I have been reading Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth R. Miller, and I came across an interesting argument against an old earth.

One of the indicators of an old earth is the presence of starlight. Since many stars are millions and even billions of light years away, it stands to reason that the earth must be millions and even billions of years old in order for the light to have had time to get here.

As someone who believed in a young earth, I had no problem with the explanation that God made the stars in a day and also instantaneously made a beam of light stretching from star to earth so that the stars could be seen. I did not understand, however, the implication of this thinking. As Miller points out, this belief “means that every event witnessed at a distance by the Hubbal space telescope and other astronomical instruments, including the explosive disintegrations of stars and the gravitational effects of black holes, is fictitious.” If we believe the earth is only ten thousand years old, then any starlight older than that must not be from the star. It must have been created by God en route.

To be fair, I am only responding to an old argument that I and others have used in understanding Genesis 1 in light of astronomy (pun unintended). The people at Answers in Genesis readily acknowledge that this is a bad argument and therefore do not use it. Instead, as this article shows, they question whether the speed of light has always been the same,  whether time-dilation occurs, and other assumptions of main-stream science.