Earth Day—How Should Christians View It?

Earth Day—How Should Christians View It?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, April 22, 2026 (Donate)

All passages NKJV

Well, today is “Earth Day” which is recognized and celebrated worldwide. This “holiday” is clearly not something that comes from God’s Word. So, what is Earth Day and how should those who love and follow God’s Word understand it. Let’s start by looking at its origins.

The earth with day and night showing light pollution; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Origins And History Of Earth Day

Earth Day first began as an environmental movement in the United States during the late 1960s. There had been growing concern over pollution—especially after things like oil spills and visible air and water contamination. U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin organized the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970, due in part to student protests.

The first Earth Day involved about a million score[1] Americans across colleges, schools, and communities. So, it was no small event!

The goal was simply to raise public awareness about environmental issues such as air pollution, water contamination, and habitat destruction. Who doesn’t want clean air and water? Nevertheless, this widespread support helped lead to the creation of major environmental protections, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency and laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.

Earth Day went global in 1990. Today, it is observed annually in more than 190 nations, involving over a billion people. Although it has now morphed and focuses on a broad range of environmental issues such as climate change, global warming, conservation, and how we can sustain farmland, woodlands, and natural scenery.

Religious Undertones

The worldview most commonly underlying Earth Day advocacy is secular environmentalism, which is a sub-form of secular humanism. Secularism is a pagan religion that will obviously be at odds with a biblical worldview.

Secular environmentalism tends to elevate nature to a point of near-worship and sacred, apart from God. The goal of religious adherents is to protecting ecosystems as holy for their own sake. Of course, this is based in naturalistic assumptions, meaning nature is all that exists (i.e., the region of naturalism is a subset of the secular forms of humanism).

Floating through Marble Canyon and Grand Canyon both shaped by the Flood of Noah and its aftermath; Photo by Bodie Hodge

Secular humanists put human reason as the supreme authority pushing for environmental care because a healthy planet (by their religious standards) benefits humanity. Even though is it heavy religious, adherents try to avoid overt religious statements! 

Instead, they coerce people to get in line with their standards by using rhetoric about human consensus, secular interpretations of science, and long-term survival. This is despite the fact that in the naturalistic or secular humanistic views, man ultimately has no worth in the long run but only extinction where nothing mattered (i.e., what’s the point in 700 trillion years by their reckoning)!

Even so, Earth Day participation is broad. Many people engage from many religious perspectives.

So while secular environmentalism is the dominant philosophical tone in much Earth Day messaging, it includes a mix of motivations, ranging from human centered concerns to more spiritualized views of nature, alongside participation from various religious traditions.

A Proper Understanding Of The Earth And The Environment

Based strictly on the Bible, the earth is God’s created possession, designed for His glory and entrusted to mankind as dominional stewards, not owners.

Scripture begins with God as Creator: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). The earth is therefore not eternal, self-originating, or autonomous.

Instead, the earth belongs to God: “The earth is the LORD’s, and all its fullness, The world and those who dwell therein” (Psalm 24:1). Man is given a delegated role under God’s authority: “Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion…’” (Genesis 1:28).

An arch in Red River Gorge, KY; Photo by Bodie Hodge

This dominion is not exploitation, but responsible stewardship and use under God’s authority. God further clarified when he said: “Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it” (Genesis 2:15). Tending and keeping mean responsible stewardship. Of course, Adam and Eve fell short of that standard when they sinned against God.

The Fall affected creation itself. Because of sin, the ground was cursed (Genesis 3:17–18), and creation now groans under corruption: “For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now” (Romans 8:22). Thus, environmental problems are ultimately finding their origin in in man’s sin against God, not merely poor management (which can be a contributing factor—still predicated on sin though).

Of course, we can fight against the effects of the curse. For example, we can manage the spread of thorns and thistles, use medicine, technology to advance farming, clean our water, reduce pollutants, and protect the land. These things are not done from an environmental worship viewpoint, but a godly outcome of biblical principles.

Burleigh Heads Australia; Photo by Bodie Hodge

The Bible also teaches that the present earth is temporary. A new one is coming! God will judge and renew it: “But the day of the Lord will come… the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up” (2 Peter 3:10). Yet this is not annihilation without hope, for God promises restoration: “Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13; see also Isaiah 65:17, 66:22, and Revelation 21;1).

In contrast, the secular Earth Day perspective often elevates the earth as having intrinsic or ultimate value apart from God, sometimes treating nature as the ultimate itself—trying to replace God and worship the creation in His stead (Romans 1:24-25). Secular environmentalists typically operate within a naturalistic framework, focusing on temporary human survival or the preservation of ecosystems as the highest good.

But that begs the question of what is “good”? Good is a concept that comes from the idea of a good God and is predicated on the Bible being true. The Bible, however, places our perfectly good God at the center, with the earth serving His purposes and mankind accountable to Him.

Therefore, Christians should care for the earth as faithful stewards, recognizing its value as God’s creation, while (1) avoiding views that either exploit the earth irresponsibly or (2) elevate the earth to a place that belongs only to the Creator.

For more on environmental issues and a biblical understanding of them, I recommend the Cornwall Alliance.

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist defending 6-day creation and opposing evolution since 1998. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields. 

---

[1] About 20 millions.

Doctrine Of Security

The Doctrine Of The Security Of The Believer

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, April 20, 2026 (Donate)

The doctrine of the “security of the believer” deals with whether a true Christian can truly fall away and be lost. For those who do not know, there is debate over this position between the Calvinistic side and the Arminian side.

Going deeper in theological topics; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Both the Calvinist and Arminian traditions both agree with the necessity of perseverance in faith and holiness and both would say they are saved by faith through grace alone in Jesus Christ. However, they understand perseverance differently and thereby, reach different conclusions about its certainty. In other words, both hold to a form of security, but it really comes down to eternal security vs. conditional security. Let me take some time to explain each position.

Calvinist Understanding Of Security

The Calvinists teach what is commonly called the “perseverance of the saints.” This view holds that all who are truly saved by God will certainly continue in faith until the end and be saved.

Salvation rests entirely on God’s eternal decree, Christ’s completed atonement, and the Spirit’s work (1 Corinthians 12:3). Because election, the Calvinistic view, is unconditional and grace is irresistible, the believer’s final salvation cannot fail.

Baptist Commentator and Paster Dr. John Gill was Calvinistic; Image Public Domain

So, the Calvinist argues that Christ’s righteousness is imputed once for all, and the covenant of grace is unbreakable. Thus, true believers may fall into sin temporarily, but they will never finally fall away from their salvation because God preserves them.

The Calvinist also argues that salvation is based in God’s unchanging character and promises, not human effort. Perseverance, therefore, is both a gift and a necessity: believers will persevere because God ensures it. At the same time, the visible marks of perseverance, such as obedience and continued faith, are evidence of genuine salvation.

Famed Great Awakening Evangelist George Whitfield was Calvinist; Image Public Domain

A key nuance in the Calvinist view is the distinction between true believers and mere “professors”. Those who appear to fall away were never truly saved or regenerate. Perseverance is not merely optional; it is the inevitable outcome of genuine conversion to Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Assurance, then, is grounded in God’s promises, though it is confirmed by a life of faith and fruit.

Common Verses Used In The Calvinistic Approach (NKJV)

1. John 10:28–29
“And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.

2. Romans 8:29–30
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

3. Romans 8:38–39
For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

4. Philippians 1:6
Being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;

5. 1 Peter 1:3–5
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

In short, the Calvinistic position is: Because a person is saved, they will persevere and their security is certain. Thus, it is an eternal security from the moment of salvation.

Arminian Understanding Of Security

Arminians agree that salvation is by grace through faith but deny that final salvation is unconditionally guaranteed.

In Arminianism, believers are truly regenerated and justified, yet they retain the capacity to fall from God’s saving grace through persistent unbelief (AKA willful sin). Salvation is “on going”, not mechanically secured. God is faithful and provides sufficient grace to persevere, but He does not override human freedom according to the Arminian. Thus, perseverance is conditional upon continued faith.

Brothers John Wesley (founder of Methodism and his theology later influenced Wesleyanism) and Charles Wesley (famed Hymn writer) were Arminians; Image Public Domain

Popular Arminian Charles Wesley in his hymns often stress strong assurance coupled with earnest warnings. He celebrated the believer’s present security in Christ while urging vigilance, repentance, and holiness—to persevere. This reflects a pastoral tension: assurance is real, but it is not absolute in the sense of being impossible to lose in the Arminian position.

The Arminian holds that believers can have assurance and confidence in God’s keeping power, yet he acknowledges biblical warnings about falling away. So there is a strong emphasis in Arminian churches to abide in Christ as the condition for continued salvation.

A central nuance in the Arminian view is the distinction between God’s faithfulness and human responsibility. God will not fail the believer, but the believer may choose to fail and depart. Apostasy is seen as a real, though not inevitable, possibility. Assurance is therefore dynamic, living faith rather than an irreversible decree.

Common Verses Used In The Arminian Approach

1. Hebrews 6:4–6
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

2. Hebrews 10:26–27
For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.

3. 2 Peter 2:20–21
For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.

4. Galatians 5:4
You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

5. John 15:5–7
“I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you.

In short, the Arminian position is: If the person perseveres that person remains saved, but their security is uncertain until they persevered until to the end—then Christ’s righteousness is imputed to them. Thus, it is a conditional security that began at the moment of salvation.

Key Differences And Shared Elements

This writing is just an introduction to the subject—many books and responses have been put forth by both sides of this debate. For instance, both sides have discussions on the verses that each list above and their takes on each (and many more; these were just a few starter verses!).

Then the debate dives into issues of, “Is one a type of works-based salvation to keep or regain your salvation?”, “Can a person regain salvation after is it lost?’, and so much more. These points are not for discussion here, but can be found in many other treatises on security in Arminian and Calvinistic literature. Of course, I want to encourage you to study what the Bible says and look at the context of these positions.

Nevertheless, both traditions affirm that salvation is by grace and that true believers must continue in faith. Both warn against mere outward profession and should be growing in their sanctification to mimic Christ with a transformed life (i.e., put on the new man per Colossians 3:10).

Final Remarks

The major difference lies in the certainty of final perseverance. Calvinists argue that perseverance is guaranteed by God’s sovereign grace and eternal decree (eternal security); Arminians argue that perseverance is enabled by grace but not guaranteed, since human freedom remains operative (conditional security).

So the question in the debate really boils down to, “is the security of the believer certain or uncertain?” And that topic has been a major factor that helped split churches for 500 years. I want to encourage you so go to your family and local church to see what their stance is and why biblically.[1]

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist defending 6-day creation and opposing evolution since 1998. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields.

 

---

[1] I know what I believe on this subject but have tried to write this so that those being introduced to and are just learning about the debate can have an honest assessment of the basics of the positions and where they differ. Thus I’ve tried to keep my personal beliefs out of the subject on this one.

Abiogenesis—The Chemical Evolution Miracle?

Featured Article: A Perfect God, Genesis, and...War?

Abiogenesis—The Chemical Evolution Miracle?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, April 16, 2026 (Donate)

In atheistic, materialistic religions, life must come from non-life. They cannot have God create life, since they don’t believe in God and deny that a spiritual God even exists.

So, for life to be here, the atheist must have life accidentally or randomly come from non-life. This is called “abiogenesis” or “chemical evolution”. I have often lectured on this subject. 

The discussion of Abiogenesis is thought provoking; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

What Is Abiogenesis Specifically?

Abiogenesis is the idea that life arose naturally and randomly from non-living matter through purely chemical and physical processes, without any need for our Creator. In secular humanistic origins models (atheism is a form secular humanism), it is often proposed that billions of years ago, simple chemicals in a “primordial soup” gradually formed more complex molecules, eventually producing the first self-replicating cell.

This concept is a foundational necessity to naturalistic evolution because secularists and atheists attempt to explain how life could begin without God. The problem is that this is pure speculation and merely an arbitrary story. Abiogenesis has never been observed and never been repeated. So, keep in mind that the idea of abiogenesis is not science.

Abiogenesis is not a scientific view, but a religious one. Image requested by Bodie Hodge (Chat GPT)

Naturally from a biblical creation perspective, abiogenesis is rejected for both scientific and theological reasons. Let’s look at some of these reasons.

It Conflicts With The Biblical Account Of Creation

Scripture teaches that life was created directly by God. “Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind’… and it was so” (Genesis 1:24, NKJV). Humans are uniquely created in God’s image: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7, NKJV).

In this framework, life originates from God’s creative act during Creation Week, not from non-living matter organizing itself. Because God disagrees with chemical evolution, this enough to refute the idea of abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis Violates The Law Of Biogenesis

The Law of Biogenesis states that life comes only from pre-existing life. This principle is well-established through scientific observation and experimentation (for example, the work of Louis Pasteur). To go against it, is a blatant denial of good science.

No experiment has ever demonstrated life arising spontaneously from non-life. Despite decades of research, scientists and researchers have not observed even the simplest living cell forming naturally from chemicals. Even when they design (using intelligence) experiments to do so, they have all failed to make life. From this perspective, abiogenesis or chemical evolution is in stark contradiction with this principle law of biology.

The Law of Biogenesis; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

The Problem Of Homochirality

Living systems use molecules with a specific handedness (this is called “chirality”)—right-handed or left-handed (as if is looking in a mirror). For example, amino acids in life are almost exclusively left-handed. Thus, life utilizes homochirality or uniform chirality because it uses virtually all left-handed amino acids.

Having right-handed amino acids are usually lethal. They are used in venom for instance. Although some are popping up for unique specified purposes.[1]

Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

However, natural chemical processes produce a mixture of left- and right-handed molecules. Not only is chemical evolution not even close to being observed, but adherents who push abiogenesis ideas struggle to explain how life could arise with the left-handed uniformity which is required for biological function.

The Origin Of Genetic Information Remains Unexplained

Chemical evolution requires not just chemicals, but organized information. DNA functions like a coded instruction set that directs cellular processes. From a creationist viewpoint, information is best explained by the God of the Bible, not unguided processes. There is no known natural mechanism that can produce the kind of specified, complex, functional information found in living and growing organisms from purely random chemistry.

The Instability Of Proposed Early Environments

Many abiogenesis models depend on specific conditions (such as a carefully balanced atmosphere or protected environments), but these conditions are often unrealistic or mutually incompatible. For example, the chemicals needed to form life can also destroy each other under the same conditions.

Water, which is necessary for life, also breaks down many of the molecules needed to build it—Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith once a book (The Creation Of Life; A Cybernetic Approach To Evolution) specifically on this very subject in 1970 and the water problem is still a crucial devastation to chemical evolution after all these years.[2]

Chemical Evolution Cannot Produce The Complexity Of Life

Even the simplest cell is extraordinarily complex, containing DNA, RNA, proteins, and molecular machines working together in a coordinated system. DNA itself carries vast amounts of specified information, comparable to of an advanced language or code.

Random chemical reactions do not generate meaningful, information-rich systems. Efforts like the Miller-Urey experiment produced some amino acids under controlled conditions, but they did not come close to forming living cells or the information systems required for life. Let’s discuss the Miller-Urey experiment for a moment because many think this was a good stepping stone to make life. But it wasn’t.

Miller-Urey Experiment Failed

The Miller-Urey experiment (1953) did not come close to producing life and actually highlights major problems for abiogenesis.

First, the experiment produced only a few simple amino acids, not life. Amino acids are merely building blocks of proteins, and proteins themselves are only one component of a living cell. A functioning cell requires complex systems including DNA, RNA, membranes, replication ability, and coordinated molecular machinery. The experiment never produced these higher levels of organization, let alone a self-replicating organism.

Second, the amino acids formed were a mixture of left-handed and right-handed (racemic) molecules. Living organisms use almost exclusively left-handed amino acids. This uniformity, again called homochirality, is essential for biological function. The experiment did not solve this problem and instead showed that natural processes produce the wrong kind of mixture for life.

Miller-Urey experiment replica in a classroom; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Third, the experimental conditions were unrealistic. The apparatus used a carefully controlled environment with a strongly reducing atmosphere (methane, ammonia, hydrogen), which many origin-of-life researchers (evolutionists themselves) now reject as representative of their proposal of what the early earth would have been like in their view. In addition, the system included a trap to remove products from the reaction chamber so they would not be destroyed by the ongoing electrical sparks. Without this intelligent intervention, the same energy source that formed the amino acids would also break them down.

Fourth, the experiment required deliberate design and guidance. Scientists selected the gases, controlled the temperature, applied energy, and protected the products. This demonstrates that intelligence was necessary even to produce simple molecules, which undermines the idea that unguided natural processes could generate life. It simply defeated the purpose of the experiment!

Lastly, the experiment did not address the origin of information. Even if amino acids form, they must be arranged into specific sequences to produce functional proteins, and those proteins must be encoded by DNA. The Miller-Urey experiment provided no mechanism for generating this kind of specified, functional information.

The Miller-Urey experiment shows that while simple organic molecules can be formed under controlled conditions, it fails to demonstrate any realistic pathway to life or living systems.

Lack Of Major Observational Or Experimental Advances Since Miller-Urey

Despite advances in chemistry and molecular biology, no experiment has successfully demonstrated a plausible pathway from non-life to life. And I’ll go one step further, each of these experiments require intelligent people to design them in an attempt to make life.

Even if they were to succeed, they are only copying what God has already made by studying the blueprints of life using their God-given intellect. This seems to go against the stated purpose of no intelligence was involved (i.e., no God) to make life.

To do the experiment properly would be to let chemical be natural, without design, or prompting. It defeats the purpose of letting researchers manipulate conditions in highly controlled laboratories. Yet even then, they still fail to produce anything remotely close to life. When understood, abiogenesis remains a speculative assumption that violates the laws of science.

Conclusion

Abiogenesis—chemical evolution—is the hypothesis that life arose from non-life through natural processes, but it fails scientifically and biblically. It contradicts Scripture and the Law of Biogenesis. But every aspect of life arising naturally on its own in accidental or random fashion is more of a hoped miracle than a reality.

Biblically, life is the result of God’s direct creation, consistent with the testimony of the 66 books of Scripture.

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist defending 6-day creation and opposing evolution since 1998. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields.

---

[1] Sarah Everts, Medical Mystery: Mirror Images of Amino Acids Provide Clues to Schizophrenia, Stroke and Lobster Sex, Scientific American, Vol. 308 No. 5 (May 2013), p. 78.

[2] A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Creation Of Life; A Cybernetic Approach To Evolution, H. Shaw Publishers, Wheaton, IL., 1970.

Too Many Theories?

Too Many Theories?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, April 15, 2026 (Donate)

Letter, unedited:

I have been visiting your website pretty regularly for about a year. I am amazed by the time and energy you put in attempting to refute common scientific facts. Over the last year I have read no less than three contrived theories dealing with the speed of light and how gravity can explain a 6000 year old universe. If I understand you correctly, light was faster, created already on its way or we are sitting in a gravity well causing a time dilation.

It appears that you skew science to fit into what you think is true. It seems that the body of evidence for evolutionary biology is at a minimum overwhelming. The evidence agrees with all the observations from the different sects of science. Molecular biology confirms that DNA is the building blocks of life. Quantum physics explains the interactions of particles and justifies changes (mutations) within DNA. Archeology illustrates the layering of the fossil record exactly as we would expect, but you guys don’t want to see or believe what is.

J.P., U.S.

Response:

DNA; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Thank you for contacting the ministry. Please see my comments below and note that they are said with sincerity and respect.

I have been visiting your website pretty regularly for about a year.

Thanks, I hope it has been challenging you.

I am amazed by the time and energy you put in attempting to refute common scientific facts.

The reason some people say this is usually that they fail to understand the difference between a “fact” and an “interpretation of a fact”. For example, a fact would be that a cow has DNA. A [false] interpretation is that “the cow evolved from a microbe a long time ago when no one was there to observe the process because it has DNA.”

Over the last year I have read no less than three contrived theories dealing with the speed of light and how gravity can explain a 6000 year old universe. If I understand you correctly, light was faster, created already on its way or we are sitting in a gravity well causing a time dilation.

Scientific thought thrives on competing models, even models that respect the 6,000 year age of the earth. So, I’m not certain why this would bother you. It seems strange that of the “no less than three” models, only one of the three models that were listed is given much credence on the website. Perhaps you have confused this with things that you have read elsewhere.

But on the subject of distant starlight, those who often ask this question are rarely aware that in a big bang, they also have a light travel-time problem (Horizon Problem).[1] The visible universe is estimated at about 46 billion light years across, based on the cosmic light horizon. Yet the universe is only supposed to be about 13–15 billion years old. So, how could distant starlight exchange in such a short time in a uniformitarian framework to make a uniform temperature in the universe[2]?

The Horizon Problem in physics means there is a light-travel time problem in the big bang scenario (and other long age models) and I oppose big bang modes and stand on the biblical model; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Starting from the Bible, there are several potential solutions to the problem.

1.     Speed of Light decay (e.g., researched by Mr. Barry Setterfield): Most creationists reject this now, but we encourage researchers to keep working on it. It ends up with too many problems with all other contestants of the universe changing but the evidence of this is lacking. Furthermore, as people really researched the speed of light over the past three centuries, it really wasn’t changing as previously thought but has remained largely the same. Though the CDK model has problems, even some secular physicists have appealed to a changing speed of light to ameliorate problems with their own models.

2.     Light in Transit (most reject this as well): This is the idea that the starlight was already in transit when God created the stars. However, stars blow up into supernovas like SN 1987a, etc. and none of this would be real, but merely starlight made to appear like a star and a supernova, etc. This seems far too deceptive, so most creationists have rejected this idea. 

3.     Relativistic models:

a.     Dr. Russell Humphreys (White Hole Cosmology based on God stretching the heavens. According to Einstein, if you stretch the fabric of space, you get a time change. Many passages mention this: Job 26:7, Isaiah 40:22, Zechariah 12:1, etc. This model works well with distant objects but things closer to our galaxy, it doesn’t seem to work well.[3]

b.     Dr. John Hartnett: Similar to Humphreys’ relativistic model with a bit more miraculous attributed to it during creation week.[4] He also has a model where he utilizes Carmellian Physics. But this model actually assumes Dr. Jason Lisle’s model [below] to work it out. Dr. Lisle first submitted this in the peer review years ago.[5] 

4.     Lisle-Einstein Synchrony Convention Model or ASC (Anisotropic Synchrony Convention): This is based on an alternative convention that is position based physics (think time zones) as opposed to velocity-based physics. Einstein left open both options but did most of his work on velocity based, and so have most physicists since him. 

Dr. Jason Lisle built on this position-based physics and the one direction speed of light which cannot be known and it solves distant starlight. Einstein pointed out that time is not constant in the universe, so our simple equation [Speed = Distance X Time] is not so simple anymore. But this model is based on something quite “simple”. Think of it like this:  You leave on a plane in New York at 1 PM and you land in L.A. at 1 PM. But you might say, “The flight took about 5 hours when you rode on the plane”. 

If you ride a massless light beam time goes to zero and it is an instantaneous trip according to general relativity; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Here is the difference: according to Einstein, when you approach the speed of light time goes to zero. So, if you rode on top of a light beam from a star that was billions of light years away to earth, it took no time for you to get here. So that 5 hour flight was a “no hour” flight for light. Based on this convention-based model, light left distant stars and arrived on earth in no time and this fulfills God’s statement that these lights were to give light on the earth in Genesis 1:14. Of course, the physics is more complicated than this, but this analogy should give you an idea of how the model works.[6] 

5.     Miraculous/Future models (we would leave open miracles or future models as well.) 

Of course there are other models. Although the question of distance has been argued for many years, few today argue along the lines of distance being the only reason for alleged long ages: 

1. Parallax (Earth is on one side of sun; view stars. Then when earth is on the other side of the sun; view stars – it makes a very small triangle and we can calculate the distances. This is called parallax.
2. Red Shift: Some stars are so far away that the triangle of parallax does not solve it. So then we move to “red shift” to calculate the distance. Not as accurate but seems to do the job. Some objects, like many quasars, do not work properly with red shift. But these are assumed to be accurate for long distances.

The actual relevant equation is:

ds = c x dt

Here, c is the speed of light, which is constant in vacuum (with respect to any observer) according to relativity, ds represents distance, and dt represents time. Many fail to realize that the flow of time is not constant in the universe but can change due to different circumstances, such as velocity frame dilation or the presence of a gravitational field.

When the fabric of space is stretched, the differential for time must also change, as c is constant. Interesting that God often stated that He stretched or stretches out the heavens: Job 26:7, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 44:24, Zechariah 12:1, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, and Jeremiah 10:12.

The relativistic models are working with this concept. Interestingly, the secular models often appeal to inflation of the universe as a conjecture to try to solve their starlight problem. It is puzzling why we get criticized for discussing the stretching of space, when secular scientists do the same thing.

Then there is cosmological time zone conventions, which uses an entirely different perspective from the time dilation models. And this solves distant starlight.

But as biblical Christians, we also leave open the possibility for miraculous events, considering this was done during Creation Week. God can create stars on Day 4 and have the light arrive at earth using miraculous means. This is not to be confused with light-created-in-transit, which we reject, as the light we would see if such an idea were true would not actually be from a star and God is not deceptive in any way and God saying these things were to put light on the earth would not necessarily be true.

It appears that you skew science to fit into what you think is true.

Many creationists would argue the same about evolutionists. However, the concepts of “science” and “truth” are really only meaningful in a biblical creation worldview. Apart from the biblical God, what would be the objective basis for such things? Jesus even said:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6, NKJV).

Science, which came out of a Christian worldview, is an excellent methodology that confirms the Bible’s teachings. For example, the Law of Biogenesis says that life comes from life. We expect this, since all animals today are descended from the originals which were created by God. It is the same with humans.

Law of Biogenesis; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

My life came from my parents, who in turn came from their parents, back to the first parents, Adam and Eve (Hebrews 7:9-10). Eve’s life came from Adam, and Adam’s came from God, who is the ultimate life-giving source.

In an evolutionary worldview, life ultimately arose from non-life. This has never been repeated and violates the Law of Biogenesis.

It seems that the body of evidence for evolutionary biology is at a minimum overwhelming.

Such as? Besides, all evidence is interpreted in light of a worldview. It’s hardly surprising that evolutionists think that the evidence supports their position, and creationists think the evidence confirms creation. So, the real question is, “which worldview can make sense of science at all?” We have shown that only the Bible can.

The evidence agrees with all the observations from the different sects of science.

Evidence doesn’t agree or disagree or make conclusions. You are falsely giving human qualities to things that don’t have them. This is called the fallacy of reification. People interpret facts and observations as evidence. Such inanimate things simply can’t do that.

Molecular biology confirms that DNA is the building blocks of life.

DNA does contain information that generates the proteins of organisms and is essential to life. I fail, however, to see how this necessarily supports molecules-to-man evolution. This is what is expected from an intelligent Creator God.

Quantum physics explains the interactions of particles and justifies changes (mutations) within DNA.

We agree that quantum physics explains the interactions of (subatomic) particles, but what does that have to do with errors in the copies of the DNA during the replication process at the molecular level? Since mutations are allegedly random (outside of programmed mutations which is a design features in some critters), they cannot generate the information necessary to drive particles-to-people evolution.

Archeology illustrates the layering of the fossil record exactly as we would expect, but you guys don’t want to see or believe what is.

Since archaeology is the study of the remains/artifacts of peoples and their culture, then are you agreeing with the ministry that people have been around throughout the duration of time that the fossil layers have been laid down? Perhaps you mean that geologists illustrate your point, though the fossil record is not as “supportive” of evolution as many seem to think. In fact, creation geologists see quite well that the fossil record (layering and all) is excellent evidence for the worldwide Flood of Noah’s day. Geological layers don’t speak for themselves.

I encourage you to carefully consider the implications of the position you are espousing. Life has never been observed to come from non-life; no one has ever observed millions of years of progress; no one has even observed a single-celled organism, such as a protozoa, evolve into a zebra. When you realize how bankrupt the view of molecules-to-man evolution is, consider the claims in the Bible. An encouraging passage is Jesus’s statement about the joy among angels when people accept His free gift of salvation and repent:

“Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:10).

It doesn’t matter how many steps in the wrong direction you have taken, it is only one step back to receive Christ as Lord of your life.

With kindness, God bless.

Bodie

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist defending 6-day creation and opposing evolution since 1998. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields. Originally at Answers in Genesis; Edited; Republished by permission.

---

[1] Light Travel Time: a problem for the big bang, Robert Newton, September 1, 2003, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v25/n4/light-travel-time.

[2] Some may appeal to an ad hoc solution such as “inflation” where the universe rapidly expands for no reason, then suddenly slows for no reason, but this still doesn’t solve the Horizon problem. 

[3] See Dr. Humphreys’ book Starlight and Time for more details.

[4] See A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem, Dr. John Hartnett, TJ 17(2):98-102, 2003.

[5] Hartnett’s was presented at the ICC  in 2008 (International Creation on Creationism) see: Starlight, Time, and the New Physics in the 2008 Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, Ed. Dr. Andrew Snelling, 2008.

[6] For more see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/distant-starlight  (Distant Starlight: Anisotropic Synchrony Convention) and the technical journal article: ASC – A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/ anisotropic-synchrony-convention