Sarfati's Inconsistent Views on Photon Transmissions between Stars and in the Sun's Interior (Henke)

In an on-line article titled Sarfati's Inconsistent Views on Photon Transmissions between Stars and in the Sun's Interior, Kevin Henke attempts to argue that what he describes as "YUCs" (Young Universe Creationists) are inconsistent and hypocritical in applying the explanation of a mature creation. Henke, however, has misunderstood the argument, and is also contradicted by one of his own anti-creationist references.

He uses as his example Jonathan Sarfati rejecting the "mature creation" explanation (see below) as a solution to the distant starlight problem, but accepting it to explain a 6,000-year-old sun despite photons taking at least 17,000 years to travel from the core of the sun to its surface.

Henke's claims
In support of Sarfati rejecting the mature creation explanation for the distant starlight problem, Henke has this to say: "Correctly, YUC Sarfati (2004, p.189-190) denounces this view as being both poor theology and anti-scientific nonsense:


 * Some older creationist works [as examples: Morris, 1978; Wysong, 1981] proposed that God may have created the light in transit, and [old-Universe creationist Hugh] Ross harps on this as if it is still mainstream [young-Universe] creationist thinking... [Ross reference omitted]. But AiG [Answers in Genesis] long ago pointed out the problems with this idea. [new paragraph] It would entail that we would be seeing light from heavenly bodies that don't really exist; and even light that seems to indicate precise sequences of events predictable by the laws of physics, but which never actually happened. This, in effect, suggests that God is a deceiver."

Then to support Sarfati invoking the mature creation explanation for photons in the sun, he says: "Rather than dealing with science, Sarfati (2004, p. 171) simply invokes a Gosse argument to "solve" the YUC solar photon problem:


 * Also, some argue for long ages on the basis that the calculated time for a photon to travel from the [solar] core to the surface (actually by absorption and reradiation) exceeds the biblical time scale. But this is explained if the main purpose of fusion is STABILITY - producing enough energy to balance that lost from the surface, that is, the sun was created in a STEADY STATE CONDITION, with the outward pressure generated by fusion matching the inward gravitational pressure, maintaining a constant temperature profile. This means that it could immediately fulfill its function as the 'greater light,' [Genesis 1:16] and keep shining at a constant rate.  It is no different from believing that God created Adam with oxygen in his bloodstream in his extremities, even though it now takes some time for oxygen to diffuse through the alveoli in the lungs, then be transported by the blood. [Sarfati's emphasis]"

Henke concludes by saying: "Obviously, Sarfati (2004, p. 171) fails to see that he's invoking the same type of groundless Gosse miracles to "explain" how photons travel WITHIN stars as Morris, Wysong and other YUCs have used to "explain" how photons travel BETWEEN stars. Clearly, Sarfati's approach to the migration of photons within the Sun is not only anti-scientific, but it's also inconsistent and hypocritical."

Mature creation
"Mature creation" refers to the view of biblical creationists that God created various features fully formed, rather than causing them to go through a process of growth and maturity. This is also known as being created with "the appearance of age" or of having an "apparent age". The classic example is that of Adam, whom the Bible indicates was created as an adult with knowledge of language, not as a baby or embryo. At first glance, Adam would appear to be, say, 30 years old, when he was in fact only hours or minutes old.

Henke refers to this as the "Gosse argument", so-called because Philip Gosse in 1857 used an extreme version of this argument, known as the Omphalos argument, in an attempt to reconcile secular scientific beliefs with the Bible, by claiming that God deliberately gave items an appearance of age.

Rebuttal
Henke's claim is that Sarfati is being inconsistent in rejecting the mature creation explanation in one case but applying it in another case, but where no distinction can be made between the two cases. Henke, however, has failed to note the distinction which Sarfati makes, despite this distinction being given in the very quote that Henke gives of Sarfati.

Sarfati's rejection of the mature creation explanation for starlight is because it requires "heavenly bodies that don't really exist" and a "precise sequence of events ... which never actually happened" (emphases added). In the case of photon transmission in the sun, there is no evidence for something that didn't really exist, nor is there any indication of a precise sequence of events that never happened.

Henke has therefore accused Sarfati of being inconsistent and hypocritical when in fact he was neither, as the examples are not equivalent.

Contradictory source
Henke refers to "YUCs" having proposed "a number of wild ideas" to explain the age of the universe, linking to an article on Talk.Origins Archive by Björn Feuerbacher which lists some of these explanations.

We have three cases being considered: Sarfati draws a distinction between the light from stars and the sun, as invoking the Mature Creation explanation in the former case involves unacceptable implications. Sarfati considers Adam and the Sun as being analogous, as neither involve unacceptable implications.
 * Adam.
 * Light from stars.
 * The sun.

Henke, not recognising the distinction, considers the light from stars and the sun to be analogous, and on this basis accuses Sarfati of being inconsistent and hypocritical.

Feuerbacher, however, agrees that Adam and the light from stars are not analogous, and instead makes a different analogy, one that involves specific events which would not have actually happened. He is commenting specifically on the light-transit problem when he writes: "Some creationists evade this by arguing that Adam and Eve were created "mature" and therefore the universe also had to be created "mature", i.e. old-looking, but I think this analogy makes no sense at all: a better analogy would be that Adam and Eve had been created not only mature, but with some scars from injuries which had never really happened!"

Summary
Henke's charge of inconsistency and hypocrisy fails because it overlooks the distinction that Sarfati makes, and this distinction is supported by one of Henke's own anti-creationist references.