An article by a Young Earth Creationist caught my eye today. It was about the "problem of distant stars". In it he considers the probem that if the Earth is indeed only about 6,000 years old and was a part of the 6 day creation of Life the Universe and Everything by God, then why is it that we can see the light from any of the myriad of stars which are clearly at distances significantly greater that 6,000 light years...
The author tries hard to convince us that this is possible because Newton's and Einstein's laws do not apply, but the logic he uses, and the pseudoscientific ideas he postulates are laughable to anyone with a broad education and even a moderate scientific knowledge. It seems though that the author is utterly convinced of his logic, and one presumes that so are those who already believe as he does, against all the actual reputable natural evidence that already exists.
My puzzlement is why they seek so hard to explain what is to them a supernatural event by recourse to natural laws. Why do they think this is necessary?
There are also those among the more moderate believers who believe in miracles, and believe in supernatural intervention, but who under scrutiny simply say that these are in fact natural events, but ones which are outside our understanding, and known only to God. Hmmm... That's a cop out if ever I heard one.
I can understand why people might possess faith in a higher being. What I fail to understand is why they try to rationalise or to "prove" this by pseudoscience. Not only is it counterproductive, but also uneccessary.