The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

Faulkner, D.R. 2018. The current state of Creation Astronomy II. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism , ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 36–45. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship. THE CURRENT STATE OF CREATION ASTRONOMY II Danny R. Faulkner , Answers in Genesis, PO Box 510, Hebron, KY 41048 dfaulkner@answersingenesis.org ABSTRACT It has been nearly twenty years since the previous review of the state of creation astronomy. Since then, much progress has occurred in developing a creation model of astronomy, and some of the recommendations of that earlier review have been carried out. Both the number of papers on astronomical topics published in the creation literature and their depth of coverage have increased tremendously. There has been less concern with criticism of evolutionary ideas as creationists have begun to develop their own models of astronomy. While emphasis on indicators of recent origin is not as great as it used to be, that continues to be a topic of discussion. The number of proposed solutions to the light travel time problem has doubled. New cosmologies have appeared. We have debated the interpretation of craters within the framework of six-day recent creation. The discovery of many extrasolar planets has shed light both on the difficulty of the naturalistic origin of planetary systems and the uniqueness of earth. Creationists are divided on the existence of dark matter and the cause of cosmological redshifts. I offer recommendations for future study. KEY WORDS Light travel time problem, cosmology, redshifts, quantized redshifts, dark matter, craters, extrasolar planets Copyright 2018 Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA www.creationicc.org 36 INTRODUCTION Two decades ago, I reviewed the state of creation astronomy (Faulkner, 1998a). That review, in turn, was twenty-five years after the first such review (Mulfinger, 1973). I had hoped that I would have done a third review before now. However, the time since the last review simply means that there is that much more material to discuss. I am pleased to report that since the last review, much progress has been made in developing a creation model of astronomy, and that some of my earlier recommendations have been carried out. In my earlier review, I identified three broad themes that had dominated creationists’ writings on astronomy: • Criticisms of evolutionary ideas, but particularly the big bang model • Arguments for design • Evidence that suggested young age and hence recent creation In my discussion of the criticisms of evolutionary ideas, I noted that some criticisms relied upon an improper understanding of the concepts under discussion. For instance, the big bang model often was incorrectly portrayed as an explosion. Furthermore, few creation alternatives were offered. However, over the past two decades, creationists’ criticisms of the big bang model have improved to more properly represent the model (for instance, see Faulkner [2004] and Williams and Hartnett [2005]). Furthermore, some true creation models of astronomy have emerged. I also commented on a common criticism of the theory of star formation that creationists often use, that star formation allegedly violates the second law of thermodynamics. I did a simple calculation to show that this is not the case. Since then, I have revisited the question with a more detailed treatment (Faulkner, 2001). It appears thus that in the creation literature today there is less improper criticism of evolutionary ideas in astronomy than there was two decades ago. Unfortunately, there has not been nearly as much progress regarding the argument of design. In my earlier review, I pointed out that some creationists see evidence of design where there may not be any clear evidence of design. A large part of the problem is that within the creation literature there exists no concise definition of design (though Dembski [1998] has made some progress, he is not a recent creationist), particularly a definition that is applicable to astronomy . Absent such a definition, design, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. There has been no attempt to address this lack of a workable definition of design in astronomy, and hence this continues to be a shortcoming (Faulkner, 2014a). Over the past two decades there appears to have been a more conservative approach in the use of the teleological argument in astronomy among recent creationists. On the other hand, old-age creationists have pursued the design argument (e.g., see Gonzales and Richards [2004] and Ross [2008]). Recent creationists would disagree with many of the arguments found in these sources, but they would agree with others. Recent creationists need to take up this mantle once again. For instance, it would be helpful if a recent creationist would publish a book on design in astronomy. In my discussion of evidence for the recent origin of astronomical bodies, I described eight arguments that recent creationists had used, and I introduced a new one—lunar ghost craters. There has been progress on this front as well, but I will defer discussion to a later section of this review. THE LIGHT TRAVEL TIME PROBLEM I concluded my earlier review with a summary of the light travel time problem, terming it “probably the single biggest problem that recent creationists face today” (Faulkner, 1998a, p. 212). At that time, there were only three serious proposed solutions—a change in the speed of light, mature creation (i.e., light created “in transit”), and Humphreys’ white hole cosmology. The mature creation solution appears to have fewer proponents than it once did, though there still creationists who support it (DeYoung, 2010; Davis 2013). These three proposals have not changed much during the past two decades, but four more suggested solutions have joined them. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that three new proposed solutions have come along, while one was replaced. Humphreys has abandoned his earlier white hole cosmology (Humphreys, 1994b) in favor of a modified proposal (see Humphreys 2007; 2008a; 2017). Humphreys still relies on general relativity to argue for time dilation in the early universe. However, his new model introduces achronicity, or timelessness. A stretching of the fabric