Tuesday, February 21, 2012

John G. Hartnett and New Cosmology

Research professor John G. Hartnett

In another blog I started a discussion on the work of research professor John G. Hartnett in the University of Western Australia. Hartnett is a recognized researcher and patent holder on Temperature Compensated Oscillator.  He is involved, for example, with an European Space Agency project on atomic clock.

Professor J.G. Hartnett is also a confessing Christian who holds to creationist views including the 6000 years chronology of the Cosmos at the core of Young Earth Geology.

I continue the discussion in this blog dedicated to the theological aspects in space research and cosmology.

Thank you Otto very much for the link you gave to John Hartnett's writing published in Creation Ministries International Web site with the title "A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem"  This article was originally published in Technical Journal August 2003 Vol. 17:98.102 (The publication is today called Journal of Creation)

We can see in this article that  John G. Harnett accepts the chronology of the world as calculated by archbishop James Ussher and others from biblical genealogies.

This basic fact of creation supposedly revealed to humanity in the Scriptures inspires Hartnett to suggest nothing less than a new cosmology.

New model is needed because of the old cosmology where according to modern cosmology light travellers a bit more than 6k years to reach us. How come, if the entire Universe was created 4004 BC?

(Supposedly - because the Bible does not give date of creation. The date of creation has been calculated from Adam and Eve in Paradise using the genealogies of their descendants.)

As a recognized expert on time J.G. Hartnett is involved in the building of highly accurate space based atomic clocks with European Space Agency ESA. Such project definitely requires deep understanding of time and relativity along the lines that Albert Einstein originally figured out.

Ardent believers in the inerrancy of the Bible face significant difficulty in how much time there is in the cosmos for light to travel.

"As has been often repeated in creationist literature, the starlight-travel-time problem is particularly important to solve. The problem is simply that in the time available since creation (about 6,000 years) there has not been enough time for light to get to Earth from even the nearest neighbour galaxies (1.5 to 3 million years travel time at constant speed of light c) let alone the most distant galaxies (billions of years travel time at constant c). How then do we see them and how did Adam see them?"

Can our expert help them out? Could, for example Theory of Relativity that deals with time and space help believers to hold fast on the Biblical chronology as calculated by James Ussher in early 17th century and still look at the space with peace in heart?


The amount and passage of time in the cosmos is pertinent to the creationist because we need to interpret the evidence within a self-consistent framework of the model we adopt. Therefore in a model of type 1 or type 3, which incorporate astronomical time, explanations of the rotation curves in galaxies, the Tully-Fisher law or the apparent excess of mass inferred from the dynamics of equilibrium clusters of galaxies become an issue to creationist cosmology.

A new model, of a type similar to Humphreys’, has been described that allows billions of years to pass in the cosmos but only 24 hours on Earth during Day 4.

In this model, the laws of physics are suspended while creation is in progress and enormous time dilation occurs between Earth clocks and astronomical clocks.

This solves the light-travel-time problem faced by creationist cosmology and makes all astronomical evidence fit the Genesis account. No non-physical requirements are placed on the model.
J.G. Hartnett

The New Cosmology article by J.G. Hartnett is in some sense a play of ideas, how would this work. I am not competent to evaluate his argumentation and this should be done by his peers. There may be significant scientific debate going on concerning his fitting billions years into Day 4 of creation, but I am not aware of it.

Professor Hartnett has significant knowledge and deep understanding of modern cosmology and is challenging important theories including the theory of Big Bang. He shows, however, very little interest or knowledge of the scientific research of the Bible. The use of the considerable brain power God has given to us humans in the study of the Scriptures is another significant field where creationists are challenging many views and theories.

Here he shows some laxness with the Bible by adding to the story of creation the small detail, that on day 4 God suspended the laws of physics.

The Theory of Relativity is a fundamental key to modern understanding of God's creation and a significant milestone along the path is the discovery of red shift by Edwin Hubble. For this reason, it is very interesting how Hartnett works with these subjects.

I open another post for this.


  1. ML: "Here he [Professor Hartnett] shows some laxness with the Bible by adding to the story of creation the small detail, that on day 4 God suspended the laws of physics."

    AFAIS, this path of critique was already anticipated and amply commented in the article by Professor Hartnett himself: "Also, it is important to remember that God was not bound to any laws of physics until the end of the Creation Week. After it ended, the Word says ‘He rested’. Maybe the solution to the starlight travel time problem is in this fact that the conservation laws we observe today were not yet all operating." & "All of this was maintained under God’s creative power before He allowed the laws of physics to operate ‘on their own’ at the end of Creation Week." & "The Creation Week period, by definition, is not expected to be a period where natural law explanations apply."

    Personally, I cannot see any way of interpreting the Biblical creation account both as a true creation account ex nihilo and simultaneously as a somewhat poetic descripion of some natural processes operating on their own during huge intervals of time. Were there just blind processes working, no place for God's direct actions; was there God directly and creatively working, no need for any blind processes interfering any of it before God saw it fit to launch them.

    On these grounds, I see no fault in Professor Hartnett's model. It seems to fit the bill of interpreting the beginnings of the astronomical entities according to Genesis in a self-consistent and empirically plausible way. - This, of course, is not to claim it to be and forever remain the one and only true understanding of the relevant Biblical passages, but at least it seems to fare considerably better than many, most, or perhaps even all of its currently known competitors.

  2. I beg to disagree with you. Surely a scientist of this calibre can anticipate some reactions to his suspending the laws of Physics.

    However, doing simmediately removes the Seven days of Creation from the human week. In fact, these days and nights begin well before God creates the Sun.

    As so many scientists involved with creationism in this way, Professor Hartnett does not take time out to carefully study the Scrptures. Or, alternatively, he rejects reading the Bible as it is written. I do not know what would be worse.

    Cosequently, he does not understand that there are two very different narratives about

    Secondly, he fails to see that the first narrative, Seven days of Creation, is genuinely geocentric.

    1. In order to ensure that we are at least talking about the same things, I think a summary of the Hartnett model might be helpful. AFAIS, it holds that the creation events occurred in the Biblical order during a six day period of Earthly time, light being made in the first day, sun & moon & stars in the fourth one, as is written. Accordingly, the "doing simmediately [= "doing so immediately"?] removes the Seven days of Creation from the human week" accusation remains a mystery to me.

      Professor Hartnett's interpretation of the beginning of the Book of Beginnings seems to follow the tradition Dr. Martin Luther himself championed, seeing no intrabiblical contradictions between "the two narratives about Creation". If someone thinks Luther and his followers never took time out to carefully enough study the Scriptures, I guess an open public renunciation of the Evangelical Lutheran tradition itself would be in order.

      I fail to see how Professor Hartnett "fails to see that the first narrative, Seven days of Creation, is genuinely geocentric" - is his interpretation of it not geocentric enough, or what?

  3. Saying that laws of Physics were not active in 4th day removes the discussion from the realm of our ordinary coccept of time. If you insist that it does not feel free to hpld that position

    You seem to confirm, although indirectly, my understanding that creationist scientists including Hartnett reject the documentary hypothesis and the claim that the two creation stories in the beginning of the Holy Bible are mutually incompatable.

    Of course Martin Luther considered the Universe to be Geocentric. So did the leading scientists in 16th century Europaean universities.

    Luther actually wrote that Kepler is just a joker. Anyone can understand that the miracle of Joshua when Sun and Moon were stopped is impossible, if Earth actually rotates the the Sun as Kepler claims.

    This lack of knowledge of the nature God has created did not prevent Luther becoming a great blessing to the Chritian church.

    1. What is your concept of "laws of Physics" anyway? What is their origin, do they serve some purpose (other than "their own survival"), are they in some sense self-supporting and eternal? If someone is of opinion that they could be influenced by some personal agent, e.g., the God of the Bible, is there some sense of an abhorrent heresy and/or a majesty crime involved?

      These and similar questions are very fundamental to one's Biblical exegesis as well, since our preconceived ideas always influence our reading of and reasoning about the Scriptures.

      "Luther actually wrote that Kepler is just a joker." Could you give an exact reference and citation, please?

      There are other considerations, too, but in order to get a smooth handling of intertwined themes, one has to begin with some topics and, for now, postpone the rest.

  4. Petri, I have aquestion to you, if you do not mind.

    In this Space theology blog I have written some posts about the Sun God has created. Hans Bethe and carl von Weizäcker both suggested in late 1930'ies that Sun was a dark nebula of hydrogen molecules. Gravity caused the cloud to collapse to itself and once the gas reached the temperature of 3 million kelvins the thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen to helium began and Sun entered the main sequence of stars.

    Astronomers have calculated that Barnard 68 molecylar cloud ihas the mass of two Sund and is about half lightyears across. From this they estmate that in a very short time, about 100.000 years this cloud will become a star.

    Such calculations suggest that our Sun and the surrounding planets consisting of heavier elements were made about 4.5billion years ago and are thus about one third of the estimated age of the universe.

    Do you not think, dear Petri, that if our brilliant professor has proven that the current theory is fundamentally wrong, his peers in international circles would hard at work to show that Sun is about 4000 years old and that God created green grass and friut treesbefore He made the Sun, Moon and stars?

    1. Frankly, I don't have a clue what you might mean by saying that "our Sun and the surrounding planets consisting of heavier elements were made" within a context where you actually seem to be of the opinion that "Sun was a dark nebula of hydrogen molecules. Gravity caused the cloud to collapse to itself and once the gas reached the temperature of 3 million kelvins the thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen to helium began and Sun entered the main sequence of stars."

      Either Sun and the surrounding planets, approximately as we know them now, were indeed made, or their beginnings, via some natural processes, just occurred. They could not have become existent both ways, and therefore, for the clarity of thought, I'd like to recommend avoiding self-inconsistent language also when discussing this topic.

      As is clearly stated in the original article, "our brilliant professor" makes no claim of having "proven that the current theory is fundamentally wrong":

      "There are a few points about this model that should be stated here:

      1. It has low apologetic value, because in terms of extra-solar system observations it makes no unusual predictions.

      2. In terms of locally elapsed time since creation, this model does imply that objects within the solar system are much younger than objects outside it. Therefore, even though further investigation needs to be undertaken, there is some evidence for a young sun<25> but it may also be argued that God created the sun mature<26> as it was especially important for life on Earth."

      So this kind of questions are indeed under scrutiny within creationist research (endnotes <25> & <26> are to be found in the original article), while the naturalistic researchers have hardly ever paid, and probably also will never pay, any attention to any "Bible induced" questions, such as these.

      The naturalistic paradigm has hindered research in other issues ("junk-DNA", soft tissues of dinosaur fossils) so much that I'd actually be surprised if it had a different impact here.

  5. Thank you, Petri, for your pertinent points! Actually, I was just planning to start to write another posting about the formation of heavier elements and the planetary system when I noticed your question.

    So if you have the interest please take a look together with me at the current cosmological theory.

    I am also writing about Carl Sagan so that you should see that my personla position is not exactly his despite of my rejection of Young Earth Creationism.

  6. As for your point "Either Sun and the surrounding planets, approximately as we know them now, were indeed made, or their beginnings, via some natural processes, just occurred."

    Here I fully agree with you. But at this point with this we step outside the realm of science to the realm of faith. Not only we believers but also new atheists, who seek to use scientific knowledge as proof that things just occurred.

    Atheism and Creationims are two sides of the same coin assuming, that somehow we would be able to figure out how God works.

    Atheists build their logical system without additional factors, such as spirits and divinities, and say "look, it all just happened"

    Creationists build their logical system introducing some image of man-made god and say "look, we need this in order for it to happen"

    The Bible puts it very nicely and says that what can be known of God is obvious "so that they cannot defend themselves"

    Defend against what?

    The fact that they did not praise God for His works and worship idols.

    Let us do the opposite, and praise God for His works!

    1. AFAIS, you were rather informative here, so there is something new to elaborate now. Thanks for that!

      This "we step outside the realm of science to the realm of faith" expression gives away a kind of philosophical standpoint which, I think, is nowadays hardly defensible any more. Nevertheless, I somewhat appreciate your way with the atheists, an extrascientific cult in their own right, with High Priests and all, so to say. This seems to be a step on the right direction, but there remain some more to be taken still.

      The biggest obstructions of mutual understanding at this phase seem to me as follows:

      (1) the notion of "separate realms of science and of faith", which seems to lack both philosophical and theological credibility, as well as practical applicability or rhetorical efficiency;

      (2) the idea of one's role as a somewhat objective outside observer of "those mutually incompatible jerks out there who still don't see the obvious errors of their respective ways in spite of my numerous and worthy efforts so far".

      Up-to-date philosophy of science and classical openly Christian credo-ut-intelligam research approach seem capable of forming an astonishingly seamless, overarching intellectual "working harmony", which your overall "separate the realms, end the arguments" agenda, on the other hand, seems to be fiercely opposing; and I, for one, see no justifiable grounds to continue that opposition any further.

  7. Oh dear...

    Now you really surprised me with a left hook I did not see coming.

    Your point (2) is valid criticism against my style of writing about other people's views and faith. This I have heard also before and I must pay more attention to my choice of words not to give wrong impressions.

    But point (1)!
    You suggest that talking about the "separate realms of science and faith" is no good.


    This is quite a statement as your message then implies that modern Philosophy of Science and up-to-date Theology both suggest such a harmony of scientific knowledge and religious faith that "believing in order to understand" is key to true knowledge.

    This is indeed a deep and important line of argumentation in Creationist thinking and brings to my mind, for example, the towering achievements of Thomas of Aquinas and his disciples.

    1. All right, I think we are proceeding rather well. Obviously, I must clarify my message quite a bit, though.

      What I said earlier was not meant to imply the kind of absolute "entente cordial" between Philosophy of Science and up-to-date Theology you wrote about. Rather, it implied full compatibility of classical Christian "believing in order to understand" and conducting research accordingly with what up-to-date Philosophy of Science can say about general human capabilities and restrictions towards advancing any kind of scientific research.

      In order to illustrate the point, I offer an analogy:

      The progress of science could be viewed a lot like the progress of the art of some kind of sports, say, ice hockey. What you typically see on an ice hockey arena is two teams trying their best to outperform each other. That is, their actions and strategies have quite opposite and incompatible (both figurative and concrete) goals.

      Nevertheless, every feat, every accomplishment of a player or a team in ice hockey is also a feat and an accomplishment for furthering the art of ice hockey itself; and any and all of the teams do well when learning from each other as best they can, to be able to outperform their adversaries even in the dimensions of the game these have traditionally been at their strongest.

      Thus, the traditional Christian goal of furthering knowledge under fully Biblical banners is at the same time one (but, of course, not the only) way of furthering human scientific knowledge generally; and the pursuit of enforcing some ideological (in practice, naturalistic) "rules of science" can be compared to an effort of imposing a rule of "one and only legitimate goal" to the game of ice hockey.

      It's easy to see what that kind of restriction would do to the general appeal, and to the very state of the art, of ice hockey itself. If the proof of the quality of a team is not in the game itself - i.e., in the successful performance of the team in matches against opponents who are both determined to gain the victory to themselves and by all means quite allowed to do so, if only they can - but in the activities of the referees in disqualifying all the hits into the "forbidden goal", who'd genuinely be interested in one team's "perfect seasons" without one loss? Under those rules, that outcome had been quite obviously foreseeable already before the seasons even started, and told next to nothing about the skills of the "champs"!

      The naturalistic rigging of "the Rules of Science" is, after all, not a bit better than that.

  8. There indeed are the worlds of Philosophy and Theology that generate so much discussions also on the net.

    I fully agree that faith and knowledge, science and religion, can live in peace and harmony - if they are understood correctly.

    For example, I wrote a blog introducing the resources at Einstein online and some of the work of Achim Weiss in the famous Max Planck Institute. He has specialized on Nuclear Astrophysics and especially on the formation of light elements and Lithium stars.

    I do not know what is his religion, his personal name Achim in Hebrew would mean "Brothers".

    Professor Hartnett is publishing scientific papers with a Korean researcher at the University of Western Australia. He may also be a Christian, I do not know.

    The point is that because belief systems play no role in the research they are doing, the question of what is the scientists religion is irrelevant.

    Weiss studies a proof to the standard models rising from Einstein's work and a Hindu believing in Krishna and reading Veda may verify if his results are correct.

    Petri, you say that I am mistaken and that a Christian studying the Universe with open Bible in the right hand gets different cosmology from an Atheist or Buddhist.

    This is confusion and that is what knocked me off because I was convinced that you can keep these things separate and yet see the complete picture:

    the difference between our knowledge about the world and our understanding of the world.

    1. Now I think we are on the border line of the old and the new Philosophy of Science. The old one tried its best to find a solid demarcation line between science and non-science. That project turned out to be a miserable failure, on the ruins of which the new one has then emerged.

      In a typical "Dawkinsian" fashion, the old Philosophy of Science had been eager to declare its victory even before the battle had been fought, and, AFAIS, the echo of that declaration gave rise to the kind of "peaceful coexistence between science and non-science" scenarios you seem to have bought into.

      As to the reasoning, there is absolutely no difference, why "a Hindu believing in Krishna and reading Veda" could not assess the Hartnett model we are supposedly discussing here: he could understand the narrative, he could check the math, he could compare the empiria.

      The demand of (Methodological) Naturalism as a precondition of the "scientific validity" of one's intellectual achievements is but a part of the ruins of the ideological "Great Wall of Science" the old Philosophy of Science was striving to build.

      On the other side of the "Great Ruins of the Wall of Science", the landscape is actually no different - the (nowadays ruined) Wall just managed to hinder the vision for a while.

  9. You wrote:

    The demand of (Methodological) Naturalism as a precondition of the "scientific validity" of one's intellectual achievements

    I ask:
    What is the alternative to this that professor Hartnett is offering here? That Bible gives another fact that we need to include in determining the age of the Cosmos?

    1. I'm afraid I can't quite figure out precisely what information you are after here.

      As a publically vocal YEC, Professor Hartnett clearly and openly does think the Bible is giving scientifically valid information about the age of the creation. As a cosmologist, he has offered a model for unifying this information with the data the empirical research has been able to gather. Science is about gathering data and modelling it, and the Hartnett model has been publicized and thus opened to any and all criticisms, scientific, ideological, whatever. What else could one hope for?

      Nevertheless, you seem to have some problem with at least some part of that "big picture". At any rate, I have to admit I cannot locate the precise problem here, if there is any. Is there one, really?

  10. Petri, let me tell you that I am a very simple and naive man and it is as easy to fool me in the shop with the price as in the internet with false identity. A perfect fools day victim for some laughs!

    For I find it utterly impossible to believe that a person like you who can understand the time-space continuity would be so unaware of the basics of scientific research and merge an authoritative document of faith with scientific research and call it something "modern".

    So you must be fooling me, I am afraid.

    1. Well, thanks for the compliments, but I'm quite sure Professor Hartnett and many other YEC professional scientists are a lot more cosmologically knowledgeable than myself.

      But for the up-to-date Philosophy of Science, you could follow this link for a second opinion (the text is in Finnish, I'm afraid, although the relevant information is initially taken from some English source materials one could possibly find via the Proper Nouns and Internet search engines): http://www.hs.fi/paakirjoitus/artikkeli/Evoluutioteoriaa+on+opetettava+kriittisesti+avoimella+tavalla/1135241111292

      Thomas Nagel is actually a renowned and openly atheistic professional philosopher, so, if in doubt, you could google a bit further and form your own opinion, whether Professor Puolimatka had been making full justice to the professional opinions of Professor Nagel, or not.

  11. Thank you for your patience, Petri, I was for a moment doubting that you really are kidding me.

    I will look at the link you gave.

  12. Do you have a reference to professor Hatnett discussing his views on Science in these terms

    1. No, I don't. There might be something out there, though, I just haven't looked for it.

      There is also the fields-of-competence issue here - the question about what makes science science belongs to Philosophy of Science, not Astronomy or Cosmology.

  13. Well, if you find something I am very interested. For it seems to me that natural scientists do not write much about Philosophy of Science as they are very busy with what they are doing. And vice versa.

    1. I guess you're right in your opinion about the scarcity of Philosophy of Science essays by natural scientists.

      On the other hand, there is plenty of philosophical (and historical) argumentation by philosophers of science themselves, and if interested (and capable of reading Finnish), you could find a summary of a survey, e.g., here: http://perustelu.fi/Larry_Laudan

  14. Petri, I would like to point out that in my blogs I am as a believing Christian taking a look at hard sciences - which Hartnett represents on a very high level.

    Because I am free of the basic error of the Young Earth Creationism in my hermeneutics there is no pressure to modify or twist the space-time continuum.

    Instead, I can wonder God's handwork in Nature and do what the Paul advices in his admonition to the Romans, the people he describes in Romans 1 do not praise the Lord.

    I do praise the Lord and His wisdom and invite all people to praise Him with me.

    So far on my tours to the world of Science I have not found anything that would negate the fact that God of Israel is great.

    He is just so much more than we can comprehend.

    1. To me, this seems like another interesting twist from your part. First, I figured you were very interested in Philosophy of Science, so I offered what I considered a pertaining link to the matter. Now, you seem to implicate quite the opposite position, ignoring the link altogether. Alternatively, I might be missing something, just not being able to figure out the bulk of your message, in the context of what we had been discussing here.

      Nevertheless, I could ask you this: when you say God "is just so much more than we can comprehend", how can you, furthermore, know He is precisely "God of Israel" as well - in any Biblical sense of the designation, I mean? You know, there might only be some Unknown God, surely enough "so much more than we can comprehend", but never the least interested in any direct communications with the mankind, as Deists opine.

  15. Petri, Philosophy of Science would need another blog and other point of view and your link is an invitation to a significant field of human thinking and certainly quite important.

    My blogs are a collection of posts on people dealing with hard sciences of which professor Hartnett is a good example.

    However, you raise the critical point of "God of Israel" as I use this specific name for the only real God there is linking Him to the reality of the Jewish people.

    Recently I wrote in this blog some posts looking at the fundamental issues of materialism, idealism and why the Jews have no Philosophy of Religion. Epistemology and so on.

    Would be interesting to hear your comment on the themes raised there.

    For as I reject the hermeneutics of Young Earth Creationism claiming that they falsify both the Bible and the Nature (Grand Canyon), these posts explore what would be a correct and truthful look at Creation for a believer.

    1. This entry is - and the previous ones were - about the relevance of Philosophy of Science specifically in the context of your current blogs. I did not expect you to open yet another blog, about Philosophy of Science this time.

      What I did expect, or at least hoped for, was that you'd be willing to update your positions towards the themes you already are interested in and blogging about, according to the pertaining recent developments in Philosophy of Science.

      That was precisely because those positions, first and foremost, are philosophical ones, i.e., they are concerned with what can and what cannot be scientifically honorable views or theories. Philosophy of Science is about just that kind of questions and considerations.

      AFAIS, you have engaged yourself in the business of "proclaiming the truth about the grave errors of YEC", yet lacking any solid grounding for that kind of enterprise.

      A brief summary of what I'm intending:

      (1) You had had these blogs with dire warnings against all Young Earth Creationists generally, and certain Finnish ones specially, the idea being that they must be something along the Dawkinsian view: "stupid, ignorant, insane, or wicked" - or under demonic possession or some other kind of devilish influence, an extra-Dawkinsian, further option of your own.

      (2) After being introduced to the reality of there being Young Earth Creationists who hardly fit any of the named categories, you still continue claiming that they must be wrong because you must be right.

      (3) After being introduced to the reality that, according to the up-to-date Philosophy of Science, there is not - and, in principle, cannot be - any "wise, knowledgeable, sane, and benevolent" (and, I might add, godly) way of continuing claiming that, you seem to excuse yourself by saying that what you are doing is not about Philosophy of Science at all - an obviously true claim as such, but simultaneously a clear "shutting of eyes" from the true problem, i.e., the lack of solid grounding when speaking "for science, against YEC".

      But perhaps I am just missing something essential here?

      FYI, I have not yet found nor read the other entries you were referring to. I might do it later, and am, in principle, interested in getting some further insight into your preferred interpretation of the Bible and the nature.

      Preferring some self-consistent view over others is, naturally, OK, and actually even a necessity within the up-to-date Philosophy of Science. Nevertheless, because of inherent limitations of humanly possible knowledge, clear distinction should always be made between (i) questions about ultimate truth, (ii) questions about scientific validity of any position, and (iii) questions about assessing some scientifically valid positions against each other.

      Hence, it's quite meaningful to insist that certain position is wrong, or unwarranted, without claiming it being "pseudoscience", "anti-science", "devious", or something like that. Arguments for a position against another should be presented as a comparison of all relevant facts, including the basic beliefs of respective researchers (which should be made public as part of scientific communications, and be mutually honored as necessary antecedents of any scientifically meaningful activities).

      One clear benefit of making these distinctions is that by clarifying what is at stake and what isn't, better argumentation is enabled.

  16. Fair enough, better argumentation is always needed.

    However, with your permission, instead of getting into Philosophy let us stay in Nature and test Young Earth Creationism that you seem to support. As far as I know, Professor Puolimatka does not support that particular view of the world.

    Let me underline the fact that ID people and creationists raise a number of good points also from the scientific point of view, like Leisola with the cell motor etc.

    I keep this strictly separate from the YEC insistence on the Biblical genealogy chronology.

    So let us test the case with God's magnificent work of creation, Grand Canyon.

    I will write about it in another blog Phos to alethinon.

    As you wish, we can continue the debate on the chronology here or there.

    I intend to argue that YEC with their Grand Canyon Observatory are twisting the works of God in nature as they twist the Bible.

  17. http://phos-alethinon.blogspot.com/2012/03/grand-canyon-and-young-earth.html

    1. Please, excuse me my French, but that website FAQ reminds me mostly of the way Jehovah Witnesses approach innocents to "prove their case"

      it is also very far from the scientific work of professor Hartnett and I cannot understand how he gives his name in supoprt of this junk.

      In order to defend the Bible with outright lies?

  18. Hi Mikko,

    Its been a while, but I happened to remember this quote you highlighted from Hartnett's article:

    "In this model, the laws of physics are suspended while creation is in progress and enormous time dilation occurs between Earth clocks and astronomical clocks."

    Do you think this suspending of some physical laws is somehow unusual when God is performing miracles? Or do you just think that this sort of suspending of physical laws would be quite ad hoc, or am I reading into your lines something that just isn't there?

    I'd also like to hear your opinion on a text that I wrote (in Finnish) last summer for our studentmagazine:


    1. Did you notice my many replies exhorting you to change track completely.

      Study Hartnett when he talks truthfully about time and cosmology in scientific publications and leave his pseudo-scientific religious remarks.

      instead, join me in studying Viktor Hambardzumyan. He was a genuine Soviet atheist and materialist with two Stalin Medals and an immensely important astrophysicist studying the Cosmos created by the God of Israel!

  19. Hi Otto

    thank you for the link, I read it with great interest and joy. I wish the editors God's blessing so that Cross Section could serve its purpose. As for me, here I feel the presence of that love for truth that is so important! (even if I disagree with some of the opinions)

    I fully agree and encourage you with your attack on the most stupid of claims "real natural sciences are materialistic". Such nonsense should not be in the curriculum. (http://spacetheology.blogspot.com/2012/03/materialism.html)

    I have also criticised the way the schools teach most amazing wonders of nature - such as the first organisms appearing on the fossil record some 3 billion years ago - or the origins of RNA as if it is something science has already solved (http://gdnaev.blogspot.com/2012/03/church-playing-god-let-there-be.html).

    It would be much more inspiring to Finnish high school students to learn that here are exciting worlds that are still to be explored and conquered - by simply saying "we do not know".

  20. Otto

    I agree that Christians should also defend natural sciences in the realm of Philosophy as professor Puolimatka is trying to do. Atheists tend to claim the hard sciences are exclusively their turf. Showing that it was not Einstein who made e=mc2 but God who created matter and energy and everything is very important and can be successful.

    However, and here is the point - such battle against the false claims of unbelief requires clarity. There must be open criticism of many good Christian fellows like professor Hartnett who suddenly cancels the laws of physics in order to prove his point.

    And I reject professor Puolimatka's approach as he mixes Nature and Grace and suggests that we should includ the God of Israel, the only real God there is, as an argument to our scientific debate and research.

    Not everyone believes in God. It is so important to realize that this is exactly how God wants it - the relationship between Him and us is not forced by some scientific proof of His existence but rather on believing the very strange message of Easter about a man who was executed.

  21. I invite you Otto and everyone interested in dealing with our faith in God of Israel and hard sciences to participate in the search for truth that is going on in these blogs.

    Instead of wasting ammunition to the lost cause of YEC you people could contribute here and write in your own blogs and Web publications good science.

    Your argumentation about RNA is on the line that stands scientific criticism and is actually true.

    Faith in God or the Old Book does not provide short-cut to knowledge about DNA. But the believing scientist can join the Christian congregation in praising God the Creator with very deep understanding, how great our God really is!

  22. for example, look at my index page

    and from there you find connections to various scientific subjects - for example, I was very impressed with Sam Gon III's work on trilobites and with his kind permission provide an introduction to his award winning pages tellingn about this crucially important early animal for the study of Cambrian life.

    Join in, fight me on the facts and interpretations, enjoy the Cambrian sees and forget the swamps of YEC pseudo-science. It is not interested in the truth out there, it is interested in proving a point.