It’s “Back to the Future” Day, which means three things.
One, the “Back to the Future” trilogy is being re-released in theaters, and if you do a little digging, you can probably find a free screening going on somewhere in your area today (which is cool).
Two, media outlets all over the world will be doing cutesy, content-less “analyses” of how accurate Robert Zemeckis’ “predictions” were of the year 2015 (which is annoying).
And, three, Ken Ham will post something with “Back to the Future” in the title, in a clumsy, transparent effort to drive traffic to the steaming pile of Flintstone-caliber science and shallow, fear-based theology that is the Answers in Genesis website (which is, well, just exactly what you’d expect).
Instead, with Christiano’s trademarked subtlety, the film tells the story of a Bible professor who is sent into the future for some stupid reason, in a time machine that — given Ham’s peculiar predilections — is absolutely guaranteed to be phallic-shaped.
What’s bizarre about this particular article is that Hambone thinks he can dispose of the starlight problem with a combination of tu quoque and what’s referred to in the technical literature as “Not knowing what the heck you’re talking about.”
From the horse’s mouth:
Actually, this is a poor argument to use for those who hold to the big bang to use because it’s self-refuting—they have a similar problem! You see, in the big bang model light has to travel farther than is possible in even 14 billion years. You see, according to the big bang model, at the beginning the universe would develop different temperatures in different places in the universe. But everywhere we measure, the universe has the same temperature—even in the most distant galaxies. In order for all of the different places of the universe to reach a uniform temperature, light had to be exchanged from one place to another. But, even in the supposed 14 billion years that those who hold to the big bang believe in, there hasn’t been enough time for light to travel from one side of the universe to the other. So for those who hold to the big bang to argue that biblical creation is wrong because of this “time travel” problem, they are really “shooting themselves in the foot” because their argument is self-refuting!
I think it’s a fair summary to say Hammy’s argument boils down to, “Well, yeah, starlight is a huge problem for the young-earth model, but that’s OK because hey — it’s also a much smaller problem for the old-earth view!” It’s basically the equivalent of a 400-pound sixth grader telling a bully he’s fat too because he can only do 12 chin-ups.
Talk about self-refuting. Get this: The way outfits like AiG make sense out of the devastating specter that is distant starlight is by mumbling a bunch of science-y sounding things until the audience is sufficiently confused (which is how they deal with most such things) and asserting that the problem exists only because it’s based on assumptions like the constancy of the speed of light and the rigidity of time.
Except that they can’t turn the starlight problem around on the mainstream view without making the exact same assumptions. Because if an inconsistent speed of light gets them off the hook for distant starlight (it doesn’t, by the way), that goes double (and then some) for the traditional model.
This is all without even mentioning the fact that what Ham seems to be talking about hasn’t really been a problem since the first “Back to the Future” was in theaters, thanks to the development of the cosmic inflation theory.
But don’t worry, Hammy. I know education moves a little slower in Kentucky. I’m sure you and your brain trust of gifted scientists will be hearing about it soon.