Intelligent Design of the Universe — Was nature designed so it would evolve? 
Scientific Principles of Astronomy & Cosmology — How old is the universe? 

 
When you read this page it's important to understand that evolution just means "developmental change over time," and to recognize the major differences between four types of proposed developments — in astronomical evolution (to form stars and galaxies, planets and solar systems), geological evolution (to form the earth's features), chemical evolution (to form the first life), and biological evolution (to form the diversity and complexity of life) — which involve four very different sets of questions and observations.
 

 
      Intelligent Design of the Universe?
      If astronomical evolution is to occur, many properties of the universe must be "just right."  Should we therefore conclude that the universe was cleverly designed to allow its natural evolution?  This theory of intelligent design is based on evidence that natural process can produce some features, so it differs from design theories proposing that natural process cannot produce a particular feature, as explained in FOUR TYPES OF DESIGN.
      Some astronomers (Hugh Ross, Guillermo Gonzales,...) think earth has a large number of special life-allowing features, and it would be extremely improbable for all of these to occur by chance for one planet.   { But they don't claim that any individual feature required the detectable design-action that would be necessary if undirected natural process could not produce the feature.  /  a question for reviewers: Is this true? do all old-universe proponents of intelligent design think undirected natural process was sufficient for all aspects of astronomical evolution, so there was no need for detectable divine design-action during history? }

These ideas are examined in DESIGN OF THE UNIVERSE.
 

 
      Astronomy & Cosmology and Questions about Age
      Why do almost all scientists think there is abundant evidence — from Big Bang Cosmology, the physics of star fusion, the fact that we see faraway starlight, and much more — to support a logical conclusion that the universe is billions of years old?  And why do a few "young universe" scientists disagree?

      connections between design and age:  Most evidences for a design of nature are due to the many fine-tuned properties of nature that must be "just right" for the natural developments that occurred during astronomical evolution.  Ironically, when young-earth creationists argue against age-principles (below) they argue against the strongest evidences for one type of intelligent design (above).   { What are the other types of intelligent design? }

      This section will help you understand the natural processes that, according to conventional scientific theories, produce astronomical evolution to form stars and galaxies, planets and solar systems.  By contrast, most proponents of young-universe theories claim this natural evolution could not occur, and all of them think it did not occur.

      Some of the abundant evidence for an old earth and old universe is in AGE OF THE EARTH & UNIVERSE — SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE which is based on this educational philosophy:
      "Our goal is to help you get an accurate understanding, so we've tried to find the best information and arguments claimed as support by both sides, young earth and old earth.  And even though the overall result won't be NEUTRAL, we will try to be FAIR by letting representatives of each perspective clearly express their own views and criticize other views, and by treating their views with respect."
      Here are two parts of the page:

      Astronomy — Overviews & Responses
      To help you learn quickly and well, here are some carefully selected resources:
      • explanations of the Big Bang Expansion — a brief overview and Cosmology 101 (a series from NASA) and Three Supports (by Perry Phillips) and news + FAQ + tutorial (from Ned Wright) — and The Life Cycle of Stars (and Birth of Planets) by Deborah Haarsma & Loren Haarsma.
      • old-universe claims by TO and Hill Roberts;  a good overview of current young-universe astronomy by Danny Faulkner;  young-universe claims by Don DeYoung and Jonathan Sarfati (with science plus Galileo).  The overviews & responses above also include some astronomy, especially in Humphreys (topics 1-3), and TO's Topic-List & Tiscareno (astronomy plus the final topic in page, Star Distances).
      There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang, as described by Hugh Ross & TO (brief) & TalkOrigins (in depth), plus responses to 10 Problems for the Big Bang (Richard Deem) and Astronomical Complexity & The Second Law of Thermodynamics.  David Berlinski (OE) wonders what happened before the beginning and Apologetics Press (YE, A B) describes science history and science.  John Hartnett and Carl Wieland think disagreements among OE-scientists shows the Big Bang theory is in trouble, but Greg Neyman (A B) explains that this is just how science works.
      You can also learn about Distant Starlight (plus c-decay & white hole cosmology) and more in ASTRONOMY: AGE OF THE UNIVERSE [which is the page you're now reading].

      If you want to explore more widely, the "potential resources page" for Astronomy has links to resources to supplement those above (the overviews & responses, and pages about moon recession & supernova remnants) and below (about Distant Starlight plus c-Decay & White Hole Cosmology & Apparent Age), and more.  The page includes these topics:
      distant starlight   c-decay   white hole cosmology  apparent age   —   astronomy  Big Bang   red shift   CMB   dark matter   —   galaxy shapes   supernova remnants   star evolution   black holes   faint sun   shrinking sun   solar neutrinos   —   NASA & Joshua  solar system origin   extrasolar planets   planet problems   comets   astronomical cycles   planet magnetism   space dust   water on Mars   earth rotation   moon recession   moon dust   moon craters   moon-misc   —   Big Bang & Theism

Distant Starlight

The Problem (for a Young Universe)
If the universe has existed for less than 10 thousand years, how can we see light from distant stars, from stars so far away that light coming from them would take billions of years to reach us?  Everyone agrees that this is a problem for young-universe theories, so we'll move on to potential solutions.

Four Possible Explanations (if the universe is young)
The science is simple;  the equation we use to find the travel time for a car trip, distance/speed = time, can also be used to find the travel time for a starlight journey.  If the universe is young, three scientific explanations are to claim that one of the three equation-terms is wrong:
A. Are scientific estimates of distance (from star to earth) wrong?
B. In the past, was the speed of light faster than it is now?
C. Is our concept of "time during history" incorrect?
D. A theological explanation proposes that starlight was created "in transit" to earth, so the starlight we see did not really come from a star, and the distance actually traveled is much less than the distance from star to earth.

• Distant Stars and Time by Robert Newman, a scientist who thinks the universe is old, explains the scientific problem (for a young universe) and criticizes three of the solutions: A, B, and D.
• Christopher Sharp explains why The Distant Starlight Problem is not solved by A, B, or C, and he questions the theology of D.
• Answers in Genesis (AIG) is a prominent organization for young-earth creationists, and three of its scientists (Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland) wrote How can we see distant stars in a young universe? to criticize a "false appearance of old age" explanation (so they say not-D) and evaluate three scientific explanations;  they think the estimates of distance are approximately correct (not-A) and they reject a claim that light took a "shortcut through space" on a curved Riemannian surface (another not-A), and they are pessimistic about a slowdown of light speed (not-B) but are optimistic about white-hole cosmology (hopefully-C).

A. Estimates of Distance
If the star-to-earth distances are much smaller than scientists estimate, all starlight could reach us in thousands of years. But the estimates would have to be wrong by a factor of a million (to convert billions of years into thousands) and "wrong distances" are rarely claimed by young-earth creationists.  Here are explanations of how distances can be measured and/or estimated by geometry and in other ways (by 26 methods).

B. Slowdown of Light Speed
If the speed of light was super-fast early in history, distant starlight could reach us in thousands of years, even though at its current slower speeds (after c-decay) this would take billions of years.
• The two most prominent young-earth organizations don't promote this idea:  AIG now thinks it is "doubtful" and in 2001 said "let's not be too quick to rush to judgement [in claiming support for c-decay based on new research]" and their 3-author chapter (cited above) acknowledges that c-decay would produce "physical consequences" that have not been observed, and in 1988 an ICR author analyzed light-speed data and found that support for c-decay "is not warranted by the data" and neither AIG nor ICR has any pages proposing c-decay in its website.
• But some young-earth creationists, led by Barry Setterfield, continue to claim c-decay, as in a defense & Setterfield Simplified & overview.
• The many reasons to reject c-decay (including the data & constancy of constants & pre-starlight irrelevancy) are summarized in compact overviews (A B) and in more detail (A B).

C. Distortion of Time in White Hole Cosmology
The 3-author page of AIG describes the White Hole Cosmology of Russell Humphreys, and explains why they hope it will provide a solution for starlight travel;  according to the General Relativity of Einstein, "gravity distorts time" which could produce a "massive gravitational time dilation" that would allow billions of years of light-travel time (in space) to occur during a short time (on earth).
• But is White Hole Cosmology scientifically plausible?  a description and criticisms (brief and in detail) plus views from Humphreys (A B) and his page with some criticisms and responses (but not all), and blogs (for July19-31).

D. False Appearance of Old Age
This idea is examined in APPEARANCE OF AGE — THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS.
 

 
I.O.U. — Other topics (check the Potential Resource Pages for possibilities) will be added later.
 

Homepage for ORIGINS QUESTIONS

  Search the Website