W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page     What is New


Is it because man needs light within him, to secure any understanding of this world, its basis and creation, its procedures and destiny, and because no less he is a denizen not only of it, the world of mental criteria which are also seen frozen or implanted in it, but also of a spiritual domain of will, value, assessment of aims and origin in its own right - not to mention destiny for its own wrongs or according to grace from the Giver of it all ...

The question is an interesting one. One can see, in reading through some contributions to Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, that there is an almost spiritual reverence for physical light which obtrudes into discussion from time to time. LIGHT, light man! it is pure, it is almost holy, it is invariant, invariable: such one might almost feel, at times, to be the overtones. Light, it seems to imply, it is instrumental for nothing, has, if not oversight over everything as a non-mutant inordinate thing of wonder, then at least a respectable distancing from such ... demoted dishonour as ... mere decay in velocity.


Light's velocity change! If there are any marines left from World War II to whom the idiom may be acceptable, Tell it to the Marines! That seems one of the leading fervours in the case.

Now in all this one can have a certain (admittedly oblique) sympathy. Einstein himself, as Robert Jastrow, one time NASA Director, tells us in his article on origins and destiny (SMR pp. 39, 73-74, cf. 299 ff. ), had a very distinct desire for a nicely settled universe that did not do clumsy looking things like expand. He draws attention to an unthinkable division by zero and a perceptive Dutch astronomer who showed the more accurate mode in the particular area of discussion. Our point here is not at all to review these things, already given sufficient attention as noted above. It is to note the enduring and all but fascinating ideé fixeé which so readily inhabits the mind of man.

Light, says one, it will not change! One could all but hear the vespers, the sermon, the charge to the congregation, or even to the elect! Light ? Change ? Not while I'm here!

So poor Barry Setterfield (the epithet relates to an article of Malcolm Bowden in Ex Nihilo, Technical Journal Vol. 12, no.1, 1998), according to this portrait, has grown weary of the need to repeat and correct errors and misconceptions as his presentations are dismissed, misunderstood and so forth. Nevertheless, it is by no means impossible that his poverty will turn to riches of a better sort than gold in the end. It is true the issues are extremely technical, that opinions are as rife as wharf worker strife in ageing Australia's inventive maritime pastimes and that views so noble, assured and obvious, on various sides, make sallies and frays, almost at times as if headless and wandering in a twilight after too hard a day. They WILL bring decease for ever to this, or that, unbelievably obvious if not infantile folly of which this or that person is, or is deemed to be ... guilty.

It rather reminds one of phlogiston days, when it was incredibly obvious that any child or person even of minimal learning could, would or should see, especially if properly and duly instructed, that phlogiston of course went off from a substance undergoing what we now call oxidation, metal to oxide. The very idea that oxygen was being added, rather than a lighter than air gas being given off with the resultant addition to weight of the residue: the idea! What NEXT will the ignorant proclaim ?

So it goes.

But where does it go ?


In such areas of science as this, there are a number of obstacles to learning.

1) The extremely difficult area of measurement. It is one thing to measure a velocity of propagation, another to measure a velocity through various conditions with dynamics of their own.

2) The fact that what makes it so difficult, it is not merely the topic, light, to be measured; it is the topic history, to be considered in the light of measurement, and in the light of possible movements in the velocity criterion on what is being measured - which, by now, probably the reader will know, is light.

3) The fact that the results are enormous in an area where much vexed evolutionists, already hammered by hostile facts and unyielding logic, are understandably sensitive: that of dating. We have covered this, not only in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, Ch.2 and Index, Dating, but also in That Magnificent Rock Ch.7 in some depth and detail.

For the moment, it is just that this yields fascinating considerations in that area. In fact, it is just ONE of the models which brings the age of the earth, wholly unknown to science, a fact sometimes confused by some scientists with a god-like assurance, to dimensions far smaller than some would like to think.

LIKE? Yes, like. As shown in the places noted above, the variabilities and mutations by theory from practice make the area something of a laughing stock. Let us refine that statement: the area is not so much a laughing stock as the obvious manipulative mesmerisms pontificated with such folies extraordinaires, such brio, by the ancestral orchestra, those who KNOW. HOW they know has long ceased to be a logical question: it is a cultural area for research.

4) The fact that various dating models are being proposed, one singular young-earth-age one, for example by highly qualified physicist, Dr Russell Humphreys (see e.g. Starlight and Time cf. SMR, pp. S21-32, and That Magnificent Rock, esp. pp. 166-187), and their diversity of outcome and bases are such that it shows that the almost meaningless haste to declare this scientifically unknown datum*1, which so many have followed with all the brigandage of a Darwin, is like so much static amidst the logic of reality. This it is taking more and more time to ... time. Opinions on various issues are by no means confined to this or that school. Nevertheless, variability is of the essence, while dynamics are multiple and co-ordinated effort is needed. One thing remains apparent, as argued elsewhere: time is reducible to young age for the earth scenarios without known impediment; but the more it is forced elsewhere, the more profound are the indices of indictment.

In view of all this, then, it is not surprising to see the issue - put away perhaps in disdain by some, in apprehension by others, lest they be made to appear un-scientific - re-opened. It would seem likely it will often be re-opened with increasing perspectives, while man fiddles with the super-abundant data, which in fact are met by only one assumption, an early age, with any satisfaction to all the criteria of scientific method, as things stand. But that is another story, told elsewhere as above noted. We return to the darkness - thick darkness in some areas - covering the issue of light.

It is humorous, to be sure with a sage and grave humour, to consider that light is of course a metaphorical emblem for understanding and one can see that if people were to be afraid on that score, then light might seem a nice illuminating sort of thing to find stable. At least if minds are dark in the alienation from God (Ephesians 4:18-19, Romans 1:19ff.), there is some slight re-assurance in seeing some kind of immutable light shining away for all it's worth, around the place. It is HE who is immutable as demonstrated in SMR Ch.1,10 and elsewhere. It is for HIM that the human soul looks, often with closed eyes, while it taps out the insignificant substitutes for logical necessities with querulous rovings (see SMR Chs. 3, 9-10).

Do not misunderstand: this is BY NO MEANS to assume that constant light velocity people are either fools, foolhardy or non-Christian. It IS to indicate that known criteria of misconception and irrational unbelief, for their part, could and no doubt do, in some quarters find realisation in such an approach. Others may find it for other reasons. That is their privilege. We are currently examining some of the syndromes which MAY and often do attach to this area. We need therefore to be cautious. Even Einstein once made fundamental error in the romance of hope, despite the drama of reality in one exceedingly significant area, one all but dictated by his underlying philosophy, as shown in SMR, where indicated. Reefs abound.


Now it is rather fun to read the article of Malcolm Bowden, an engineer of some zest for life in this field (Ex Nihilo, Technical Journal, op.cit., pp. 48-54).

In one sally, he considers the criteria where there is ground to consider the possibility than some value or other is a variable one. Here of course, the issue is one concerning light's velocity; but what of a more general case? He draws graphs of expectations where, over decades or even centuries, measurement is becoming more refined. What would one expect, he asks? One would not expect the results to be ONLY in one direction without SPECIFIC grounds being offered to cover such a statistical actuality. He shows what has in fact been found and asks, Why then this, if there is a mere increase in accuracy, this clear trend in only one direction!

It might seem heartless and really déclassé to bring in common sense, but there it is, some have a taste for it. In vain will pedants decry its value, perhaps, indicate that it is for grandmothers of another generation, for now we KNOW. However one thing that is perfectly clear is this: the more that is "known" by secular substitutes for knowledge, statistical improvisers and the like, the less is sure. Without understanding, statistics can play havoc with the imagination; and with understanding, the actualities of rule and order can be verified... unless, of course, as with light, you begin to reach entities for observation which challenge your measuring apparatus, so that your understanding of the phenomenon itself which is light, comes to be challenged.

Certainly, if we keep to what we know, we do well as indicated in Ch. 4, SMR. That however is not always the desire, and the results can even reach that acme of hilarity, the concept that everything comes from "nothing". Is it nothing to you? becomes a new vein of physical mirth, in this case, rather than spiritual sadness and aching empathy (Lamentations 1:12). When what is defined out of existence, nothing, becomes the rational ground for existence, we have surely reached the point where it is time to think, rather than bow to "science"; to realise that science is merely, yes 'merely' (instant heresy?) what people think about what they find. It is scientific method which has the status, simply and ONLY because it is capable of a measure of impartiality which only the vagaries of intrusion can rend.

That intrusion however is what NORMALLY happens in areas sensitive to the human soul, because as the Bible states, so observation confirms, in no spiritual medium only, but logically,

Bowden does an interesting job of assessing flames as students now call them, or ad hominem breaches of logic, as we used to call them, in various past articles, and makes what bids fair to be a useful comparison of the academic heights or otherwise in the relevant specialities involved in this case of estimating from current and historical data, the apparent movement (if any) in the velocity of light. Certainly, it would not appear from his article that there is any marked deficiency in the academic standing in the field concerned, of those involved in the innovation concerning light's velocity.

This of course, as he rightly asserts, does NOT AT ALL settle the issue; but it might put some brake on mere pillorying without actually covering, carefully, conscientiously and systematically EVERY SINGLE ONE of the criteria evoked by those who believe that the evidence is for a diminishing velocity of light. Certainly, the nature of the created material universe in general exhibits a most mathematically interesting trend over time, as is endemic in created things not equipped per se with eternity, one which the never once disproved Second Law of Thermodynamics merely formalises.

In terms of the normal flux of uncertain science, we now find a proposal (noted in Creation, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2000, p. 9) found in New Scientist, July 24, 1999, that 'faster initial speed of light' be postulated, to 'overcome {some} problems in big bang' type theories'. It would be rather like overcoming infantile paralysis by taking more vitamins, such is the route of that rationalistic foray into reality (cf. That Magnificent Rock pp. 168ff., in E of Ch.7). However, of even more interest in this regard is the reference (p. 6, Creation Technical Journal, Vol. 9, Part 1, 1995, "Apparent velocities greater than the speed of light have been claimed before in radio-emitting components in some distant quasars and active galactic nuclei. These claims have been uncertain because of the extreme distances surmised for these exotic objects. Now, however , it is claimed that apparent velocities greater than the speed of light have been detected with our own Milky Way Galaxy". (The source noted is Mitabei, I.F. and Rodriguez L.F., 1994, in Nature, 371:46-48).

This would be one more case of the invariable varying, under certain conditions, within the creation, and exposing mere assumptions to the rigours of reality, instead of basing them on the rigueur of philosophic preference.

Varied variabilities, it is true, are one of the criteria of creations, and they are often unpredictable, the more so when, as here, the mind at work gives evidence of such towering superiority over the mathematics of man as to render the comparison discomforting to human pride.(Cf. Isaiah 51:6, SMR Ch.2.) The magnificence of the same Creator is such that the mind of man, one of His creations, is by no means incapable, once it is well set in the pathways of reality, and not scuttled by the frogmen of disfaith (cf. SMR pp. 172, 774, 999-1002C). Nevertheless, where there is a major law (of deterioration as is usual indeed, within a creation - ours being larger, but still a creation), and where that law is so exceedingly uniform in so varied a line of creation, one does well to consider its force with more than a jocund smile.

Like paper, even for the most creative artist,
there are sometimes things which change but little. And that ? At the author level, it is at the option of the creative being concerned.

Some things however may and do age; and the creativity impressed has its own ageing, as well as the information on it, in its material setting.

The ageing of the paper however is no key to the creative influx; nor. on the other hand,  is it to be ignored because it differs. All things are as they are, and blindness is better for opticians than the bucolic for the facts.

As to the one who creates, it is necessary to watch what he does: and what God has done is often formulated in laws, like that of Thermodynamics which is so stolidly conservative. Downward is the path of what here having been made, continues within its prescriptions. It does not show itself to "arise", but to decline. Unmade here a little, there a little, its "entropy" increases, its specificity declines, its ways show the grinding of events. That is science. That is why it is a LAW of the most basic kind in science.

What does not vary is the logic which insists that stark creation takes creativity and its launching into a non-nurturing environment takes its toll rather than its tithe! It is rather like being the son of a rich man: the fact that he built 10 houses, when he passes on or ceases to have interest, does not make for any probability that the eleventh will build itself, or that the 10 will be excused, because of his initial interest, from decay.

Nor does it render reason why the ten should gradually add new stories*2.

Nor does it substitute for their absence ... scientifically, any more than for their (imaginary) presence, logically!

Time has its limits, like other creations. What happens in it, however, is far more than the material. It is the occupants... the futile imaginations of whom, as the Bible characterises it, are a cause of very real concern (Romans 1:18-25), neither heeding creativity nor decay, turning from their own observed laws and their own continual capacities, they junk both in a heap of carnally composed inadequacies, the idols of today. They do not differ profoundly from those of yesteryear (as Jeremiah 2:13,27-28 shows).

¨     "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrigheousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness... they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools ... who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever, Amen."


Eternity forward is not too readily dispensed; even spiritually, the way is narrow for what is to last in its integrity. The clothing of mere physical life and its substructures is not noted for immutability, even though its laws are, pending the time of its institution, as now! Comparative permanence of sub-structuring is the issue; and whilst it is all statedly to grow old, as observably it does - hence the law, the question here is this: in what way is this to apply to one of the ingredients, the highly symbolic seeming 'light' ? will it also decay in velocity over time, or simply be removed at ... its time? The character of ageing is often addressed in physiology, and some pay fortunes to delay its onset; the onset, however, is a law in this regime!

Man grows old, his genes do not re-manufacture their original specifications. It is wonderful enough that their conservation mechanisms are so brilliantly innovative, though over time subject to some decay in the normal way. It is the nature of nature to grow old, when placed in a created universe where contra-design elements have their sway and place, amidst the curse on sin and the increasing rush towards that judgment on the actors, which befits an ageing stage which has seen much!

The word of God however does not grow old, for it is ever young with the truth which nothing ever undermines or erodes, ebullient with the power which made the universe, enormously and ultimately knowing about all things. That is its factual testimony, and in this it is unique. Heaven and earth will assuredly pass away, and currently man is helping this along with some ingenuity. The end however will be perhaps no less dramatic than the beginning (II Peter 3:10-13). Man is inclined to ignore both the elements in this word from God: the thrust to an end and the necessity of meeting the Maker in peace as luxuriantly made available in Jesus Christ, the only Saviour, before the end!

As to the natural light, one of the services Bowden achieves in the various investigations to be found in his article, is the individual signalising of areas which need attention, one by one. They require, his general thrust indicates, not oversight but address, not diversion but inspection, so that all the data and systematics have an interface. This, he concludes, is what is needed; and not mere repetition (ad nauseam, as Norman appears to feel - p. 54), without adequate and scholarly answer with the necessary address to all the detail and to each issue in its turn, to what has been presented. For his part, he concludes:

It would certainly be interesting to see something better than the incredible misnomers in the area of radioactive dating, which are so carefully documented by Professor E.H. Andrews, no mean scholar, in such works as his From Nothing to Nature, and God, Science and Evolution. In the end, the resolution of 'anomalies', whether by this or that means, or by many means, is one of the disciplines of scientific method, and that head does not rest easy which lives with them as constant companions, in the midst of philosophies surcharged with unreality.

Maybe, some time, someone will deal with ALL the matters, face baulking or provide enterprise, and find out what the current position actually is in that created object, light, the velocity of which is in view. It appears that time is not yet.



*1 See p. 167ff., That Magnificent Rock, in Ch.7, Models and Marvels, for the intriguing fact that as far as starlight is concerned, not merely is there a question of mode, manner, velocity and the like: but far more fundamental cosmological conclusions are used in posing the very question. It is always rather - shall we say - easier to show what you hold to have some point, if you first assume it.

The bare-faced boldness of underlying assumptions in what poses as science is an object lesson for all time, as there shown. See also in the same Chapter, Section F, A Space for Space, and Time for Time: King, Cosmos, Christian and Creation, pp. 181ff., and further consult Section E, Antics of Dating, pp. 166ff..

The topic is taken even more generically, in some respects, in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock (SMR) , Ch.2 Supplement, pp. S1-S33, where the whole arena of cosmological preliminaries and chronological conclusions based on preliminaries is exposed; just as the fact that many of these preliminaries are in hostile disaccord with the withering necessities of logic is exposed in Chs.1-3,10 in SMR, where also see pp. 218ff., 235ff.. For some practical details, see REEFS ABOUND, 3, pp. 78-79 in the present chapter.

The STORY or outfitting which IS needed, is not something new in concept, but as old as creation in its meaning: eternal life. It is not, as Paul puts it in II Corinthians 5:1ff., a matter of being UNCLOTHED, as if the building (of flesh) were merely to decay, but of being OVER-COATED with a covering both eternal and lively. The REALLY IMPORTANT creativity of God in the universe, in the sense of His nearest approach, is for man. MAN physically decays quite catastrophically in ways that are found to be inherent in the program, rather than in the situation per se. He is CODED to CONTINUE ONLY FOR SO LONG, just as God SAID! Then judgment, or mercy, as the case may be.

Clothes are provided for one's children, and the children of God are to be clothed with bodies which have that permanence which is correlative to that of their Father. For these are the trappings of immortality, the uncoded clothings of eternity, the blessings from the resurrection of Christ (I John 3:1-3), the power of God showing the way, the grace of God providing it (I John 5:12ff.). With HIM, there is forgiveness that HE MAY BE FEARED! More precise than any mathematical formula, is this, that Christ died to save sinners (I Timothy 1:15, cf. Romans 3:21ff.); and again, He has been provided as redeemer to pay the costs of sin for those who receive Him as Saviour and Lord, as He is and not merely imagined (for the imaginary stocks the imagination, as in false science likewise, but it does not make the wheel turn): the LORD'S CHRIST (Luke 2:26).

These He has foreknown always (Ephesians 1:4) and will cherish always (II Timothy 1:9-10). It is truly wonderful that just as His creativity in the universe is seen continually more prodigious and more unrepeated, so it is in and for man, more fearlessly intrusive, more cardinally re-creative (Colossians 3:10, Ephesians 4:24, Titus 3:5ff.), providing a new heart now, just as a new bodily facility for it, when judgment sets its final wheels in motion, and the Lord returns. What is astoundingly wonderful is utterly simple, and it is this. Christ does not REJECT ANYONE who comes to Him as He is, in faith and repentance (John 6:37). What could be a greater sense of joy than this! You are not 'there' as aristocrats, but as suppliants received in grace, by the joy of divine love. If you are not 'there', it is as one who prefers darkness! (John 3:16ff.).

THIS is the light which is invariable!