Images from the Hubble space telescope like the HDF or HUDF are yet another confirmation of what scientinsts already knew about the Big Bang theory and the age of universe.
How do creationists react to these findings and how do they interpret the images? Has any “creation scientist” made any comments?
I think they have some theory about the speed of light not being constant. Or else they just ignore the evidence.
Fr. George Coyne is a Roman Catholic priest in charge of The Vatican Observatory and he has some interesting things to say on this subject.
Maybe they say that if only they’d point the Hubble straight down it’d see the tortoise supported by the three elephants! 
That’s silly! It’s four elephants and they are supported by the tortoise. Get it right!
Keep in mind that creationists view all mainstream science as part of Satan’s Conspiracy on Earth, so any so-called “evidence” regarding the age of the Earth is the devil attempting to seize our souls and damn us to hell. (Or in some cases, God Himself testing our faith with regards to dinosaur fossils, geological strata, etc.)
These people eschew logic for fantasy, so it’s pointless to argue with them.
A Roman Catholic priest is unlikely to be a creationist. The Roman Catholic Church has no problem with saying that the universe is billions of years old, and that life has slowly evolved on Earth, though of course they say that these processes are directed by God - a concept often called theistic evolution. I suppose it could come under the broad heading of intelligent design, but this is intelligent design as a way of connecting scientific thought to religious belief, not as a way of replacing the former with the latter.
I’ll admit to trying to avoid talking to the creationists I know about these matters, but my general impression is that many believe God created the light from these stars and galaxies on its way towards us. After all, if God is capable of creating an entire universe out of nothing, he’s capable of creating a universe that looks older than it truly is.
I have it on good authority that it’s turtles all the way down.
Well, sure, but that’s after the elephants…
Turtles or tortoises? and what are the theological differences between the pro-tortoise faction and the turtle-favoring group?
die heretic!
edit: How cute, the board automatically lowercases posts made in all caps.
Turtles have little wings like the angels, and tortoises have demonic claws.
It’s obvious innit?
A few I’ve heard :
Claim that the universe was created by God with the light already in transit, the fossils in rock, and so on so it only LOOKS old.
Alternatively, claim that the Devil added all the evidence of the universe being old.
Claim that the scientists are simply faking all the data, since they are atheists, Satanists, or both.
Claim that since you can’t prove that objective reality exists any opinion is good as any other, therefore creationism is true regardless of the evidence.
Deny that the images are actually that old.
I don’t know who came up with it, but my favorite rebuttal to this line of thought is “If God went through all the trouble making the universe look that old, who are we to question it?”
NO IT DOESN’T!
–Amp
I’ve spent so long laughing at Creationist literature that I’m virtually an expert on the subject (I’ve wasted my life…:().
I’ve never heard them address the “looking back in time via starlight” issue directly – probably because it so definitively supports the big bang model and it’s something that even someone scientifically illiterate could basically understand.
But whenever there’s an argument or empirical evidence that really, really seems to suggest that Genesis cannot be the literal truth, they’ll use one of their fallback arguments:
Find (or make up) any criticism.
For example, if scientists say “The Hubble images match the predictions of the Big Bang model precisely. We also found the biggest nebula we’ve ever detected…” then the Creationists in turn will say “The Big Bang model was recently shaken by the discovery of a nebula that surprised scientists…”
The ultimate argument: assert that the scientific method, and all reasoning in fact, relies upon the assumption that god exists (whether consciously or otherwise). So an atheist scientist is a hypocrite and the fact they can make any correct predictions at all really proves that there’s a god.
And this god told us how the universe was made in the good book. :rolleyes:
I assume the major issue you are addressing is evidence contradicting Young Earth Creationsists (YEC); note that not all Creationists fall into this category… http://www.answersincreation.org/ e.g.
To your question: There are the YEC Creationist believer mainstream and the YEC Creationist “scientists.”
For the most part, the mainstream Creationsists (like most of the general public, and probably to an even worse degree) have a wretchedly poor science background. Their primary reaction tends to be “Isn’t God’s universe amazing!” rather than “Uh oh…that’s a big contradicting dilemma.” If their thought leaders don’t present it as an insoluble problem, they don’t worry about what “the media” or “secular scientists” have to say on the matter.
There have been efforts by the Young Earth scientists to grapple with the obvious dilemmas that a huge universe generates. To call some of the proposed solutions fanciful and/or poor science is being generous. Many of the more contorted proposals are closer to plain old stupidity, 2nd grade arguments or just grasping at straws.
Right. And then they act as if ***their ***non-objective opinion is the only right one.
The old God made it that way works every time. That was standard at school for fossils and something like light from other galaxies currently reaching the Earth.
Of course this then begs the question of why God is fooling us? Does not seem like something a kind and merciful god would do. (e.g. GOD: “Oooh…I’m so going to put these bones in rock to make them think there were giant lizards once! That will so mess with their heads! This is even better than my platypus idea!”)