The Speed of Light — An Absolute in the Universe, or Is It?
by Sean Meek, Director of Project CREATION
average science book treats the speed of light as an absolute. This is
an area that both evolutionists and compromisers have used as evidence
against the Universe being only a few thousand years old. The argument
is, how can a Universe be a few thousand years old, when it would take
billions of years for light to travel to Earth from distant stars? This
argument has been all too successful in persuading many to put the
fallible ideas of men above the teachings of the Bible.
Several years ago Creationists Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman became two, of a number of scientists, who have proposed that the speed of light has been decreasing since it was created. Using data collected over the last 300 years they found a steady decrease in its speed. Not surprisingly they were harshly criticized, but not refuted. Their findings have recently received new attention with a report by Reuters that a team of (evolutionist) Australian scientists from Sydney's Macquerie University, say it is possible that the speed of light has slowed "over billions of years". They have proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics - Einstein's theory of relativity. (August 7, 2002 - Reuters).
What I find most interesting about what has happened is that what was supposed to be an absolute fact of science, may not be after all. This could very well answer the question of how the Universe can be both very large and very young. It would mean that the current speed of light may indicate the distance to stars, but would say nothing about their age.
Evolutionists regularly claim that evolution is as confirmed a fact of science as the constancy of the speed of light. But all true science is tentative, always subject to change. But evolutionism is not science; it is an anti-God religion and will not be affected by any discovery of true science.
Prominent evolutionist Richard Lewontin makes this abundantly clear in the following quote. "We take the side of science (evolution) in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite , of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific (evolutionist) community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism (atheism). It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism (atheism) is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." "Billion and Billions of Demons", p. 31. New York Review (Jan 9, 1997)
One of the most unfortunate things in all of this are those Christians who seek to compromise the Bible with evolution, by whatever name that compromise is given. True science never contradicts the Bible, but evolutionist stories often do.