.jpg)
Jason
Lisle's present to the Biblical Literalist community..
In this third part of my critique
of the fundamentalist attack on science I open up another can of worms – this time Jason
Lisle’s ASC model. (See below for links
to parts 1 and 2)
The Biblical literalist’s 6000
year cosmology means that for them star-light’s arrival upon Earth’s surface is
a perennial problem with radically new Young Earthist “solutions” appearing every few
years. Russ Humphreys’ White Hole Model
at least suggested a programme of calculation that could be tested against cosmological
observations. Once Humphreys had
conceived his basic model the laws of physics limited the options as to how his
cosmos was going to develop over time. This was because his commitment to known
physical laws meant that he did not have at his disposal an infinitely
malleable model that would enable him to fit his theory to any observations. He was therefore taking risks, just as someone advancing a scientific theory should. It seems,
however, that this gallant effort to explain our perspective on the cosmos failed and once again Young Earthist
star-light theory was in the doldrums. The least we could say was that Humphreys’
model was a genuinely scientific attempt at solving the problem. So perhaps at
last the Young Earthists had learnt the lessons of scientific integrity. There was also a concession to cosmology: Whilst his model implied a 6000 year old Earth it actually conceded an ancient universe as measured using the ticks of cosmic clocks beyond Earth.
But then along came Jason Lisle
with his “ASC model” and a return to the bad old days of “mature” creation where signals are created ad-hoc in transit, a notion which thoroughly compromises
testable science and rational integrity. The infinite number of adjustable variables available to the mature creation "theorist" gives him a model so malleable that it can be made to fit almost anything. But not everybody could immediately
see Lisle's need for in-transit-signal-creation; some were fooled by Lisle’s pathological coordinate transformation
that by convention assigned all but infinite velocities to signals radially directed
toward the Earth. Of course this radially directed coordinate system could just
as easily be applied anywhere and everywhere in the universe. Therefore those
whose science was weak, fazed by Lisle’s piece of sophistry, concluded
that somehow Lisle had pulled an infinite speed of light out of the hat whereby
observers anywhere and everywhere were able to explain the visibility of the
universe using a nigh on infinite light speed. But no; one can only
simultaneously use Lisle’s radial coordinate convention at one place at a time. This means that if the value of the speed of light toward Earth is set at infinity
then it follows that there are large solid angles where light travels at speeds
a great deal less than infinity; in fact there must be a whole hemisphere of
solid angle where the velocity of light was between c and c/2. In short Lisle
couldn't have his cake and eat it, although the scientifically challenged may
have thought he could.
Big problem then: Lisle’s
coordinate transformation still means that for by far and away the majority of
solid angles light, when compared to cosmic dimensions, travels at pretty much
the snail’s pace it always has. So how does Lisle account for interacting star
masses which for the most part could only interact using snail’s pace signalling? For
the fundamentalist’s mind that’s easy to solve; there is always the fall-back of mature
creation theory. In fact the following is what Lisle says at the end of paper on his ASC
model (Published on AiG)
We note that the ASC model only accounts for distant starlight and
other earthward-directed phenomena that move at nearly the speed of light (such
as neutrinos). It has been suggested that other celestial phenomena require
billions of years: collisions of galaxies, jets of material from active
galactic nuclei (AGNs), etc. However, I do not believe this is so. It seems to
me that the mature creation argument works quite well on distributions of
matter. Unlike light, the supernatural
creation of matter in a specific configuration does not undermine any
precondition of intelligibility; nor do we have biblical information that
would be contrary to the idea that God may have created the matter in the
universe very close to its present location. So, we should consider the
possibility that galaxies currently in collision may have been created in
collision. There is no reason to assume that they must have come from a
previous state. The fact that it is possible to imagine a previous state which
could have led up to the present state is logically irrelevant. After all, it
is possible to imagine a previous state which would have led up to Adam’s adult
state—namely a baby. Yet Adam did not come from such a state (My emphasis)
Notice that Lisle hasn't
mentioned here that those “specific
configurations of matter” created as is, just like that, must also include attributing speed and direction
to the motions of the particles of those configurations. Also, Lisle hasn't told us that photons,
which deliver to our eyes the “Light experience” are simply one special kind of
material particle in the standard
model of physics that, like all the other material particles, obey the laws of
physics. So one might guess (a guess that turns out to be wrong!) that photons, like other material particles are, according to
Lisle, created as is with the
appropriate configurations and velocities. Lisle has also not told us that
matter interacts by communicating using signals that are, in fact, due to the
motions of the particles of the standard model. So according to Lisle interacting
star masses, such as colliding galaxies, require all the appropriate signalling particles
to be created in the appropriate configurations of position and velocity as if
they have emanated from distant parts of the star mass. So to avoid special pleading one might expect Lisle would have photons,
which play a part in material interactions, be created as if they too have apparently (as opposed to actually) travelled from distant parts, just like the other particles of the standard model. But no!
Notice what Lisle has said above;
“Unlike light”. So is Lisle excluding
photons from his mature creation theory, a theory, (if such it can be called!)
which allows the creation of signals in transit? If so he may have a problem here because
photons play a part in the interactions of matter: This would mean that photonic
interactions which don’t involve motions radially directed toward the Earth,
would be largely absent from Lisle’s cosmos as they would be barred from participating in Lisle’s
mature creation theory, a theory that otherwise allows in-transit-signal-creation. As we shall see
below it seems, in fact, that this is what Lisle is proposing. That is, he doesn't like photons being created in transit and unlike other particles, Lisle doesn't allow them to have an apparent
bogus history of travel behind them. This means
that according to Lisle photons must have a genuine origin of travel and not an apparent origin. Perhaps this is because we
can see photons and therefore in this case creative integrity is manifestly an
issue for Lisle. Perhaps! Who knows!
As I have already said, Lisle’s centralized
coordinate system can be centred anywhere and everywhere in the cosmos and this
may have distracted some from perceiving the radical geocentricity and cosmic asymmetry
of Lisle’s ASC model. This asymmetry results because light moving away from us
does so at a snail’s pace of not much over c/2. It would then follow from
Lisle’s logic that those distant stars can’t see us now as we can see them now (“now”
as defined using Lisle’s coordinate system); this follows, of course, because light
from distant parts reaches us all but instantaneously, but light leaving us moves at no greater speed
than c. In fact Lisle himself confirms
this logic: Sam Trenholm, a Christian
contributor to Rationalwiki, came up with an elegant thought experiment to bring
out the radical asymmetry and geocentricity of Lisle's ASC model. He then posted
this experiment as a comment on Lisle’s blog. Below I reproduce this post along
with Lisle’s reply.
Sam Trenholme says:
Imagine, if you will, a large mirror in this young ASC universe
of yours 5,000 light years from Earth. If one looks in this mirror from Earth
in your young ASC universe, they will see nothing (well, OK, they will see
whatever you consider “formless and void”) until 10,000 years after the
universe’s special creation—4,000 years in the future should said universe be
6,000 years old.
[Dr. Lisle: Yes. Quite
correct.]
According to the logic here we
wouldn't be able to see the reflection of our Sun in this hypothetical mirror
simply because the Sun was only created about 6000 years ago: Light travelling away
from near Earth vicinity at around c/2 has yet to get to the mirror! Lisle could, of course,
cut the Gordian knot by simply postulating the in-transit-creation of photons
from Earth as he does other particles of interaction, but he doesn't; this
mature creation “rescuing device” is, it seems, taboo for Lisle when it is photons
that are doing the signalling and the interacting. The reason for the special
exemption of photons from mature creation theory seems to be based on the requirement that photonic signals remain humanly intelligible; when these signals reach human eyes
they appear to tell a compelling story about where they are from. If Lisle
allowed these signals to be created in transit then the bogus history that
mature creation posits would be all too apparent to the observer. Presumably
other particulate agents of interaction such as the particles that mediate gravity,
or gas pressures are allowed by Lisle to be covered by mature creation theory
because no human eye can focus them to see where they are coming from. But then
the human eye can’t focus gamma rays and radio frequencies so does that mean
that these forms of electromagnetic radiation can be created in transit? Who
knows!
Let me now re-quote Lisle:
….we should consider the possibility that galaxies currently in
collision may have been created in collision. There is no reason to assume that they must have come from a previous
state. The fact that it is possible to imagine a previous state which could
have led up to the present state is logically irrelevant. After all, it is
possible to imagine a previous state which would have led up to Adam’s adult
state—namely a baby. Yet Adam did not come from such a state
No reason to assume they must
have come from a previous state? Oh yes there is a reason, and that reason is
called rational integrity. Moreover, it seems that Lisle does appreciate the
need for rational integrity when it comes to photons, particularly photons that
arrive at our eyes. According to Lisle there is a reason why photon configurations
must have come from a previous state and this reason is because they would
otherwise convey misleading information about their history thus subverting the
rational readability of the universe. But of course when it comes to other particles of interaction Lisle compromises rational intelligibility and invokes mature
creation theory which necessarily implies bogus histories having to be
invented. If one is going to tolerate the ultimate fix-all “rescuing device” of Last Thursdayism, then one must also accept
that it will imply bogus histories; that is, histories that don't exist but
which material signals testify to; distributions of matter are ever changing,
fluctuating, exploding etc. and those signals will testify to these histories of
change, unless we are “Last Thursdayists”, who refuse to read the signals and
make resort to the childish argument that “How do you
know, you we weren't there last Thursday!”. The inevitable consequence of "Last Thursdayism" is that it necessarily posits in-transit-signal-creation, signals which therefore entail a bogus history of events. In short Lisle’s theory is yet more anti-science from the fundamentalist stable and his concession exempting light from mature creation cosmology is just window dressing that has the effect of fazing the scientifically challenged.
The fact is we are never truly “there”
for any physical process, but signals emanating from these processes are
assumed to be rationally intelligible, a reliable indication of what has been; after all, a Christian should believe in
the creative integrity of God’s work. Looking at the signals physical processes send out and interpreting those signals appropriately is as near as humans can ever get to being there as eyewitnesses; as far as humans are concerned our physical ontology provides no better concept of presence. In the final analysis all science is
history and history is readable because our universe sends out intelligible signals
whether they be photons or the hard matter signals of human inscribed texts, like. books, scientific papers or the Bible. Lisle's mature creation theory is a pile of ad-hocery, not least of which is the exclusion of photons from his mature creation concepts. This latter piece of ad-hocery is necessary to give the impression to the scientifically challenged fundamentalist rank and file that Lisle has addressed the problem of creative integrity. But in Lisle's cosmology the problem of creative integrity remains for signals invisible to the human eye!
If you challenge Lisle about
his can of worms then at least one of his followers might tell you this: (See previous post here:
Perhaps you should work on being humble, I am not making a proud
statement such as I am more humble than you, however I would not condescend so
obviously to someone so obviously my senior.
In patriarchal fundamentalist circles
standing in awe of seniority makes up for the failings of a mangled threadbare philosophy
that goes down as “science” amongst Biblical literalists.
Notes:
1. Lisle’s coordinate
transformation has the effect of changing the value of c under some circumstances.
Here c is not so much the speed of something
but a constant in an equation. The coordinate transformation that leads to
this change is different again from Lisle appearing to assume the
in-transit-creation of material signals (with the exception of photons it seems)
which is an extra ad-hoc feature of his “theory”.
2. The following article may reveal
a galactic example of the journey of material signals from an outburst from the
galaxy's central black hole toward the Magellanic stream where these signals stimulate the stream to emit light. If this is the case then in a rational and readable cosmos
this is naturally interpreted as evidence of a genuine history longer than 6000 years.
3. For parts 1 and 2 of this series
see here:
4. See also:
No comments:
Post a Comment