Replies

What relation exists between possible changes in the fine structure constant and the many various creation stories handed down to us from ancient times?

OK. In this instance I'm refering to Young Earth Creation Science rather than the creation myths you seem to be refering to.

From a creationist point of view, I am always amazed that when I pick up practically any issue of a science periodical (Discover, Science News, etc.) usually several articles either 1)support Young Earth Creationism (missing mass in the universe, etc.); 2)contradict Darwinian evolution; or 3)reveal errors or hoaxes of evolution (like the dinosaur/bird in National Geographic, or the hominid skull that turned out to be female gorilla). While, I admit, it is a stretch to say this article vindicates everything Setterfield wrote, if you're familiar with his theory, you should know that he attempted to collect every measurement of c and related constants and plot them. He said there was a real, measurable trend and it seemed to be an exponential decay.

The concept that c could change in any way was laughed at then. Now it's news.

Okay, before you start cheering the CDK "theory" please note that the changes are on the order of one part in 100,000. That means that the universe, instead of being 15 billion years old is only 14.99985 billion years old. It pretty much canxes any ideas of it all being just a few thousand years old, doesn't it?

From a creationist point of view, I am always amazed that when I pick up practically any issue of a science periodical (Discover, Science News, etc.) usually several articles either 1)support Young Earth Creationism (missing mass in the universe, etc.); 2)contradict Darwinian evolution; or 3)reveal errors or hoaxes of evolution (like the dinosaur/bird in National Geographic, or the hominid skull that turned out to be female gorilla).

Have you also read articles that contradict Young Earth Creationism? I guess my point is that scientific theories were meant to change and be modified - finding evidence that current theories of evolution are wrong doesn't necessarily mean that the whole concept is wrong (although it's certainly possible) but it could also mean that the theory just needs to be changed a little. Scientific theories allow this type of modification to happen, so articles that poke holes in current scientific beliefs eventually get assimilated and new theories are proposed. Young Earth Creationism, on the other hand, has a core set of unchangable tenets. I have no doubt that you have seen much scientific evidence that supports this belief. My question is have you seen scientific evidence that doesn't support YEC? If so, do you discount the evidence as having to be flawed, or do you change your theory? Or have you never seen scientific evidence that contradicts your beliefs?

The idea that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and that no particles can move faster is the premise of the special theory of relativity. Assuming the speed of light is that, the rest of the math was developed. The theory of relativity did not prove the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum, but relied on that assumption.

Then it comes down to what is meant by "vacuum." It might be necessary to add a term to the equations and that will disrupt their apparent canonical simplicity. That's the way it goes.

Long ago Setterfield theorized that light has slowed. "Respectable" scientists jeered and laughed. Now some of their own have theorized that light has slowed. The jeers and laughter have turned to quiet respect--not for Setterfield, but for their own.

Well, they'll be quick to find ways to distinguish Setterfield's theory so they return to the jeers and the catcalls.

I don't know if Setterfield is right. I haven't paid much attention to his theory. But I am amused by the reaction of the atheist materialists. They have a vested interest in their prejudices and will defend them with all the zeal of Holy Crusaders battling the Turks.