Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about Red ...

Page 1 of 18

The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about

Red Shift

The question that is becoming the number one question being asked of me after our
presentations is: “How can the universe be billions of light years across and
only be 6,000 years old?”

One of the single greatest differences between Young Earth Creationists (YEC)
and old earth atheistic Evolutionists, Theistic Evolutionists, Progressive Creationists
and Intelligent Design advocates is the issue of time. YECs believe that for both
excellent scientific and Biblical reasons the earth and universe are about 6,000
years old. The other groups accept and promote that the earth and universe are old;
in the range of 4.5 to 5.0 billion years for the earth (the general consensus being 4.6
billion) and 12 to 20 billion years for the universe (the general consensus being
around 14.6 billion). [For some reason unknown to me, the numbers ending in .6
always appeal to these people as sounding more scientific.]

I have enumerated in other Bible Labs some of the over 200+ Geochronometers
that demonstrate that there is ample scientific evidence for a young earth and
universe. What so many people do not realize is that old earth/universe advocates
only have five to twelve pieces of evidence that they say may be used to suggest
that the earth/universe are old.

Perhaps the two most often mentioned reasons that they put forth for an old
earth/universe (after simply saying: “Well, it just looks old.”) are: 1) that the universe
appears to be between 12 and 20 billion light years in radius and the speed of light
is a constant; and, 2) that the red shift of light (the Doppler Effect applied to light)
supports the concept of a “Big Bang” as the cause of the universe.

Why do they say the earth and universe are old? They believe that if these two
things are true; then the universe must be 12 to 20 billion years old in order for light
at its present velocity to reach us from the most distant galaxies and quasars; and,
that the universe came into existence as the result of a totally naturalistic
mechanistic cause (without them being able to explain where the mass and energy
for the explosion came from!), that the red shift of light is caused by objects in space
moving away from a central point in the universe at very high speeds.

The idea that the speed of light is a constant is the chief actor in the “plot” for old
earth/universe advocates to claim that the earth and universe are old. But, are
constants really constants? Is the red shift of light in the universe only caused
by objects moving away from us? Is the speed of light a true constant? Are
the earth and universe billions of years old? Does the red shift of light indicate
that the universe is the result of a Big Bang, or does it prove that the earth is
at the center of the universe? Are there other scientifically viable reasons for the
astronomical evidences that we see and would they, if properly understood, support
a young age of the earth and universe consistent with the Biblical account of a
recent creation?

These questions are highly controversial and there is no absolute clear consensus
as to the answers. There are, however, substantial reasons to believe that the
speed of light is not a true constant over time, and that the red shift of light may well
demonstrate the absolute accuracy of the Biblical account of a recent creation!

We were all taught that there are constant values at “work” in nature and that these
constants may be used to discover great new insights to the inner workings of the

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7 6/11/2008
Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about Red ... Page 2 of 18

universe. Indeed, the reliance upon natural constants is a cornerstone of scientific

research. Mathematical and scientific constants allow us to run our great modern
industries.

There is, however, a great difference between a scientific law, i.e., The Law of
Gravity, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Laws of Motion, the Laws of Genetics,
and the value of a natural constant which is merely a mathematical number or
value. Laws in science are immutable, constants may not be.

In order to better understand the situation let us first discuss the vast size of the
known universe. A light year (the distance light travels in one year at the current
speed of light) is approximately 5.78 trillion miles. A star and planetary solar
system would have a diameter of about 0.0015 light years. A Star Cluster, a
local group of stars usually consisting of 100 to 1,000 stars, would have a diameter
of between 10 to 100 light years. A Star Cluster would contain between 100,000
to several million stars with a diameter of between 150 to 500 light years. There
are many Star Clusters within a galaxy.

Galaxies contain from as few as 10 million stars to as many as 1 trillion stars each.
An average-sized galaxy contains 100 billion stars and has a diameter of 50,000
to 60,000 light years. (Our Milky Way Galaxy contains about 200 billion stars and is
about 100,000 light years across.) Our galaxy is in the Local Group consisting of 40
galaxies with a diameter of about 500,000 light years. Going out further, our Local
Group is part of a Galaxy Cluster. Galaxy Clusters contain 50 to 1,000 galaxies
with a diameter of 10 to 15 million light years. Next up in size are the Super
Clusters of galaxies. Super Clusters contain approximately 100 Galaxy Groups and
Galaxy Clusters and have a diameter of 100 to 200 million light years. Continuing
on across the universe we come up to the even larger super structures such as the
“Great Wall;” containing 800,000 galaxies in an area that is 500 million light
years long, 300 million light years wide, and only 15 million light years thick.
Finally, as we reach the edge of the known universe, we find that there are about
100 billion+ galaxies that we know of, and I stress that is just the ones we know
about, there could be easily twice that number or more.

Between the years 2000 and 2005, the size of the known universe has been
variously estimated to be between 12 and 20 billion light years in radius, or 24 to
40 billion light years (that is 1.5 X 1028 inches) in diameter. The evolutionary and
theistic evolutionary position is that the speed of light is a constant and thus this
information indicates an age for the universe between 12 and 20 billion years.

The first question we must address then is are constants in nature really
constant? A review of the scientific literature between the years 2000 and 2005
yields an ample number of papers indicating that natural values that were
considered constant for a 100 years or more are in fact not constant. I will only
mention three of these (two evolutionist and one creationist) as a Google search for
others may be done by anyone that wishes to do so.

In the Science News, Vol. 160, October 6, 2001, the evolutionist Peter Weiss
wrote an article entitled Constant Changes - If a constant of nature can vary, then so
might laws of physics. I will quote extensively from this article as it sets a very good
stage for our further look at this problem.

“Sometimes it’s the tiniest differences that change everything. This summer,
astrophysicists reported tantalizing evidence of just such a discrepancy.”

“Using one of the world’s largest telescopes, a team of Australian, British, and U.S.
astrophysicists observed clouds of gas in space backlit by beams of radiation from

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7 6/11/2008
Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about Red ... Page 3 of 18

ancient, super powerful quasars.”

“By doing so, they have found evidence that one of the constants of nature, which
are never ever supposed to vary, was smaller billions of years ago than it is today.
The quantity that was measured, known as alpha, wasn’t smaller by much - less
than 1 part in 100,000 - but the finding has sent tremors through physics and
astronomy.”

“‘Atoms, the whole periodic table, and the way it exists are dependent on the value’
of alpha, notes Barry N. Taylor of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg, MD. ‘If alpha didn’t have the value it has,
Earth as we know it wouldn’t exist,’ he adds.”

“. . . Although no flaw has been found so far in the study, researchers are rushing to
measure alpha’s ancient value by other approaches that wouldn’t be prone to the
same potential sources of error.”

“Alpha is known formally as the fine-structure constant. . . . NIST defines this

constant as ‘the strength of the electromagnetic force that governs how electrically
charged elementary particles (e.g., electrons, muons) and light (photons)
interact.’” [Emphasis added]

“Since the universe was born some 15 billion years ago, it has ceaselessly
expanded and changed. Nonetheless, a few characteristics of the cosmos appear to
have remained immutable across all of space and time. These fundamental
constants of nature include alpha, the gravitational constant, and the speed of
light in a vacuum.”

“The constants have been viewed as fixtures of reality. They are part of the
foundation of physics, embedded deeply in both the classical science and quantum
mechanics, as well as in relativity and the so-called standard model of particle
physics.”

“If the measured variation in alpha turns out to be real, then one of the most
basic assumptions of science - that the laws of physics are the same everywhere
and at all times - will prove untrue, notes Michael S. Turner of the university of
Chicago.”

“’Constants are invented by man to help him describe the natural world that he
sees.’ . . . points out Taylor, a physicist who since the 1960s has been a leader in
assessing the values of constants.”

“ . . . ‘There’s a whole industry of people thinking about the variation of

constants,’ Taylor notes.”

“Since the late 1960s, observers have been checking to see whether the spacings
between the absorption lines in quasar spectra differ slightly from those observed in
laboratory experiments. According to theory, alpha is one of the factors that affects
the size of the spacings. So, if alpha during the earlier phases of the universe was
slightly off from today’s value, that difference might show up in the spectra of quasar
light traversing gas clouds on its way to Earth.”

“That’s where the new spectral measurements that Webb and his colleagues
harvested come in. In the August 27 [2001] Physical Review Letters, they present
data suggesting that the spacings between absorption lines for several types of
atoms 8 to 12 billion years ago were different than they are today.”

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7 6/11/2008
Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about Red ... Page 4 of 18

“ . . . More evidence of the discrepancy appears to be on the way. Webb says

that a preliminary analysis of an additional set of observations twice as extensive as
the one described in the August 27 report also indicates that alpha was once a wee
bit smaller than today.”

“ . . . Adds Taylor, ‘To the best of my knowledge, there’s been no definitive

observation of a time variation in a constant. This case may be the strongest that
we’ve seen.’”

“One of the most profound implications for science would be that the
presumption of immutability for the laws of physics may be wrong.” [Emphasis
added]

So, according to evolutionary believing scientists the laws of physics and the
immutability of constants is in question. Weiss continues his article with a most
revealing paragraph which illustrates the faith component of the evolutionary
worldview.

“As an example, Taylor points out the accepted theoretical claim that elementary
particles known as the W boson and the Z boson had no mass when the universe
first exploded into being. Modern accelerator experiments have shown, however,
that both are very massive today. Even so, physicists have not concluded that
the laws of physics have changed. Instead, they envision that as the universe
evolved according to the steady laws of physics, the inherent possibility for the W
and Z bosons to become massive was realized. Something similar may be behind
the apparent discrepancy between ancient and modern values of alpha.” [Emphasis
added]

The whole situation is far more complex and interwoven than you might expect and
the ramifications are huge. We need to understand that even the smallest change
in alpha really does have a serious impact on us. It is in the components that are
used to calculate alpha that we start to see the true picture. Read on as Weiss
continues his article.

“Complicating the interpretation of a once-smaller alpha, the quantity’s magnitude

relies on the values of other fundamental constants. Those are the size of the
electron’s charge, the speed of light, and Planck’s constant, which defines the
scales at which quantum phenomena operate.” [Emphasis added]

So, if the speed of light were different in the past, then it would have an effect on the
value of alpha. If the speed of light were different in the past it would have a
profound effect on our view of the age of the universe. If the speed of light were
different in the past, life as evolutionists envision it would be impossible. It is the
value of the speed of light that we are delving into and we are trying to determine
if the speed of light is a true constant over time or not.

Weiss’ conclusion is equally noteworthy: “If the slight shift in alpha measured by
Webb and his colleagues holds under further scrutiny, then scientists may have to
forgo their long-held ideal that the constants of nature are perpetually
unchanging.” [Emphasis added]

Weiss is not the only evolutionist that is questioning the constancy of scientific
constants. The evolutionists John D. Barrow and John K. Webb (mentioned in the
above article) wrote an article for the June 2005 [Un-]Scientific American magazine
entitled “Inconstant Constants - Do the inner workings of nature change with time?”

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7 6/11/2008
Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about Red ... Page 5 of 18

Barrow and Webb start their article by writing: “Some things never change.
Physicists call them the constants of nature. Such quantities as the velocity of light,
c, Newton’s constant of gravitation, G, and the mass of the electron, me, are
assumed to be the same at all places and times in the universe. They form the
scaffolding around which the theories of physics are erected, and they define the
fabric of the universe.”

“And yet, remarkably, no one has ever successfully predicted or explained any
of the constants. Physicists have no idea why they take the special numerical
values that they do. In SI units [International System of Units], c is 299,792,458; G
is 6.673 X 10-11; and me is 9.10938188 X 10-31 - numbers that follow no discernible
pattern. The only thread running through the values is that if many of them were
even slightly different, complex atomic structures such as living beings would
not be possible.” [Emphasis added]

You and I are, by definition, “atomic structures” according to these evolutionists.

You, we, I could not exist if these values were not what they are today! That seems
pretty important to me, and I am sure you feel the same way, too.

Barrow and Webb continue: “The desire to explain the constants has been one of
the driving forces behind efforts to develop a complete unified description of
nature, or ‘theory of everything [T. O. E.].’ Physicists have hoped that such a
theory would show that each of the constants of nature could have only one logically
possible value. It would reveal an underlying order to the seemingly arbitrariness of
nature.” [Emphasis added]

Again, we see the faith statements of evolutionists creeping out from inside this
article. They are groping in the dark for a perfect naturalistic mechanistic cause for
everything that exists in nature. They see the perfect order that exists in the
universe and they desperately want to believe that it came about starting from
chaos (without first explaining where the mass and energy came from) by pure
random chance.

Evolutionists adamantly reject the possibility of the supernatural origin of the

universe and all it contains. They reject real science because real science does
not agree with their personal philosophy. For them there can be no creator, no
designer, and no outside intelligence guiding and caring for His creation.

Christians do have a complete and perfect T. O. E. The Christian Biblical

Worldview position is that there is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and
omnijudicious Creator God, the One revealed to us in the Bible, who sets these
“arbitrary” values because they are the perfect values for the existence and
maintenance of human, animal and plant life. We believe that this Creator God sent
His Son to die for our sins and that He rose again that we, too, may live eternally
with Him.

Instead of this blessed hope, Barrow and Webb write: “In recent years, however, the
status of the constants has grown more muddled, not less.”

In the next paragraph of their article, Barrow and Webb give the reader an insight to
the fairy tale telling methodology used by evolutionists when they are trying to build
each other up in “the faith.”

“. . . physicists have also come to appreciate that the values of many of the
constants may be the result of mere happenstance, acquired during random
events and elementary particle processes early in the history of the universe. . . .

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7 6/11/2008
Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about Red ... Page 6 of 18

So far researchers have no idea why our combination was selected.”

“No further explanation would then be possible for many of our numerical constants
other than that they constitute a rare combination that permits consciousness to
evolve.” [Emphasis added]

If this kind of psycho-babble alarms you, it alarms me, too. This article and most of
them in the [Un-]Scientific American (also a common a practice in the other
evolutionary magazines - National Geographic, Smithsonian, Discovery, etc.) use
the same kind of psychobabble to indoctrinate those who would be willingly
indoctrinated.

Again, looking at the problems that inconstant constants would have for those of us
in the real world, Barrow and Webb note:

“If alpha had a different value, all sorts of vital features of the world around us
would change. If the value were lower, the density of solid atomic matter would fall,
molecular bonds would break at lower temperatures, and the number of stable
elements in the periodic table could increase. If alpha were too big, small atomic
nuclei could not exist, because the electrical repulsion of their protons would
overwhelm the strong nuclear force binding them together. A value as big as 0.1
would blow apart carbon.” [Emphasis added]

There you go again, if alpha is not constant then “carbon based units” (us) would
blow apart. That is not a pretty thought.

Toward the end of their article Barrow and Webb get back to their “home field” when
they assume a Big Bang start that accounts for everything in the universe. In
order to prop up the Big Bang scenario they also assume the existence of the
nonexistent “dark energy” and “dark matter.”

“. . . although changes in the fine-structure constant [alpha] do not affect the

expansion of the universe significantly, the expansion affects alpha. . . . About six
billion years ago dark energy took over and accelerated the expansion, making it
difficult for all physical influences to propagate through space. So alpha became
nearly constant again.”

Dark energy and dark matter are the products of dark minds. They have never
been observed and are invented by evolutionists to try to prop up the Big Bang
theory because without them the Big Bang is a Big Dud and they know it. As we
shall see later, the Big Bang origination of the universe is terminally ill and should
pass away within the next decade. The funeral eulogy is already being written.

In the last paragraph of their article, Barrow and Webb reveal the religious nature of
evolutionism:

“The constants are a tantalizing mystery. Every equation of physics is filled with
them, and they seem so prosaic that people tend to forget how unaccountable their
values are. Their origin is bound up with some of the grandest questions of modern
science, from the unification of physics to the expansion of the universe. They may
be the superficial shadow of a structure larger and more complex than the three-
dimensional universe we witness around us.” [Emphasis added]

I could not agree more with that last statement. The universe cannot be the reason
for its own existence. There is “a structure larger and more complex than the three-
dimensional universe we witness around us.” What Barrow and Webb, and all their

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7 6/11/2008
Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about Red ... Page 7 of 18

colleagues, will not admit, but do intrinsically know, is that there is a Creator God
that brought the universe into being. (Romans 1:18+) He made the universe less
than Himself; gave us His eyewitness account of when and how He created it; and
constantly reveals Himself to us in a personal and loving way.

So, are all natural constants constant? The answer is most apparently “no.” This
answer has tremendous impact on whether the earth/universe are old or young from
a scientific viewpoint. If those values which are critical for life to exist in the present
were indeed different in the past then an old earth/universe is not possible. This
information may only be used to support a young earth/universe!

Is the red shift of light in the universe only caused by objects moving away
from us at high speed? This is, after all, an essential given if the Big Bang were to
be true. The Bible also speaks of objects in the universe as having been “stretched”
out after the initial moment of creation.

There are significant differences between the evolutionary view of a Big Bang and
the Biblical view of the heavens being stretched out at creation.

Both start with a universe that comes into existence from nothing.

The Big Bang theories state that first there was nothing and then it exploded.
There is no attempt in the various Big Bang theories to account for the sudden
appearance of energy and matter, much less time. The theories require that
everything starts from an infinitesimal point. In the Big Bang theories the energy
must come from within the universe and proceed outward. These theories also
require that the expansion continues today.

The Bible informs us that God spoke the universe and all it contains into exist
where there was nothing before; God created mass, energy and time in a vacuum
where there were no previously existing materials. In the Bible there are eleven
references to God stretching out the heavens from the initial time of creation. These
references are: Job 9:8; Ps. 104:2; Is. 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13; Jer.
10:12, 51:15; and Zech. 12:1.

The Hebrew word for stretched is natah. The word does not refer to an explosion, a
violent flinging outward, or a stretching that encounters an increasing resistance (as
a spring or rubber band). Natah is the effortless stretching out of one’s hand. It is
similar to the way a person cuts a daisy chain of paper dolls from a single piece of
paper and then effortlessly opens the paper to reveal all the dolls.

The Biblical account of creation does not start from an infinitesimal point. The
energy of creation does not come from within the universe; it flowed into the
universe until the stretching ended.

Which explanation fits the facts best? Which explanation does the evidence
support?

A Big Bang would produce an expansion, but it would cause a decelerating

expansion over time as the energy was used up and spread out. It would not
produce an accelerating expansion. Stretching could produce an accelerating
expansion.

For galaxies to exist, black holes (billions of times the mass of our Sun) are required
to provide the massive gravity needed to hold the stars together in a group. [Yes,
black holes exist and they do have a created function!] The Big Bang advocates say

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7 6/11/2008
Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about Red ... Page 8 of 18

that matter was spread out uniformly for the first 300,000 supposed years of time. If
this uniformity were true then there would be no galaxies because black holes
would not have formed.

The Bible informs us that the Sun, Moon and stars (all galaxies with black holes)
were formed on Day Four of the Creation Week and were then stretched out.

According to the physical laws governing stellar velocities, stars should travel faster
the nearer they are to the center of their galaxies. Observational data proves that all
stars in the outer parts of their galaxies are, in fact, traveling faster than those
near the centers of their galaxies. This is in direct conflict with the prediction of
these stellar velocity laws. Could this be because these stars were once closer to
their galaxy centers and moved outward because of the heavens being “stretched
out?”

A similar question arises concerning tight galaxy clusters. Again, observational data
has shown that these galaxy clusters are traveling much faster than they
should be based on their present distance from their cluster’s center of mass.

There are clouds of glowing, blue gas, called helium-2 nebulas visible throughout
the universe. These clouds may only be set aglow by stars hot enough to strip two
electrons from each surrounding helium atom. There are no known stars that qualify
to do this, nor should “newly evolved” stars be hot enough to do the job. The
conditions of a compressed universe “in the heavens” being stretched out would
leave such evidence.

The Big Bang Model requires that within a fraction of a second the universe
expanded at a rate of trillions of billions of times faster than the current speed of
light. The Bible describes the stretching out of the heavens by God after their
creation. Neither explanation may be tested directly; nor are these events
repeatable. But, we must ask ourselves which one do the facts fit best?

One piece of evidence used to shore up the Big Bang Model was the existence of
the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. In 1989, the COBE (Cosmic
Background Explorer) satellite measured this residual heat, thought by evolutionists
to be the remnant of the heat left over from the Big Bang. The satellite measured the
heat as uniform in all directions at a temperature of 2.735 degrees Kelvin (just
above absolute zero).

At first, this was thought to be in line with Big Bang predictions; however, if the Big
Bang were true, the universe could not be uniform in all directions. If stars and
galaxies were to form by gravitational attraction of matter, then the universe had to
be “lumpy.”

Sure enough, in 1992, a team of evolutionary scientists massaged the data from
COBE and found that, “eureka,” there were actually variations of 1 in 100,000 of a
degree Kelvin across the universe. This was enough variation to convince them that
larger structures, stars and galaxies, could have evolved from these minute
differences.

Of course, one problem with all this is that the COBE satellite was incapable of
measuring this small a difference in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
They simply found what they wanted to find, whether it was there or not.

More problems for the idea of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation data
variation supporting the Big Bang concept was reported on February 2, 2004 by a

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7 6/11/2008
Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about Red ... Page 9 of 18

team at the University of Durham.

The replacement satellite for COBE was called Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP). It was launched on June 30, 2001. It was much more sensitive to
heat variations than COBE, and capable of measuring the variations that had
been “found” earlier in the COBE data.

The team from Durham found that the reported variations in the cosmic background
radiation data were actually distortions caused by clouds of gas through which
the radiation had traveled. This information alone might well seal the demise of
the Big Bang Theory. The evolutionist’s idea of a hot big bang inflationary model
may well be doomed.

Concerning the precision of newer instruments to yield the answers that

evolutionists so desperately want, the Royal Astronomical Society press release on
February 2, 2004 stated:

“But if correct, they [newer measurements] suggest that the rumours that we are
living in a ‘New Era of Precision Cosmology’ may prove to be premature! ‘Our
results may ultimately undermine the belief that the Universe is dominated by
an elusive cold dark matter particle and the even more enigmatic dark energy,’
said Professor Shanks.” [Emphasis added]

There they are again - dark energy, dark matter and darkened minds. Dark
energy and dark matter are just concepts that are not known to exist, but “are
necessary” to make the Big Bang Model work. The Big Bang Model is in deep
trouble.

Perhaps the single greatest problem for Big Bangers is the singularity problem,
which involves the original cause of the universe and the origin of matter and energy
within space. While the Big Bang theorists attempt to describe the early universe
and what happened during unseen and untestable history, they have so far been
unable to explain why there is a universe to begin with.

The evolutionist’s mechanistic naturalistic theories of the origin of the universe fall
into two general categories: one category where the universe appeared from
nothing without a causal agent, thus denying causality and the First Law of
Thermodynamics (the universal law of the conservation of energy and mass); and
the other category where the universe is infinitely old, thus denying the Second
Law of Thermodynamics (the universal law of energy decay or entropy).

Neither category can be true, and there are still more problems for the Big Bang
Model. The next problem is one of early maturity. When evolutionary believing
astronomers look at distant objects which have high red shift values these
evolutionists assume that the objects were formed early in the history of the
universe. Evolutionists believe that Population III stars were the first stars in the
universe, and they are assumed to have formed several billion years after the
Big Bang occurred.

These stars have never been observed; they are simply presumed to have
existed. The theory continues to say that the Population III stars eventually died
when they exploded as supernovas which distributed dust and elemental particles
throughout space. The dust and other matter from these Population III star
explosions are supposed to have reformed into the Population II stars, which
suffered the same fate as the Population III stars, which in turn provided the mass
for the Population I stars that we see today. Population I stars include our own sun.

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7 6/11/2008
Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about R... Page 10 of 18

The birth and death of stars to produce more stars that die to produce more stars is
supposed to take billions and billions of years according to the Big Bang Model.

R. Cowan wrote Mature before their time, Science News 163(9): 139, 2003. In his
article he described how the Hubble Space Telescope had seen mature spiral and
barred spiral galaxies throughout the universe which had to have formed early after
the Big Bang, but much too soon for the Big Bang Model to be true. We are also
finding that large complex galaxies existed “too early” for the Big Bang Model to be
true. In some cases these large complex galaxies were formed “only” one billion
years after the Big Bang, much too early for such complexity to exist according
to the Model.

Still another recent observation is that the farthest quasars appear to be powered by
massive black holes; but, they are so distant that they would have had to form less
than a billion years after the Big Bang. This is impossible if the Model is true. To
this point the evolutionist L. Ferrarese wrote Feeding the first quasars, Nature 421:
329, 2003. He observed: “Thus, the very existence of quasars at such high red
shifts is a challenge to models of structure formation.”

What is the answer to this early maturity problem? You guessed it - dark matter
“must” make up most of the mass of the universe. Without the gravitational
force of this supposed dark matter there is simply no way to form stars, galaxies,
super massive black holes and quasars so early in the history of the universe. There
is, however, some observational evidence against the existence of dark matter.

[Wouldn’t it simply be easier to believe Genesis 1:1?]

In addition to the major unsolved problem of the early maturity of stars, there is
also a major problem for the evolutionists’ idea of a Big Bang because of the early
maturity of chemical elements.

So far, 25 elements (10 heavier than iron) have been found by spectral analysis of a
“young” distant galaxy. These elements include zinc, germanium and lead.
According to evolutionary assumptions these elements should be less than 2.5
billion years old, but this is too young to suit their purposes. Evolutionists believe
that all elements heavier than boron must have been “created” deep inside stars
through the process of nuclear fusion. These “too young” elements have caused
one evolutionary astronomer to write:

“The presence of these elements, particularly those heavier than iron, in such a
young galaxy is striking. Fundamentally, it seems to indicate that in the galaxies (or
at least in this galaxy) that formed relatively shortly after the big bang, the onset of
star formation and related element production was very rapid.”

Cowan, J., Elements of surprise, Nature 423:29, 2003. [Emphasis added]

What is the answer to their problem? Evolutionists are speculating that massive
stars must have evolved quickly and died quickly. The problem with that is that
according to evolutionists the element germanium is supposed to have been
synthesized inside low-mass stars over a period of billions of years. This situation
puts evolutionists on the horns of a dilemma. You cannot have your cake and
eat it too!

This situation caused the evolutionist R. Cowan to quip: “If this portrait of precocious
galaxies is confirmed by larger studies, astronomers may have to revise the
accepted view of galaxy formation.” Mature before their time, Science News 163

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7 6/11/2008
Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about R... Page 11 of 18

(9):139, 2003

The evolutionary Big Bang Model is becoming ever more strained to the
breaking point. Evolutionary cosmogonists continually have to fabricate just-so
stories to support the Model and the subsidiary ideas are becoming laughable.

While the idea of the evolution of galaxies is difficult enough for them to support,
now they have to devise ways in which it could all have happened quickly. R.
Cowan went on to say in his article Mature before their time:

“In the model, the vast majority of galaxies are relatively late bloomers, taking many
billions of years to pack on mass either by pulling in gas from the surrounding
intergalactic medium or merging with neighboring galaxies. In regions of the
universe that started out particularly dense, this mass-gathering action could begin
sooner than elsewhere. But the standard model still can’t easily account for a large
number of mature or massive galaxies in the early universe.”

Evolutionists are ever more relying on a growing number of hypothetical

inventions to prop up the Big Bang Model. These inventions include, but are not
limited to; dark matter, dark energy and universal inflation. If these inventions of
their minds do not exist, there will be a fatal contradiction between their
observations and their predictions.

There is no other arena of physical science besides evolutionary cosmogony

which would tolerate such a continual appeal to newer and newer hypothetical
inventions as a means of bridging the gap between observation and theory.

Why do they continue to invent this fiction? Because, if they are wrong there is a
Creator God and they would be responsible to Him.

The Big Bang Model also has another problem with its underlying assumptions
and the current speed of light.

Penzias and Wilson discovered the Constant Microwave Background (CMB)

radiation in 1964. They won the Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery in 1978.
As mentioned above, the temperature of this radiation is basically uniform in all
directions throughout the universe (to a precision of 1 in 100,000). In an attempt to
make the universe “lumpy,” an essential condition if stars and galaxies were to
evolve by gravitational accretion, evolutionists had to “find” variations within the
CMB in order for stellar evolution to be true.

What is the problem? If the Big Bang were true, and objects were initially close to
each other, then the heat of the early objects would have radiated quickly from one
area to another and the universe would have come into thermal equilibrium early in
its existence; that is, it would have become uniformly warm quickly. In the Big Bang
scenario, however, objects would be separating rapidly from one another in all
directions. Under that condition, light and its associated heat might have had
enough time to reach earth, but it would not have had enough time to spread from
one remote area of the universe across to the other side of the universe. There
simply has not been enough time for the exchange of information from one side of
the universe to the other. This was labeled the “horizon” problem by A. Lightman in
his book, Ancient Light, Harvard University Press, London, p. 58, 1991.

The scientific observation is simply not consistent with evolutionary

theoretical predictions.

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7 6/11/2008
Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about R... Page 12 of 18

There is also a problem a little closer to home. If the our sun were billions of years
old, then it should have been much cooler and fainter to begin with and it
should be getting hotter and brighter as it gets older. The reason for this is that as
nuclear fuel is burned inside the sun, it should be shrinking; this in turn would cause
the elements in the sun to be squeezed together more tightly; which in turn would
cause the nuclear reactions to speed up over time. There is, however, no evidence
that our sun has ever been cooler and fainter in the past. This has been labeled the
“faint young sun paradox.”

This problem becomes more obvious when we consider that evolutionists postulate
that the life on earth evolved into existence between 3.5 and 4.0 billion supposed
years ago. If these time frames were true, then today our sun would be 25% brighter
than it was back then. The cooler sun back then would have caused temperatures
on the earth’s surface to average about 27F, or below freezing everywhere. To
suggest that life could evolve into existence under this condition is a case of special
pleading.

I have shown previously that natural constants may not be so constant over time;
and, that there is a huge difference between the concepts of the existence of natural
constants and the immutability of scientific laws.

Almost everyone has heard of Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2 (energy is equal to
mass multiplied by the speed of light squared). Indeed, we use it every day to
generate a lot of our electricity from nuclear electric plants. We almost always take
matter and make energy from it. But, we have taken energy and made mass out of
it, too, proving that the formula is accurate and that nothing is lost in the process
regardless of which direction we go within the formula.

This experiment was reported in Photonics Spectra, a trade magazine for the
Photonics Industry. Kathleen G. Tatterson wrote an article entitled “Boom! From
Light Comes Matter,” November, 1997, page 31. In the article she reported how a
team of scientists from Stanford University, the University of Rochester, Princeton
University, and the University of Tennessee, had used the two mile long Stanford
Linear Accelerator to take a high energy electron beam and hit a high energy photon
beam with it. The result was the creation of the first electron-positron pairs via a
“light by light” process. The reaction produces particles of matter. Laws in science
are immutable.

The speed of light, however, is not a constant over time. Starting with
measurements made by the Danish mathematician and astronomer Olaf Roemer
(1644-1710) in 1675 AD, we have been able to measure a slight decay in the speed
of light. This is known as CDK (speed of light decay).

Of more interest may be the fact that in recent decades we have been able to
manipulate the speed of light in various ways.

In July, 2000, scientists at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton reported having
accelerated light beyond the speed of light! Their experiment was published in
the British journal Nature. They shot a laser beam into a glass chamber containing
cesium vapor. The photons from the laser traded energy with the cesium atoms and
created a beam exiting the chamber faster than the light beam had entered the
chamber.

Light is supposed to travel at its highest speed in a vacuum where there is no

resistance, and slower when traveling through any other medium because of the
added resistance. For example, everyone is familiar with light traveling slower in
water than through air. In the NEC experiment the light beam exited the chamber

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7 6/11/2008
Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about R... Page 13 of 18

of cesium vapor before it had even finished entering the chamber.

The difference was truly interesting. The laser beam jumped 60 feet ahead of
where it should have been. In concept this might be considered as the effect
preceding the cause, but this is not exactly correct. The scientific area of study for
accelerating light beyond the speed of light is called superluminal propagation.

The correct interpretation of this research would be that the speed of light is not
constant and that light may be accelerated as any other physical object in the
universe, given the right circumstances and an appropriate energy source.

We have made matter out of energy without any loss; we have accelerated light
beyond the currently accepted speed of light; so, what about slowing the speed of
light down? Has any success been reported on that? No problem; consider it
done!

It all goes back to 1982 in an article written by Dr. Barry Setterfield of Australia
entitled “The Velocity of Light and the Age of the Universe.” In that article he
outlined the fact that the measured speed of light had declined in a smooth curve for
over 300 years.

In 1987 a Stanford Research Institute Report (written by Australian mathematicians

Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield) postulated that a large decay in light speed
had occurred in the past.

Also, in 1987, the Russian theoretical physicist, Dr. V. S. Troitskii working at the
Radio-physical Research Institute in Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia, postulated that a
huge decay in the speed of light had occurred over time. Dr. Troitskii was talking
about the speed of light having been 10 million times faster in the past compared
to what it is today. His work is found in the British journal Astrophysics and Space
Science 139 (1987) 389-411 "Physical Constants and Evolution of the Universe."

In 1998, Albrecht and Joao Magueijo, theoretical physicists at Imperial College,

London, England, also postulated a reduction in light speed. On Nov. 15, 1998, the
London Times published an article called "The speed of light - the fastest thing in
the universe - is getting slower." A measured reduction on the speed of light would
help to solve some of the current problems in cosmogony.

In the February 18 1999 edition of the highly respected (and totally evolutionary)
science magazine Nature, a scientific paper was published that detailed an
experiment in which the speed of light was reduced to 17 meters per second or
a mere 38 miles per hour. This means that you could watch it go by like cars on a
city street.

The experiment was conducted by the Dutch physicist Lene V. Hau and an
international team of researchers from Harvard and Stanford Universities. They sent
light through a sodium vapor that had been cooled to an incredibly low nanokelvin
temperature (that is, to billionths of one degree Kelvin, or almost absolute zero
[absolute zero is defined as -459.67 °F]). Depending upon the exact temperature of
the vapor, the speed of light was reduced to between 72.7 and 38 M.P.H.; or
basically 1/20,000,000th the normal speed of light. In Science News, March 27,
1999, page 207, Dr. Hau and Dr. Stephen E. Harris of Stanford U. reported slowing
light down to a bicyclist's speed, and later reduced the speed of light still further, but
they did not stop it.

By January 2001 Dr. Hau and her associates had worked out a way to stop and

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7 6/11/2008
Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about R... Page 14 of 18

then restart the same light photons. This was also announced in Nature, Jan. 25,
2001. “We park the light pulse in the atom cloud. When we feel like it, we turn the
coupling laser back on . . . and out comes [the original pulse].”

The Science News, Jan. 27, 2001, also reported that two independent teams of
physicists had not only stopped light, but that a third team might be developing a
method that would make light back up! At Kaiserlautern University in Germany,
Dr. Michael Fleischhauer announced a method for stopping light while preserving
the photons. They also parked a light pulse in an atom cloud.

In the same publication, it was reported that Drs. Ronald L. Walsworth, Mikhail D.
Lukin and their associates at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in
Cambridge, MA, had stopped light in a rubidium gas cloud at a temperature of
+80 Celsius. This experiment proved that ultra-low temperatures were not
necessary to achieve similar results. The same announcement was printed in the
Jan. 29, 2001 edition of Physical Review Letters.

Philip R. Hemmer of Hanscom Air Force Base near Boston, MA, heads a group that
has slowed light in solids, rather than in gases (like the others). His group slowed
light to 45 meters per second, just over 100 M.P.H., in an exotic type of crystal.
Similar work was announced at Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, in the
Jan. 22, 2001, Physical Review Letters.

On August 7, 2002, Reuters (August 8, 2002, Canberra Times) announced that

Australian theoretical astrophysicist (and evolutionist) Dr. Paul Davies of Sydney's
Macquarie University, believed that “light has been slowing down since the
creation of the universe.” Dr. Davies went on to suggest that the speed of light
may not be a constant!

In the Jan. 17, 2004, Science News, there was a further report, also announced in
Nature on Dec. 11 2003, that Mikhail D. Lukin of Harvard University and his
associates had found another method for stopping light. They put light into
suspended animation within hot rubidium gas using lasers. This method could lead
to the first quantum computers.

Why are evolutionists so afraid of the public finding out that the speed of light
has slowed down in the past, or that the speed of light may be manipulated
proving that it is not a true constant?

There are two simple answers. First, if the speed of light is not an invariant constant
over time, their assumptions about the age of the earth and universe go flying out
the window. Second, the rate of decay of radioactive elements is directly related to
the speed of light.

If light was faster in the past, then the earth and universe are young and evolution
theories are not true. If the speed of light was faster in the past, then radioactive
elements decayed much faster in the past, and the radioactive dating techniques, so
highly touted by evolutionists, are totally unreliable - they are useless. The
evolutionist’s presupposition of the constancy of the speed of light is an
Achilles Heel for them.

I am reminded of the quote by the Russian Nobel Prize-winning physicist Lev

Landau: “Cosmologists are often wrong, but never in doubt.”

Cosmology is not an exact science. While most scientists use laboratory error
factors measured at 0.00000001% (1 part in 1010) or less; cosmologists and

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7 6/11/2008
Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about R... Page 15 of 18

cosmogonists are happy with error factors of 100% (1 part in 2). For example, the
Hubble Constant, supposedly describing the expansion rate of the universe, is a
value currently accepted with a plus or minus error margin of 12%.

Evolutionists talk about cold dark matter and dark energy as if they “know” they
exist, yet both are unproven. In fact, the most recent research from the
BOOMERANG (Balloon Observations of Millimetric Extragalactic Radiation and
Geophysics) experiment suggests that the universe is filled only with normal
matter, that there are no exotic particles and no cold dark matter.

The great evolutionary theoretical physicist Dr. Stephen Hawking wrote:

“This [Big Bang] picture of the universe . . . is in agreement with all the observational
evidence that we have today,” but he admitted, “Nevertheless, it leaves a number of
important questions unanswered . . . (the origin of the stars and
galaxies).” [Emphasis added]

Excuse me. It leaves in doubt how the stars and galaxies formed? I thought that
this was what the Big Bang was supposed to answer in the first place. Is this the
best that the evolutionists’ best theoretical physicist can come up with?

The Big Bang cosmogonists cannot explain why the universe exists. They cannot
explain the existence of stars and galaxies by using Big Bang reasoning. The Big
Bang theories simply fail the test of being logical rational evidence based reasons
neither for our existence, nor for anything else in the universe.

What then does the red shift of light, seen as we look out into the universe in all
directions, really tell us?

The evolutionist wants to believe that our place in the universe is not special. Yet,
the red shift of light is overwhelming evidence that we do occupy a special place in
the universe. We occupy the center of the universe! This is consistent with the
statements in the Bible.

This conclusion is philosophically unacceptable to evolutionists. For this reason Dr.

Edwin Hubble wrote in his 1937 book The Observational Approach to Cosmology:

“Such a condition [these Doppler shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique
position in the universe, ... But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location
must be avoided at all costs ... is intolerable ... moreover, it represents a
discrepancy with the theory [evolutionary Big Bang] because the theory postulates
homogeneity.” (pp. 50, 51, 59) [Emphasis added]

Hubble did not have the intellectual honesty to allow the hard evidence to lead
him to the obvious conclusion; rather he rejected the hard evidence in order to
support a theory that he believed in and would not give up.

In the 1980’s, the evolutionary astronomer William Tifft at the Steward Observatory
in Tucson, Arizona, studied red shift data from galaxies spread throughout the
universe. He found irrefutable evidence that the red shift of light coming at us
from all directions is quantized; that means that it is coming at us in specific
discrete amounts occurring at specific discrete distances. This data indicates that
the universe has a shell within a shell within a shell concentric configuration.
Therefore, the galaxies are located at points with regular distances between each
shell.

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7 6/11/2008
Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about R... Page 16 of 18

This evidence puts the Milky Way Galaxy (our galaxy) in the center of the
universe! We do occupy a unique place in the universe. This information is
anathema to evolutionists and is absolutely contradictory to the various theories of
galactic evolution.

The astronomer Halton Arp measured the red shift coming from 70 quasars and
demonstrated that the light coming from them was also quantized. They also
followed a predictable pattern.

These measurements have caused great distress among evolution believing

astronomers. So much so, that it caused three of them to have such a dilemma that
they wrote:

“Moreover there are some questions that scientists still do not know how to
ask, let alone answer, scientifically. Was there anything before the Big Bang? Is
there a role for life in the cosmos? Why is there something rather than nothing at
all? Will we ever know?”

Dysona, L., Klebana, M. and Susskinda, L., Disturbing Implications of a

Cosmological Constant, Los Alamos, August 1, 2002.
[Emphasis added]

The reason that they cannot answer the questions they pose is because they
intentionally censor themselves from the source of information that would
give them the answers. They are looking only for the natural answers that will
never give them the correct results. They refuse to consider that there may be a
supernatural source of information that would satisfy their desire for an adequate
answer.

We know that the answers to these questions are readily found if we read the Bible
and trust the Creator of the universe to tell us His eyewitness account of the
creation of everything that is visible and invisible.

“The heavens are telling of the glory of God; their expanse is declaring the work of
His hands. Day to day pours forth speech; and night to night reveals
knowledge.” (Ps. 19:1, 2, NAS)

There are 17 verses in the Bible that state that God “stretched out” space.
These 17 verses use four different Hebrew verbs and demonstrate that God
stretched out space while the objects He created within that space were fixed in
place. This means that as space was stretched out, the objects in that space would
increase in distance from each other.

Added weight to the evidence for quantization of red shift, and our special place
in the universe, was provided by William Napier and Bruce Guthrie in their 1997
study of 250 galaxy red shift patterns. They concluded:

“... the red shift distribution has been found to be strongly quantized in the
galactocentric frame of reference. The phenomenon is easily seen by eye and
apparently cannot be ascribed to statistical artifacts, selection procedures or flawed
reduction techniques. Two galactocentric periodicities have so far been detected, ...
for all galaxies within [roughly 100 million light years]. The formal confidence levels
associated with these results are extremely high.”

Napier, W. M. and Guthrie, B. N. G., Quantized red shifts: a status report, Journal of
Astrophysics and Astronomy, 18(4):455-463, 1997.

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7 6/11/2008
Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about R... Page 17 of 18

[Emphasis added]

Additional data from the Hubble Space Telescope has shown that this effect is
visible out to distances of billions of light years. (Cohen et. al., Red shift
clustering in the Hubble deep field, Astrophysical Journal 471:L5-L9, 1996.)

This information has stood the test of 25 years of professional peer scrutiny
and it has proven to be reliable. The discrete distances found by Napier and Guthrie
measure 1.6 and 3.1 million light years.

In order for us to see these quantized shells of red shifted light around us, the earth
has to be less than one million light years from the center of the universe in all
three dimensions. If we were more than one million light years away from the
spherical-shell center of the galaxies, then there would be a blurring or smearing of
the red shifted light and the effect would not be visible. Further refinement of this
data has shown that we are located within 100,000 light years of the center of the
universe. This is the diameter of the Milky Way Galaxy.

This information proves beyond a reasonable doubt that our home galaxy is at the
center of the universe. The probability that we would be located at the center of the
universe by random chance is in the order of one chance in one trillion attempts.
This is equal to no chance at all. We were put where we are at the moment of
creation by an infinitely intelligent Creator God who gave us His eyewitness account
of that creation in the Bible. No other explanation may account for this evidence.

Contrary to popular thought, the Big Bang theories of the evolutionists require that
there is no center and no edge to the universe. Yet the observational data clearly
show that the universe does have a center, and we are it.

Evolutionists do not believe in the Big Bang because it is supported by evidence.

They believe it because they start from a presupposition that evolution is true.
They want to believe that we are here by accident. This is emphasized by
astrophysicist Richard Gott:

“The Copernican revolution taught us that is was a mistake to assume, ..., that we
occupy a privileged position in the Universe. Darwin showed that, in terms of origin,
we are not privileged above other species. Our position around an ordinary star in
an ordinary galaxy in an ordinary supercluster continues to look less and less
special. The idea that we are not located in a special spatial location has been
crucial to cosmology, leading directly to the [Big Bang theories].”

Gott, J. R. III, Implications of the Copernican principle for our future prospects,
Nature 363:315-319, 1993.
[Emphasis added]

The ultimate belief system of the evolutionist is atheistic naturalism. Atheistic

naturalism is the foundational rationale for naturalistic evolutionism. The acceptance
of Darwinian evolution and the Big Bang theories is irrefutably linked together.

The evolutionary “sage,” Dr. Carl Sagan wrote:

“The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena ... our imagined self-
importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, ...
Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in
all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7 6/11/2008
Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about R... Page 18 of 18

from ourselves.”

Sagan, C., Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space, Ballantine Books,
NY, p. 9, 1997.
[Emphasis added]

Oh, yes, there is!

“But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your
heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” Luke 21:28

Copyright © 2008 Creation Worldview Ministries - All Rights Reserved.

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=7 6/11/2008