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:
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]?
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”.
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:
- 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.
- 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.
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
