Astronomy’s Indications of an Older Universe

Christian apologist, Frank Turek, discuses the origin of the universe and includes this observation by astronomers:
“Robert Jastrow suggested the same when he ended his book God and the Astronomers with this classic line:  ‘For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.’”
Excerpted from Turek’s book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (p. 84)
Gorman Gray has addressed this issue in The Age of the Universe: What are the Biblical Limits (p. 20,21).
Dr. Duane Gish has authored a book entitled Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics. Dr. John Morris has published The Young Earth. Neither publication addresses the question of the speed of light and the magnitude of the universe. When asked, separately, why they did not pursue that topic, these well-known authors answered almost identically. Both simply asserted that they did not want to get into that subject. Explanations attempted by other writers leave thinking people uneasy. A large segment of creationists interpret Genesis as limiting the age of the universe to a maximum of 10,000 years. And yet galaxies exist whose light requires millions, even billions of years to travel to earth. How can this be?
The question begs for an answer.
So far, no one has suggested a satisfactory response to this problem. Despite various attempts, doubts persist that this issue has been resolved. Barry Setterfield has proposed that light velocity has changed from near infinity at the original creation to the presently measured rate. His theory thrived for a while among creationists, then was less popular but is still within consideration. Dr. Russell Humphreys, creationist physicist, has offered an attempt, and because it has largely replaced the previous unsatisfactory answers in popularity, chapter 7 [in The Age of the Universe] will offer a more elaborate critique of his idea. Dr. Humphreys, like Setterfield, tackles the problem head-on, but both may be leading us down a dangerous, “snowbound” trail. Mistaken basic ideas followed by ever so perfect logic necessarily lead to a mistaken conclusion….
Creationists have a serious problem. Avoidance of the subject by some of the top leadership, a lack of consensus everywhere, and quick response to any glimmer of hope (such as the current interest in relativity or the changing speed of light) is a tacit admission that the answer has eluded us. Young-universe creationists are dogged by an unresolved problem.
…Creationists are trying to make the Bible say what it does not say in the same way that theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists are trying to make the rocks say what they do not say. …Whether promoting uniformitarian geology or a mandatory young universe, we are asking our listeners to believe something for which there is neither biblical nor scientific proof in either case. Arguing from an inaccurate factual or biblical base—disaster is assured.
In taking the undefined-age-of-the-universe position, no concession is made to popular scientific opinions regarding the age of the cosmos or world geology. Acceptance of Flood geology leaves one an outcast to evolutionists and rejection of a mandatory young universe leaves one an outcast among many creationists, hardly evidence of yielding to intellectual pressure.…The straightforward Bible interpretation offered here solves all major problems by keeping us out of dangerous territory, namely, a universe required to be young and a fossil record required to be old. It is a simple, biblical solution for both errors, unpopular to both camps.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s