nothing; this would effectually create a phantom history

Can you explain how the example of a mature fish is different? In terms of creating a phantom history?

In my simple mind it's essentially the same thing, just with less time involved. How many physical fish were involved in feeding the 5000? Where did they spawn and grow? Could we determine what their diet was during their life? Isn't it the same idea as a "phantom history"?

If natural revelation contains a fabricated history of events that never occurred, it undermines the epistemological foundation of Romans 1 and inadvertently calls the truthfulness of the Creator into question.

Here did the grapes from the wine in Cana grow? Who stomped them, stored and fermented them with such skill that it was "good wine"?

I suppose I just don't see the link between all the information contained in star light potentially pointing to a star that never existed vs grapes or fish that never existed before Christ's miracle.

 

[EvanF]

Starlight contains mathematical information, so it would be akin to saying the math is self-contradictory, which doesn't seem like something God would do. That's not the same thing as saying Adam was made to resemble a 30 year old. But I'm not as convinced on the star angle as much any more.

If God can create the present from nothing, why can he not create the past from nothing as well? Is a history that sprang into existence at the sound of his word any less real than the present which sprang into existence in the same way?

When humans create imaginary worlds, we almost always create imaginary histories for those worlds because we understand that consistent worlds need consistent histories, but it would be a mistake to assume that an imaginary world is the natural evolution of an imaginary history. Rather the imaginary history is created for the sake of the imaginary world.

 

[RamistThomist]

If God can create the present from nothing, why can he not create the past from nothing as well? Is a history that sprang into existence at the sound of his word any less real than the present which sprang into existence in the same way?

When humans create imaginary worlds, we almost always create imaginary histories for those worlds because we understand that consistent worlds need consistent histories, but it would be a mistake to assume that an imaginary world is the natural evolution of an imaginary history. Rather the imaginary history is created for the sake of the imaginary world.

He can, but it goes back to mathematical data. We're trying to save guard God from saying, to put it simplistically, 2+2 =/= 4. It's not a defeater by any stretch, but it is worth considering.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

He can, but it goes back to mathematical data. We're trying to save guard God from saying, to put it simplistically, 2+2 =/= 4. It's not a defeater by any stretch, but it is worth considering.

Would scientific data ever override what Scripture asserts on a topic? What is gained by using current scientific data to try and determine the age of the universe vs the more simplistic biblical data?

Hypothetically, were one to have a sample of the man Christ Jesus' blood a scientist would determine that he had 23 chromosomes from both his mother and father. He would have "inherited" physical traits consistent with the information contained in the DNA. But we assert and confess that Christ had no human father who contributed to his DNA.

So, by way of your mathematical example, physically speaking the incarnation was 1+0=2, whereas the "normal" born man would be 1+1=2

Knowing that, would we then assert that Christ must have had an actual human father because that is the only way we can understand biology? Simply because we lack the ability to understand the working of God?

 

[Afterthought]

For starlight, the big bang model has its own problem with that, which it has to solve by inflation.

I am happy with the mature creation solution for the starlight problem. Any universe created ex nihilo that is created to have regular processes necessarily must be created in a state that is in the midst of a process (h/t to Vern Poythress for that idea, though he rejects mature creation and takes it further than I think feasible). From that state, one can infer information about a previous state that did not actually happen (this is what is going on with the starlight, such as evidence of galaxy collisions). That is all that goes on with the starlight, so far as I am aware. I am a Physicist by training: if you had something else in mind, I can look at it, but I think this philosophical argument covers anything that could be observed.

This also happens on a smaller scale with Adam (h/t to Contra_Mundum: https://puritanboard.com/threads/star-events-happening.89629/#post-1104366): his cells are necessarily in a state of process, which a scientist could measure and infer a prior state that did not actually happen in history. The same thing happens with the water turned into wine: the wine molecules will be inferred to have a prior state that they did not previously have, and those inferences may include processes, not merely age. This thread may also be useful for some philosophical foundations on this topic: https://puritanboard.com/threads/turretin-solves-the-creation-evolution-debate.72265/

There is also a rapidly matured creation solution: https://puritanboard.com/threads/rapidly-matured-creation-dr-byl.96430/ My astronomy friend way back was concerned that this would cause a blue shift. However, since we are talking about a miracle here, I see no reason for all the physical laws to operate as they normally would during this process of rapid maturity. Byl in his comments section on that topic gives an interesting answer to that in terms of physical process too.

CMI has some good thinkers (like Sarfati or Carter), though I hear similarly of AIG that it depends on who you read.


For exegesis, Doug Kelly's book that you have noted is good. I also found Pipa's book helpful. And I found the "Art of Biblical History" useful for hermeneutics relevant to the question. I think there was a George Hasel or something that also had some points I found helpful on Genesis.

 

[De Jager]

Starlight contains mathematical information, so it would be akin to saying the math is self-contradictory, which doesn't seem like something God would do. That's not the same thing as saying Adam was made to resemble a 30 year old. But I'm not as convinced on the star angle as much any more.


The Gap theory posits a creation and cataclysmic destruction between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. But God looks at everything in Genesis 1 and calls it "very good."

What mathematical information? Are you referring to the classic problem of the speed of light and how it impacts our thoughts on the age of the earth? Like if a star is 10 million light years away, how can we be seeing if now, if not enough time has elapsed (according to YEC) for the light to reach the earth?

I'm not sure if that's the things you're referring to. But if it is, the answer for me is very simple - God created light and the light-emitting object. He not only created stars, but he also created the quantum particles known as photons and set them in place between the stars and the earth. If we believe that God is able to create things by simply speaking, and ex nihilo, then such a possibility does not seem very difficult at all.

Sincerely,
Izaak

 

[No Other Name]

Can you explain how the example of a mature fish is different? In terms of creating a phantom history?

In my simple mind it's essentially the same thing, just with less time involved. How many physical fish were involved in feeding the 5000? Where did they spawn and grow? Could we determine what their diet was during their life? Isn't it the same idea as a "phantom history"?

Here did the grapes from the wine in Cana grow? Who stomped them, stored and fermented them with such skill that it was "good wine"?

I suppose I just don't see the link between all the information contained in star light potentially pointing to a star that never existed vs grapes or fish that never existed before Christ's miracle.

You make a fair point that a scientist examining the miraculous fish might find growth rings on its scales, or assume the wine came from fermented grapes. That is the nature of functional maturity—creating something fully formed for its purpose.

But consider this analogy to help distinguish between maturity and fabricated history: Imagine if Jesus did not just create the wine, but created it in clay jars bearing a distinct seal and physical label reading, "Harvested from the Vineyard of Zaccheus, Year of the Census."

Creating wine is a miracle of functional maturity. Creating a label that points to specific people, places, and historical events that never actually interacted with that wine is fabricating a false history.

What the Bible gives us is water into wine by miracle (not ex nihilo by the way) and there is no inherent information as to the details of the wine's history - for the exact history of the wine is that it was not until Jesus made it appear. That IS the history of the wine!

This is not the same for starlight. You focused only on one aspect of what I said SN1987a tells us: "a star never existed" and hyper-focus on that while missing the fact that bread and fish and Adam and wine at Cana do not have corollary analogues in:

1) Ongoing spectral lines,
2) current isotropic decay curves,
3) up-to-date-and-right-now red shifts, and
4) historical info on stars that existed and exploded in secular time frames long before Genesis 1:1

for there is NO ongoing info on

1) what vineyard / what spawning ground etc
2) who was foreman when these grapes were stomped / how did the fish grow
3) who barreled the stomped grapes/ what diet did these fish have

Starlight is not merely the presence of photons giving us static illumination. It is a continuous broadcast of highly specific, dynamic events.

When we observe Supernova 1987A, we are not just looking at a static mature star. We are watching an unfolding historical event. We saw a star explode. We watched its light curve rise and fall. We are watching the shockwave interact with surrounding gas rings right now.

If the "Light in Transit" theory is true, it means God created a movie in space of a star exploding—a star that never actually existed to explode in the first place. That goes far beyond creating a mature fish for a hungry crowd; it is broadcasting a detailed historical event that is entirely fictional, which I believe is contrary to the truthful nature of God revealed in Romans 1.

NOTE: I am YEC. I just reject "light in transit" or "appearance of age" as a plausible answer for distant starlight.

 

[De Jager]

I don't know how reputable I am, but here's my take.

Do you believe Jesus divided the loaves and fishes and that the disciples gave them to the crowds on several occasions? If a scientist got hold of any one of those fish, he would know certain things. He would have no doubt but that the fish spawned, grew, and is now maybe four years old. He would also know that the fish was caught, cleaned, and cooked. This is the best that the scientific method could come up with. But he would be wrong!

Consider also the creation of Adam. The world's best scientists would all come up with the fact that Adam was probably about 30 years old. And they would be right according to the scientific method. That's as far as the scientist can go.

Consider also that liberals have no problem at all seeing that the Bible teaches six-day Creation. But then the liberal would look up from the Bible and say, "Isn't that ridiculous that the Bible teaches that Creation was done in a literal six days?"
Wrong again.

The fact is that miracles cannot be analyzed accurately by the scientific method.

So why do we get so anxious over 6-day Creation? It's listening to scientists, no doubt, who have assured us that the world is millions of years old.

Ed

Regarding the bolded, I think you're exactly right.

Whenever there is a controversy like this, I tend to ask myself "why are we even asking this question?"

Is it because God's word changed? No. Is it because the the meaning of various Hebrew words changed? No. It's because some scientists have told us that what they have found makes the traditional, historical, understanding of the Christian scriptures incorrect. It's putting the burden of proof on the traditional, historical, understanding of Christians to prove that their view 'belongs' in light of so-called scientific discoveries. And in actuality, the burden of proof ought to be on the scientists.

 

[De Jager]

When we observe Supernova 1987A, we are not just looking at a static mature star. We are watching an unfolding historical event. We saw a star explode. We watched its light curve rise and fall. We are watching the shockwave interact with surrounding gas rings right now.

If the "Light in Transit" theory is true, it means God created a movie in space of a star exploding—a star that never actually existed to explode in the first place. That goes far beyond creating a mature fish for a hungry crowd; it is broadcasting a detailed historical event that is entirely fictional, which I believe is contrary to the truthful nature of God revealed in Romans 1.

NOTE: I am YEC. I just reject "light in transit" or "appearance of age" as a plausible answer for distant starlight.

I have a question. Why do we need to assume that everything we are observing is strictly scientific and can be reduced to something that follows natural laws as we understand them?

The Bible speaks of God doing "wonders" in the heavens - see Joel 2:30, Acts 2:19, and that the heavens are a display of his glory (Psalm 19:1). In another instance, God gives Hezekiah a sign by causing the shadow on the sundial to move backward. In another instance the sun and moon stand still during Israel's battle. In Matthew 2 the star in the heavens functions as an extraordinary heavenly sign. During Christ's death, the earth was darkened.

There is ample evidence that God can show us wonders in the heavens that simply have no scientific explanation. We are so quick to say something like "oh, it was dark during Christ's time on the cross, must have been an eclipse". We're so eager to put forward a naturalistic explanation. Maybe the real explanation is different - maybe God just said "no more sunshine, right now". Maybe in his divine power he worked a miracle that has simply no scientific explanation, period. And so when God shows us what we think is a supernova, maybe that is a demonstration of his glory, that simply cannot be explained in any way by a reduction to scientific laws. And in that case the miracle is not only that it is happening, but the miracle includes the fact that we can even see it. This gets back again to my point about the burden of proof. The plain reading of scripture is that God created the earth in six days and that the earth is far younger than OEC people think it is. And when we are in the realm of creation, it is not a realm in which science has any say. Science has nothing to offer the discussion when it comes to the miracle of creation. Science is only possible once the miracle of creation is already established.

Sincerely,
Izaak

 

[No Other Name]

I have a question. Why do we need to assume that everything we are observing is strictly scientific and can be reduced to something that follows natural laws as we understand them?

The Bible speaks of God doing "wonders" in the heavens - see Joel 2:30, Acts 2:19, and that the heavens are a display of his glory (Psalm 19:1). In another instance, God gives Hezekiah a sign by causing the shadow on the sundial to move backward. In another instance the sun and moon stand still during Israel's battle. In Matthew 2 the star in the heavens functions as an extraordinary heavenly sign. During Christ's death, the earth was darkened.

There is ample evidence that God can show us wonders in the heavens that simply have no scientific explanation. We are so quick to say something like "oh, it was dark during Christ's time on the cross, must have been an eclipse". We're so eager to put forward a naturalistic explanation. Maybe the real explanation is different - maybe God just said "no more sunshine, right now". Maybe in his divine power he worked a miracle that has simply no scientific explanation, period. And so when God shows us what we think is a supernova, maybe that is a demonstration of his glory, that simply cannot be explained in any way by a reduction to scientific laws. And in that case the miracle is not only that it is happening, but the miracle includes the fact that we can even see it. This gets back again to my point about the burden of proof. The plain reading of scripture is that God created the earth in six days and that the earth is far younger than OEC people think it is. And when we are in the realm of creation, it is not a realm in which science has any say. Science has nothing to offer the discussion when it comes to the miracle of creation. Science is only possible once the miracle of creation is already established.

Sincerely,
Izaak

Brother, I am torn in how to reply exactly.

I deeply appreciate (and fully agree and endorse) your high view of God’s sovereignty.

You and I are in absolute agreement that the darkness at the cross, the star of Bethlehem, and Hezekiah’s sundial were true miracles—moments where the Creator stepped in and operated above and against the ordinary secondary causes He established.

However, we must be careful not to conflate God's extraordinary miracles with His ordinary providence. Chapter 5 of our respective Confessions reminds us that God ordinarily works through secondary causes (what we call natural laws or physics).

Outside of presuming SN1987A was a "miracle", then we must presume ordinary providence yes?

The reason we look for scientific explanations for things like Supernova 1987A is because of the specific data we receive.

SN1987A didn't just flash in the sky. Before the light ever reached us, detectors on Earth captured a neutrino burst, exactly matching the physics of a core-collapse. As the light faded over the following months, the dimming curve perfectly matched the known radioactive half-life of Cobalt-56 decaying into Iron-56.

If a supernova is simply an inexplicable "miracle" defying scientific laws, why did God perfectly "simulate" the precise mathematical equations of nuclear physics and thermodynamics in that light beam?

To claim this phenomenon as an unexplainable miracle is to return to the problem Jacob and I were discussing: it would mean God is broadcasting a highly detailed, fabricated physical history.

And when we are in the realm of creation, it is not a realm in which science has any say. Science has nothing to offer the discussion when it comes to the miracle of creation.

While I agree that the initial moment of creation ex nihilo is entirely beyond science, the current state of the heavens is not. The heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1) precisely through their observable, mathematically elegant order.

From a pastoral perspective, we must be very careful with how we approach this - especially in terms of the OP.

Jacob has humbly shared that this issue has caused a twenty-year intellectual struggle. If our answer to a thinking brother is, "You shouldn't even be asking this; science has no say, just call it a miracle," we must be very careful with how we address brothers like Jacob.

He is strong in the faith, but telling a thinking brother, "You shouldn't even be asking this; science has no say, just call it a miracle," is factually (even if unwittingly) an anti-intellectual position. It is unintentionally dismissive of a sincere and rigorous quest for truth.

It implies that a man must check his intellect and his telescope at the door to hold to a six-day creation.

But our Puritan forefathers -men like Jonathan Edwards and Cotton Mather -were deeply invested in natural philosophy. They knew that investigating the mechanics of the universe was a holy endeavor.

We do not need to choose between a scientifically rigorous universe and a literal six-day creation.

We can have both without resorting to dismissing the science or asking our brothers to ignore the questions that weigh heavy on their consciences.

 

[Ed Walsh]

NOTE: I am YEC. I just reject "light in transit" or "appearance of age" as a plausible answer for distant starlight.

Nice.

Why is Starlight such a stumbling block to Christians who otherwise would believe in a young Earth?

Since Genesis 1 and 2 clearly teach the miraculous Creation of the whole universe, angels, and everything else too, in 6 days, why would we trash the 6-24-hour day view the Bible surely puts forward?

The answer is obvious.
God created the universe from nothing, period. Then the answer must be that He also created the light already transversed to the Earth. Why would you trust science when, so far in this thread, we came up with five or six cases where science would be way off base? I ask again. Why is this distance of the stars proof of an old Earth? Do you think God forgot about the time it takes light to travel through space?

[several inappropriate lines have been deleted from this paragraph]

 

[Venator Veritatis]

You make a fair point that a scientist examining the miraculous fish might find growth rings on its scales, or assume the wine came from fermented grapes. That is the nature of functional maturity—creating something fully formed for its purpose.

But consider this analogy to help distinguish between maturity and fabricated history: Imagine if Jesus did not just create the wine, but created it in clay jars bearing a distinct seal and physical label reading, "Harvested from the Vineyard of Zaccheus, Year of the Census."

Creating wine is a miracle of functional maturity. Creating a label that points to specific people, places, and historical events that never actually interacted with that wine is fabricating a false history.

What the Bible gives us is water into wine by miracle (not ex nihilo by the way) and there is no inherent information as to the details of the wine's history - for the exact history of the wine is that it was not until Jesus made it appear. That IS the history of the wine!

This is not the same for starlight. You focused only on one aspect of what I said SN1987a tells us: "a star never existed" and hyper-focus on that while missing the fact that bread and fish and Adam and wine at Cana do not have corollary analogues in:

1) Ongoing spectral lines,
2) current isotropic decay curves,
3) up-to-date-and-right-now red shifts, and
4) historical info on stars that existed and exploded in secular time frames long before Genesis 1:1

for there is NO ongoing info on

1) what vineyard / what spawning ground etc
2) who was foreman when these grapes were stomped / how did the fish grow
3) who barreled the stomped grapes/ what diet did these fish have

Starlight is not merely the presence of photons giving us static illumination. It is a continuous broadcast of highly specific, dynamic events.

When we observe Supernova 1987A, we are not just looking at a static mature star. We are watching an unfolding historical event. We saw a star explode. We watched its light curve rise and fall. We are watching the shockwave interact with surrounding gas rings right now.

If the "Light in Transit" theory is true, it means God created a movie in space of a star exploding—a star that never actually existed to explode in the first place. That goes far beyond creating a mature fish for a hungry crowd; it is broadcasting a detailed historical event that is entirely fictional, which I believe is contrary to the truthful nature of God revealed in Romans 1.

NOTE: I am YEC. I just reject "light in transit" or "appearance of age" as a plausible answer for distant starlight.

I understand all that. But, to follow you example, aren't scientists putting the label on the jar of wine so to speak? There is information in the star light no less than there was genetic information in the fish that could not be traced back to an actual physical source.

When we look at the star light we are inferring things from present data that, in reality, must have occurred in the past given our understanding of the world. And yet like Ed brought up, if someone would have studied Adam they would have necessarily made conclusions about his past based on the current observable data. And yet their conclusions do not take into account the workings of the Lord that are beyond comprehension.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

Maybe I am just too simple. But I do not see the difficulties with ongoing information that implies a history vs static information that implies a history.

 

[De Jager]

Brother, I am torn in how to reply exactly.

I deeply appreciate (and fully agree and endorse) your high view of God’s sovereignty.

You and I are in absolute agreement that the darkness at the cross, the star of Bethlehem, and Hezekiah’s sundial were true miracles—moments where the Creator stepped in and operated above and against the ordinary secondary causes He established.

However, we must be careful not to conflate God's extraordinary miracles with His ordinary providence. Chapter 5 of our respective Confessions reminds us that God ordinarily works through secondary causes (what we call natural laws or physics).

Outside of presuming SN1987A was a "miracle", then we must presume ordinary providence yes?

The reason we look for scientific explanations for things like Supernova 1987A is because of the specific data we receive.

SN1987A didn't just flash in the sky. Before the light ever reached us, detectors on Earth captured a neutrino burst, exactly matching the physics of a core-collapse. As the light faded over the following months, the dimming curve perfectly matched the known radioactive half-life of Cobalt-56 decaying into Iron-56.

If a supernova is simply an inexplicable "miracle" defying scientific laws, why did God perfectly "simulate" the precise mathematical equations of nuclear physics and thermodynamics in that light beam?

To claim this phenomenon as an unexplainable miracle is to return to the problem Jacob and I were discussing: it would mean God is broadcasting a highly detailed, fabricated physical history.



While I agree that the initial moment of creation ex nihilo is entirely beyond science, the current state of the heavens is not. The heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1) precisely through their observable, mathematically elegant order.

From a pastoral perspective, we must be very careful with how we approach this - especially in terms of the OP.

Jacob has humbly shared that this issue has caused a twenty-year intellectual struggle. If our answer to a thinking brother is, "You shouldn't even be asking this; science has no say, just call it a miracle," we must be very careful with how we address brothers like Jacob.

He is strong in the faith, but telling a thinking brother, "You shouldn't even be asking this; science has no say, just call it a miracle," is factually (even if unwittingly) an anti-intellectual position. It is unintentionally dismissive of a sincere and rigorous quest for truth.

It implies that a man must check his intellect and his telescope at the door to hold to a six-day creation.

But our Puritan forefathers -men like Jonathan Edwards and Cotton Mather -were deeply invested in natural philosophy. They knew that investigating the mechanics of the universe was a holy endeavor.

We do not need to choose between a scientifically rigorous universe and a literal six-day creation.

We can have both without resorting to dismissing the science or asking our brothers to ignore the questions that weigh heavy on their consciences.

Brother,

I am in no way saying anyone has to check their intellect at the door, and I'm not trying to be dismissive. I deeply respect the OP and his struggle in this matter, and no one is asking anyone to dismiss science. What I am saying, and will continue to say, is that our intellect, and science, and our observations and conclusions must bow the knee to scripture. It's a real matter of burden of proof, the difference between:

1) We've observed this supernova and ancillary scientific facts --> YEC must now prove itself in light of this
2) The Bible teaches YEC based on a plain reading and historical Christian understanding --> now how does this supernova and ancillary scientific facts, and scientific assumptions, fit into with that?

I also disagree that saying something like "You shouldn't even be asking this; science has no say, just call it a miracle," is factually (even if unwittingly) an anti-intellectual position". I don't think it's anti-intellectual to put appropriate, scripturally-derived limits on the exercise of our intellect. We do the same thing with the concept of the Trinity. We cannot explain it, and eventually we must simply say "we don't understand it, we can't explain it, but the Bible teaches it and so we accept it". This isn't anti-intellectual, it is reasonable given the fact that we are mere creatures and do not possess all of the answers. We don't have the mind of God.

Getting back to the supernova. Maybe it was an extradordinary miracle, maybe it wasn't. We apparently observed some ancillary facts such as a neutrino burst, and the decay of certain particles. These observations don't negate the possibility of it being miraculous. Can anyone really say "based on our scientific observations during miracles, we can expect this or that to occur or not occur?" Who is to say what the scientists would have observed when Jesus turned water into wine - or when God made the sun and moon stand still, or when the shadow moved back on the sun dial? I suspect, based on the spirit of this age, that scientists would have bent over backwards to find any supporting evidence whatsoever that these things were in fact, explainable by science, and not caused by the hand of God. And so let's for sake of argument assume that the neutrino burst really was the result of this supernova, and that the decay of the particles really was too. And yet, that doesn't prove therefore that this event occurred eons in the past, or that the way light moves in all places and in all times has always been the same, or that our current scientific theories are adequate to explain these things. A completely logical and possible explanation could be that God said "I am going to display my glory to men on the earth", and therefore decided to cause a miracle - the miracle being that we could see something occur in the heavens that, based on how we understand cosmology and the physics of light, we shouldn't be able to see.

Izaak

 

[retroGRAD3]

I have always found Jason Lisle to be good on this subject

 

[No Other Name]

Why is Starlight such a stumbling block to Christians who otherwise would believe in a young Earth?

Since Genesis 1 and 2 clearly teach the miraculous Creation of the whole universe, angels, and everything else too, in 6 days, why would we trash the 6-24-hour day view the Bible surely puts forward?

The answer is obvious.
God created the universe from nothing, period. Then the answer must be that He also created the light already transversed to the Earth. Why would you trust science when, so far in this thread, we came up with five or six cases where science would be way off base? I ask again. Why is this distance of the stars proof of an old Earth? Do you think God forgot about the time it takes light to travel through space? Do you think it would be too hard for Him to do that? Where is your faith, brothers and sisters? You've got better things to think about than this.

Brother, I would also gently warn you against such broad claims as to "where is your faith?"

It is commendable that you defend Scripture against secular scientists that would seek to subvert and overrule its authority, but to assert that rejecting "Light in Transit" equates to "trashing" the Genesis account is a false dichotomy to say the least.

There are other theories and avenues of inquiry. There really are.

Maybe I am just too simple. But I do not see the difficulties with ongoing information that implies a history vs static information that implies a history.

One implies. The other testifies. That is the difference.

you fail to account for the differences between biological observations of cells and astronomical observations of starlight and supernovae.

Scientists are not "putting the label on the jar". Please let me explain.

If a scientist met Adamin the Garden on Day 8, he would observe a mature man like looking at a portrait, and he would incorrectly infer a childhood. Observing SN1987A was never looking at a portrait nor was it inferring the past; the scientists see the star explode, measures the neutrino burst, watches the radioisotopes decay over months and watches (is watching) the shockwaves hit the surrounding gas rings - all in real-time.

Not a portrait. It is a movie playing out at a distance of 168,000 light years away.

No one is doubting God's power (in fact I think he is far more powerful than we even imagine here as I do believe he is actively doing something remarkable in his general revelation that is truly mind blowing!)

God cannot lie. God reveals truth; he doesn't fill the heavens with phantom events and "miracles" with no purpose.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

I

Brother, I would also gently warn you against such broad claims as to "where is your faith?"

It is commendable that you defend Scripture against secular scientists that would seek to subvert and overrule its authority, but to assert that rejecting "Light in Transit" equates to "trashing" the Genesis account is a false dichotomy to say the least.

There are other theories and avenues of inquiry. There really are.


One implies. The other testifies. That is the difference.

you fail to account for the differences between biological observations of cells and astronomical observations of starlight and supernovae.

Scientists are not "putting the label on the jar". Please let me explain.

If a scientist met Adamin the Garden on Day 8, he would observe a mature man like looking at a portrait, and he would incorrectly infer a childhood. Observing SN1987A was never looking at a portrait nor was it inferring the past; the scientists see the star explode, measures the neutrino burst, watches the radioisotopes decay over months and watches (is watching) the shockwaves hit the surrounding gas rings - all in real-time.

Not a portrait. It is a movie playing out at a distance of 168,000 light years away.

No one is doubting God's power (in fact I think he is far more powerful than we even imagine here as I do believe he is actively doing something remarkable in his general revelation that is truly mind blowing!)

God cannot lie. God reveals truth; he doesn't fill the heavens with phantom events and "miracles" with no purpose.

I grasp what you are saying. But I still don't think it's contrary to the "appearance of age" concept as I understand it. But I'll admit a basic ignorance. If the Lord can stop the sun in the middle of the sky, and life on earth didn't cease to exist due to its lack of rotation, then there is nothing about an exploding star 168000 light years away that is inconsistent with YEC and the veracity of the Lord.

The fault is in how we are interpreting the avaliable data and the implications we think it has.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Brother, I would also gently warn you against such broad claims as to "where is your faith?"

You're 100% correct. I deleted the last three sentences from my paragraph and left a note to that effect on the post. I meant those things kind of humorously, but I certainly see how sounded. I was wrong.
Thank you brother.

Ed Walsh