SEVEN YEARS OF STARLIGHT AND TIME
D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics
*Additional resources are available at the bottom of this
article.
Seven years ago this month I sent Master Books the manuscript of
a small book on creationist cosmology called Starlight
and Time.1 Without much publicity it has
proved surprisingly popular, being well into its sixth printing and
recently made into a video.2 Apparently many Christians
have been concerned about the problem suggested by the book's
subtitle, Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young
Universe. That is, if the cosmos is indeed as young as the Bible
says it is, how could the light from very distant stars have had
time to get here? Consequently, the book has had quite an impact,
both favorable and vitriolic.
A 1987 monograph by Australian creationist Barry
Setterfield3 had stimulated me to examine this problem.
He suggested that the speed of light, c, was much faster in
the past. His particular "c-decay" model turned out to have
problems with both data and physics theory, problems I outlined in
appendix A of my book. But he deserves credit for focusing
creationist attention on cosmology and for setting the example of
offering a very creative solution to the problem.
The monograph revived my interest in Einstein's general theory of
relativity, which I had neglected since graduate school. Physicists
like me often use Einstein's special theory of relativity
dealing with the effects of high speeds and have found it
indispensable. Few of us have occasion to use general
relativity, which deals with effects of gravity and acceleration not
easily attainable in the laboratory. But it is an essential tool for
astrophysics and cosmology.
Until the last decade many young-earth creationists had avoided
relativity, and consequently astrophysics and cosmology. The main
reason was a dislike of some of the philosophical implications and
logical paradoxes associated with the theory. However, I found that
the bad philosophy and paradoxes come not from the mathematics of
relativity itself, but rather from a bad interpretation of
the mathematics. A better interpretation is possible which resolves
the philosophical and logical problems as my book briefly
explains.4 I've been pleased to see that in recent years
creationist scientists are no longer avoiding relativity, but rather
studying it seriously and deriving better applications.
What the Big Bang Theorists Don't Tell You
As I began to study cosmology, I carried into it the usual
island universe misconception of the big bang theory which
most people have, including most scientists and even many
astronomers. Like most people, I pictured the big bang as beginning
with tiny "cosmic egg," or small ball of hot matter exploding
outward into an empty three-dimensional space. After billions of
years the matter would cluster into galaxies, groups of
hundreds of billions of stars like our own Milky Way galaxy. The
resulting hundreds of billions of galaxies would themselves be
clustered into an "island" of galaxies in a "sea" of otherwise empty
space.
But in 1991, Roy Holt, a fellow creationist physicist, made me
realize that my picture of the big bang theory was wrong. Roy,
having the same preconception as I did, pointed out an
inconsistency. In the alleged big bang's beginning, he said, the
intense gravity from all that concentrated matter would cause it to
be deep in a black hole, out of which the matter should not
be able to emerge. Back-of-envelope calculations supported his
point. If our understanding of the implications of the big bang were
right, it could never happen!
I knew from my studies that the big bang theory did not claim to
start out in a black hole, but at first I didn't understand why not.
Then I realized that the actual theory, as understood by
experts, does not depict an "island" universe. That is, it has no
large volume of empty space unoccupied by galaxies. By making an
arbitrary and unjustified assumption, the experts would have space
be roughly uniformly populated with galaxies.
In the big bang's mathematical model of the beginning, space
itself would expand outward with the ball of hot matter, and the
matter would completely fill space at all times. There would never
be a large empty part. In the most favored version of the big bang,
if you traveled very fast in any given direction, you would arrive
back at your starting point without ever encountering a large region
of empty space. That makes it impossible to define a boundary around
the matter, so the matter could have no center of mass. With no
unique center for gravity to point to, there would be no black hole
at the beginning.
Knowing their theory is very difficult to visualize, big bang
experts don't try hard to correct the public's "island universe"
misconception. But occasionally they do make brief comments, such
as,
This [picture of the big bang] is wrong . . . there
is no center and edge.5
But What if There is A Center?
In contrast to the big bang story, the Scriptural record appears
to imply that the universe is in fact, an island universe. Appendix
B of Starlight
and Time shows Biblical evidence that (a) the cosmos has
a unique center and a boundary for its matter, beyond which there is
at least some empty space; and (b) on a cosmic scale of distances,
the earth is near the center.
A finite cosmos with a center of gravity is quite different from
the non-bounded universe the big bang depicts. In the big bang
theory, if you could travel from our galaxy to a neighboring one,
you would go gravitationally "up" for the first half of the journey
and then gravitationally "down" for the next half. Going further
outward would continue the ups and downs, but they would average out
to about zero. On a large scale, such a universe would have no part
which would be significantly higher (gravitationally) than any other
part.
But in a creationist cosmos having a center of gravity, if you
were to travel outward from the center you would, on the average, go
steadily "upward" in a gravitational sense. On a large scale, the
heavens would be at a higher gravitational "altitude" than the
earth. As Isaiah 55:9 says: "For as the heavens are higher than
the earth . . ."
A center of gravity is important because an effect in general
relativity called gravitational time dilation comes into
play. Experiment and Einstein's theory agree that time and all
physical processes run more slowly in areas which are lower in a
gravitational field than in areas which are higher.
The effect is very small normally, but it turns out that when the
expanding universe was at a critical size (about fifty times smaller
than it is now), gravitational time dilation would have been very
important. My theory proposes that the cosmos was at that critical
size during the fourth day of Creation Week. While one ordinary day
was elapsing on earth, billions of years worth of physical processes
were taking place in distant parts of the universe. This allows
starlight from even the most distant star to arrive during or soon
after the fourth day, the same day God created all the stars. During
that day, most of the expansion of the cosmos would have taken
place.
The bottom line is that relativity forces us to say by whose
clocks we specify the age of the cosmos or the timing of events
within that cosmos. My book points out that the Bible gives us time
in terms of the "earth's frame of reference, not some other frame."
Scripture says, and my theory agrees, that the universe is young
as measured by clocks on earth.
"Starlight Wars"
Starlight
and Time appeared in print in October 1994. Just a few
months after that, a small group of opponents of the traditional
historical view of Genesis-that it means what it says-declared "holy
war" on my book. Their leader was Hugh Norman Ross, whose
organization "Reasons to Believe" markets a theology heavily based
on big bang thinking. Dr. Ross had assumed that general relativity
can lead to only one cosmology, the big bang theory and its billions
of years. But my book offers an alternative--a relativistic
cosmology that fits into the Biblical timescale.
Starlight
and Time did not mention Ross, but he correctly saw it
as a threat to his organization. At his instigation, the Rossites
launched attacks in lay publications7 and in a
creationist newsletter in which I published answers.8 In
1996 they tried an extensive letter campaign to Christian leaders.
In 1997 they switched to a creationist scientific
journal.9 Thankfully, my answers have satisfied reviewers
and silenced critics. The resulting four-years debate have now been
archived on the internet.
The debate apparently ended last year after I emphasized that the
Rossites had refused to comment on several key concepts and quotes
from the secular astrophysics literature which support my cosmology.
Their silence betrays the weakness of their arguments.
How to Regard Creationist Models
In contrast to the way some scientists promote their theories, I
don't expect people to take mine as gospel. For example, many people
may prefer the mature creation of starlight, a venerable creationist
theory I commented on in appendix A of my book. Even if you like my
theory, please try to keep open to the possibility that a better one
may come along. I myself remain open, and anticipate my tenure at
ICR, with increased attention and time focused on this vital
question, to bear much fruit.
Cosmic phenomena are so complex and beyond our ken that it would
be especially arrogant to assume God couldn't do what He said He did
simply because we can't imagine how. Our imaginations are very
limited, but God's is not. Even in cosmology, all things are
possible with God (Matthew 19:26). Every human theory needs to
conform to the knowledge the word of God gives us. Regardless of the
complexities of cosmology, we can know that the world is young
because of clear Scripture in clear context, such as Exodus 20:11,
"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth . . ." Our
privilege, our mandate, is to try to discern His methods and
thoughts, and to give Him all praise and glory throughout.
References
1 Humphreys, D. R., Starlight
and Time (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 1994) 137
pp.
2 Starlight
and Time (Albuquerque, New Mexico: Forever Productions,
2001) 27
minute video available through ICR Customer Service at
1-800-628-7640, or the website store. Book
and Video set also
available.
3 Norman, T. and B.
Setterfield, The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time (Menlo
Park, California: SRI International, 1987).
4 Humphreys, op. cit., p. 84.
5 Harrison, E. R., Cosmology: The Science of
the Universe (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,
1981) p. 107.
6 Humphreys, op. cit.,
p. 74.
7 Ross, H. N., Progress
towards resolution of the creation-date controversy, Facts and
Faith 11(1): 12-13, 1995.
8 Bible-Science News, 1995,
33(4):21-22, 33(7):12-19. R. Humphreys, S. Conner,
and D. Page.
9 Creation Ex Nihilo
Technical Journal, 1997-2000, 11(2):189-201,
12(2):174-212, 13(1):49-55, 14(2):69-81. P.
Phillips, J. Sarfati, R. Humphreys, S. Conner, D. Page, H. Ross,
M. Hunter, K. Duff, E. Fackerell, and C. McIntosh.
10 See: Starlight
Wars.
Additonal Resources:
This article was a pre-release from ICR's free, monthly
newsletter, Acts & Facts. Subscribe now to the online version
that will help cut costs for ICR or to the hardcopy
version sent via the USPS. Get the latest articles and news
from ICR!
