“The Starlight Problem” is your biggest problem. I’ve
looked into it, and you claim to propose a solution. You infer a *changing*
speed of light over time.
I’m not much of a physicist as of yet and even I can
see the problems with such a baseless assertion. Just by googling this, I found
quite the eloquent response:
Yes, I think
Jacob is right in saying that this is their biggest problem, but my guess is
that he seems to have confused my reference to “metric differentials” with a
changing speed of light. One of Lisle's admirers who signs on as “Nick L”, does
Lisle’s job for him and attacks Jacob’s points. In particular he defends Lisle
on the starlight problem:
The supposed problem involving distant starlight is
really not the ‘problem’ it is often presented to be by secular scientists. You
said that you’ve researched Dr. Lisle’s stance on this subject, but you
mistakenly attribute to him the theory of a change in the speed of light. If
you’re interested in a more plausible explanation that Dr. Lisle has written on
in depth, I recommend looking up his article on Anisotropic Synchrony
Convention in the Answers Research Journal. I think you will find the ARJ more
instructive on this particular point than Google.
Lisle backs up
his supporter:
Nick – that was an excellent reply. Thanks for chiming
in. Jacob apparently hasn’t read much on this issue or given it much thought,
and you gave some great starting points for him to begin to study it.
Clearly Lisle
isn’t going to enlighten Nick L as to the weaknesses of his starlight “solution”
thus helping to perpetuate the general impression amongst YECs that the problem
has been ameliorated. At the end of my original
article I wrote:
In the YEC community the scientific quality of its
papers is less crucial than the role they serve in the wider YEC culture. The
average fundagelical supporter who doesn’t understand science can, if
challenged on the issue of Star light travel time, simply point to papers such
as Lisle’s with the misplaced confidence that the matter is in hand. From his
perspective this paper comes out of the stable that runs the impressive Ken Ham
Creation Museum, a museum where no expense has been spared and whose lavish (if
tacky*) exhibits must stun and awe the average Christian fundamentalist. When
one is immersed in such a heady patriarchal culture it must feel that it just
can’t be wrong. Any challenge to such an awe inspiring source must look as
though its coming from somewhere near the gates of hell and need not be engaged; after all, it’s
in the hands of people like Jason Lisle and his AiG reviewers – what better
authority and assurance can one ask for? Thus, whether right or wrong, Lisle's
work serves to act as an important community myth.
We therefore see the very process I have described in action: Nick L remains profoundly
ignorant as long as his faith in Lisle remains steadfast. Nick L believes he
has no need to consider the starlight problem because he is so sure Lisle has
it sorted or at least ameliorated. And Lisle connives with this false impression by his failure to
disabuse Nick L of his faith.
Jason Lisle
has since left AiG and joined the Institute of Creation Research. His original
blog space on AiG now has just this terse message: “This
user has elected to delete their account and the content is no longer available”.
As there appeared to be no fond farewells accompanying this career move by Lisle it looks quite
likely that some kind of acrimonious bust-up occurred; not an uncommon occurrence
amongst fundamentalists who, on all sides, are so sure they know the voice of
God and are in His Will. The gloss given this matter, as with the starlight
problem, is all part of the general field of blarney and sophistry that surrounds and
permeates YEC culture, attracting the ignorant and keeping them in their place.
* "Kitschy" may be a better description.
* "Kitschy" may be a better description.
No comments:
Post a Comment