The Big Cover-up?

I am intrigued by Jason Lisle's latest article (Chapter 4) claiming that various phenomena raise doubts about the scientific consensus on the age of the universe. Jason is an astrophysicist, so he clearly knows, for example, that the overwhelming majority of scientists conclude that the moon and the earth formed as a result of a huge collision several billion years ago and have been moving apart ever since. He doesn't mention this, so the clear implication to anyone with no knowledge of the topic is that there is no consensus on this matter, that scientists don't understand what is happening, and are deliberately keeping quiet for fear of being found out. Similar comments apply to all the other issues mentioned. Why is this? Surely Jason is not intending to deceive his readers?

—D.E, U.K.

I am intrigued by Jason Lisle's latest article (Chapter 4) claiming that various phenomena raise doubts about the scientific consensus on the age of the universe.

To be clear, we can be absolutely certain that secularists are wrong about the age of the universe because what they say is contrary to what the Creator Himself has revealed in His Word. The evidences listed in my article are merely supplementary confirmations of the biblical timescale.

Jason is an astrophysicist, so he clearly knows, for example, that the overwhelming majority of scientists conclude that the moon and the earth formed as a result of a huge collision several billion years ago and have been moving apart ever since.

A majority of scientists believe in billions of years. However, only a subset of those believe in the giant-impact hypothesis—probably a majority, but hardly an “overwhelming” one. Of course, what the majority of people believe is totally irrelevant to the truth of a proposition. The issue is not what most people believe to be true, but rather what is actually true. The latter is what the article is about.

He doesn't mention this,

False. In the very article you are criticizing, I wrote, “Most secular scientists believe that the universe is many billions of years old” and “This problem suggests that the moon can’t possibly be as old as secular astronomers claim.” So, I did indeed mention that most (secular) scientists believe in a very old age for the cosmos and the moon in particular. It seems that you didn’t read this article very carefully.

Moreover, you seem to have missed the main point of the article. The article was about what the Bible teaches on astronomy, and how scientific evidence corroborates this. That should have been obvious from the title. It is not so much about what the majority of scientists believe—although this is also mentioned, contrary to your claim.

so the clear implication to anyone with no knowledge of the topic is that there is no consensus on this matter,

Also false. Phrases like “Most secular scientists believe,” “as secular astronomers claim,” “as evolutionists teach,” “as evolutionists believe,” “Yet secular astronomers believe,” and “secular astronomers must assume” all indicate the secular consensus opinion on these issues. It’s hard to believe that you missed all of those.

that scientists don't understand what is happening, and are deliberately keeping quiet for fear of being found out.

Nowhere is that stated or implied. On the contrary, in some cases I actually stated what the secular response is: “secular astronomers must assume that new comets are created to replace those that are gone. So they’ve invented the idea of an ‘Oort cloud’ . . . . Secular astronomers . . . must use other explanations to get around this. For example . . . .” Furthermore, the point of the article is about how such evidence corroborates biblical creation—not about how evolutionists try to get around such evidences. Again, it seems that you did not read the article very carefully at all.

Similar comments apply to all the other issues mentioned. Why is this? Surely Jason is not intending to deceive his readers?

Next time, please carefully read the article in question before criticizing the author for allegedly failing to mention things that were, in fact, mentioned.

Also, I just can’t help but point out that you have unwittingly relied upon the fact of biblical creation in your last rhetorical remark. Only if biblical creation is true would it make sense to criticize someone for (allegedly) deceiving others. In the biblical worldview, we are to be honest because God has told us in His Word that we are not to lie, and God will hold us accountable for our actions. If the Bible was not true, then how could you rationally defend the notion that it is wrong to lie? How would objective morality make sense in a chance universe? For more, see: Evolution and the Challenge of Morality.

—Dr. Jason Lisle