Is God Deceiving Us?

Jason Lisle's latest foray into theoretical physics is an interesting diversion, but what does it actually achieve? He still has God creating colliding galaxies. If we consider any structure that takes time to form, this idea provides no answer. We look at the skies and see stars at various stages of their evolution — young ones, middle aged ones, supernovas, and the remnants of supernovas — white dwarves, neutron stars, black holes. We know that these processes take millions of years, so we are still left with a God who creates all these entities ready-formed, with the appearance of age. Is that really what you think, Jason? That God created ready-formed neutron stars in the centre of an expanding cloud of debris? It's a small step forwards from God creating light beams en route from the stars, but only a very small step, and it comes with the baggage of a stone age text being written in the language of 20th century physics — a language understood by only a few thousand people in the whole of history, most of whom are alive today. If a deceitful God is the price to pay for a literal interpretation of Genesis, I'll stick to the fairy story and my open and honest God.

– David Edwards, U.K.

[Editors' note: Dr. Lisle's article in question can be read here.]

Jason Lisle's latest foray into theoretical physics is an interesting diversion, but what does it actually achieve?

It shows that light from distant galaxies does not take billions of years to reach observers on earth. It thereby refutes a common argument used by critics of the Bible.

He still has God creating colliding galaxies.

Can you provide me with a logical reason why God would not create some galaxies in collision?

If we consider any structure that takes time to form, this idea provides no answer.

This is the fallacy of begging the question. How do you know that a given structure takes time to form? Indeed, the first stars and galaxies did not “form”—they were spoken into existence by God.

We look at the skies and see stars at various stages of their evolution—young ones, middle aged ones, supernovas, and the remnants of supernovas—white dwarves, neutron stars, black holes.

This also begs the question. How do you know how old a star is simply by looking at it? Stars don’t come with labels indicating their age. We could only know for certain the age of a star if we had a written record of the time of its creation. Of course we have such a record. The Bible indicates that stars are all the same age, created on Day Four. Any other view would be nothing but speculation.

We know that these processes take millions of years,

This again begs the question. The only way we could know this is if we had eye-witness testimony of the creation of such things. But the only eye-witness testimony we have of the creation of the cosmos (the Bible) contradicts your speculation that such things form over millions of years.

so we are still left with a God who creates all these entities ready-formed,

Everything God makes is perfect and complete (Deuteronomy 32:4). Anything less would make God seem incompetent. There is no logical problem with God making the universe functional from the very first week. Indeed, it is the alternative view that suffers from logical inconsistency.

with the appearance of age.

That is an oxymoron. Age cannot be seen. The misconception of “appearance of age” is refuted in the very article you are criticizing.

Is that really what you think, Jason? That God created ready-formed neutron stars in the centre of an expanding cloud of debris?

The universe has aged 6,000 years since its creation, and some stars have exploded, apparently leaving behind a neutron star core and an expanding cloud of gas—such as the Crab nebula. Men witnessed this event in the year A.D. 1054. My point is simply this: no matter what condition in which God initially created the universe, secularists can invent a hypothetical previous condition that would have led up to it. They reject God’s Word, make up a false history, and then they cry that God is deceitful for making the universe look old. In fact, it is nothing more than their naturalistic and uniformitarian biases that have caused them to overestimate the age. Such thinking is utterly irrational. It again begs the question.

It's a small step forwards from God creating light beams en route from the stars, but only a very small step,

Not really. God has given us some information about the initial condition of the stars. They were created to give light upon the earth.

and it comes with the baggage of a stone age text being written in the language of 20th century physics—a language understood by only a few thousand people in the whole of history, most of whom are alive today.

No. The Old Testament is written in Hebrew and each book should be interpreted according to the conventions of its respective genre(s). Nonetheless, it is God-breathed and so when it touches upon science, it is correct.

If a deceitful God is the price to pay for a literal interpretation of Genesis, I'll stick to the fairy story and my open and honest God.

Quite the opposite. If the universe really were billions of years old, then that would make God deceitful, since he writes with His own finger in Exodus 20:11, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” If God cannot be trusted about the timescale of creation, then of course we would have no reason to trust His message of salvation in the Gospels (John 3:12). The price of compromising Genesis with secular notions is very high indeed!

Dr. Jason Lisle