very simple: the creative act was a supernatural one which human investigation cannot comprehend nor measure correctly.
going by human measurements and understanding, which are fallible, limited and so on one only receives a picture from the human perspective. God does not do things according to human perspective but according to who He is and the power He possesses
when God created light , the stars, the moon the sun and so on, He was not limited by the human measurement of light speed. creating something superaturally is not deceptive, for then all healings would be deceptive as well, it is creating supernaturally and putting all things into place to begin life on this planet.
i will stop there for now and wait for the critics to arrive
Recently I started a thread on the intelligibility of the universe.
http://www.christianforums.com/t5877328-the-intelligibility-of-the-universe.html
While I don't necessarily stand by the perspective of the researchers who produced Privileged Planet, I do like what they say about the universe being observable and intelligible. And it is intelligible both because God made us capable of understanding his creation and made his creation operate on the basis of discoverable, predictable, law-bound operations.
The intelligibility of the universe is a fundamental basis of all scientific work in the sense that scientists assume axiomatically that we
can come to true conclusions about nature through the study of nature. We can do this because nature is intelligible.
That nature is intelligible is the foundational belief of the natural philosophy of the Middle Ages as expounded by theologians such as Thomas Aquinas. It is the fundamental basis from which scientists like Kepler and Newton constructed their theories and was accepted by the founders of modern thought like Francis Bacon and Descartes.
It is not an unquestionable proposition, as shown by Kant and others who questioned the foundations of our knowledge. But it is an axiom of scientific thinking and research.
It was accepted by Protestant evangelicals of the Common Sense tradition and that acceptance led many 18th and 19th century evangelicals into an eager pursuit of science in the firm belief that through science they were thinking God's thoughts after him. The second line in my signature is a modern reiteration of their perspective.
By contrast, today's creationism, especially YECism, must deny this proposition. Since nature as we understand it denies basic YEC beliefs, it must follow, if YEC is true, that God did not make his creation intelligible to his creatures--not even those made in his own image.
In the post above, I have highlighted the phrases that present this case: that we human creatures cannot possibly understand the world God created. It is forever opaque and obscure to our observation and reasoning.
While archeologist is somewhat extreme in his POV, I have seen this same basic belief presented again and again by YECists. It flies in the face of 2,000 years of main-stream Christian philosophy, and, I dare say, in the face of God's own revelation in scripture.
I firmly believe in the intelligibility of the universe. I firmly believe God did not make rational creatures to inhabit an irrational universe, but a universe accessible to the rational mind.
That doesn't mean that I think rationality is the be-all and end-all or that it is infallibly right in every instance. It certainly does not replace faith.
But it is an important component of how we relate to God and God's creation. Therefore, I believe that evidence means something true about created nature. A truth that is of God, as all truth is of God. And because that truth is of God, it must be reconcilable with the truth of scripture.
