The Decay of C-Decay

by Robert P.J. Day

[Originally appeared in the OASIS Newsletter, 385 Main Street, Beaverton,

Ontario, Canada L0K 1A0]

"If you propose that the universe and all in it is the product of an act of

creation only 6-7000 years ago, many people ask - "How is it that objects

millions of light years away can be seen? Surely such light would take

millions of years to reach us." [B. Setterfield, "The Velocity of Light and

the Age of the Universe, Part 1," Ex Nihilo, vol. 4, no. 1, 1981]

The above quote is, to my knowledge, the first salvo by Australian

creationist Barry Setterfield regarding his hypothesis of "c-decay," the

notion of the decreasing speed of light that has been used for years as

evidence for a young universe. Setterfield's hypothesis, while initially

embraced by the majority of the creationist community, received heavy

criticism from the scientific establishment for several years since its

introduction in 1981, and was finally rejected by the creationists

themselves after it became such a major embarrassment that even the San

Diego-based Institute for Creation Research rejected it ( Acts and Facts ,

June 1988, G. Aardsma).

While the creationist camp would have us believe that the theory of c-decay

represented a viable scientific alternative to uniformity, and collapsed

only under recent, more intense scrutiny, the thrust of this article is to

show that the theory was riddled with massive flaws and glaring

contradictions from the very start, and was kept alive as long as it was

solely by wishful thinking and grotesque deception on the part of its

supporters (a sort of Australian Paluxy River, if you will).

The initial hint of trouble in Setterfield's work is found in his very

first article, from which the quote above is extracted. In addition

to Setterfield's reference to "an act of creation only 6-7000 years ago," he

states that his novel h of "the observational problems of astronomy and

Genesis creation ...". Setterfield's religious motivation is now clear,

and if his revised figure for the age of the universe just happens to match

the now-discredited chronology of Bishop Ussher (about 6,000 years), it

would probably not be a coincidence.

As Setterfield states, "The basic postulate of this article is that light

has slowed down exponentially since the time of creation," making it clear

that he intends to show not only a decay in the value of c, but an

exponential decay.

After supplying all of 41 selected data points representing

measurements of csince 1675, Setterfield claims to have found

the one and only curve that adequately fits these particular points and that

must represent the behavior of the value of c. In Setterfield's precise

words (words that will come back to haunt him), "There was only one curve

tried which fitted the data points exactly and reproduced all of the

observed features.

Its general form is a log sine curve, with a logarithmic

vertical axis...". Note Setterfield's insistence on a unique curve to

explain the data, and the fact that this curve reproduced all of the

"observed" features; these claims become of major import later.

With his "unique" solution for the curve-fitting problem in hand,

Setterfield concludes that the date of origin equals that at which the value

of c, as represented by the curve, goes to infinity. To no one's

surprise, this date is given as "4040 B.C. +/- 20 years ... the time of

creation/fall." It is here that Setterfield's case descends into

absurdities.

Realizing that a simple way to check his work would be to analyze

the value of cduring the last 20 or 30 years (when highly accurate

values became available), Setterfield introduces "the cutoff date beyond

which there is a zero rate of change," and confidently states that,

"From these observations it would seem that beyond 1960 the speed of

light had reached its minimum value and was constant thereafter,"

thereby denying anyone the chance to perform their own modern, more

accurate measurements.

In order to justify such a convenient property for

his unique curve, and knowing full well the objections such a

claim would produce, Setterfield says, "This conclusion raises the obvious

difficulty as to how one verifies a process which has occurred in the past

but is not occurring in the present. To answer this, we would point out

that the curve is solely dependent on actual observations ...," again

emphasizing the dependence on observed values, and observed values alone.

The above rather questionable mathematical machinations are almost

acceptable, in view of Setterfield's next unbelievable act. Having used

some rather dubious analysis to determine the "unique" curve that must fit

the data, Setterfield then describes the curve as "virtually asymptotic,

but a very good estimate of the actual initial value is given by the curve

at one to one and a half days from its origin."

What Setterfield has done here is to decide

that the value of c does not follow his "virtually

asymptotic" curve all the way back to infinity at the time of creation,

but that it levels off at T-plus-one-day or so, for no apparent reason and

in blatant violation of his insistence on "observed values." But

Setterfield is not finished yet.

He then proposes that this value does not just

remain constant from time zero for the first day and a half

until it encounters his magic curve, but stays fixed for several days

thereafter, extending PAST the curve. As justification for this proposal,

Setterfield abandons science entirely and descends fully into Christian

apologetics, stating, "I will assume that this value held from the time of

creation until the time of the fall, as in my opinion the Creator would not

have allowed it to decay during His initial work." Given Setterfield's

hypothesis that the speed of light begins significantly below the curve,

then extends beyond and above the curve, one wonders what the purpose of the

curve is in the first place.

The question of why Setterfield is so anxious to mutilate his solution as

described above is answered in the next paragraph, "Integration over the

curve shows that the initial problem of light travelling millions of light

years in only 6000 years, is solved ... The total distance travelled ...

would be about 12 x 10^9 light years." Again in violation of his insistence

on satisfying only the observed values, Setterfield now requires that the

area under the curve represent an approximation to the commonly-accepted age

of the universe, another contrived property that he will later use to reject

alternate curves that fit his particular data at least as well as his own

solution.

It is not hard to see that Setterfield is capable of producing almost any

area under the curve he wishes, by choosing a time during the first

"creation" week to produce his constant value for the week; in his case,

the arbitrary choice of one and a half days after creation produces the

value he needs.

The final blow to Setterfield's credibility is his statistical analysis of

the results, given in Appendix 3, in which he discards 3 of the 41 data

points shown in an earlier table, and claims a coefficient of determination,

r^2, of "1 to nine significant figures, indicating a near perfect fit to

the data" (emphasis added). As anyone with even the most basic knowledge of

analysis will know (and as Setterfield will later learn the hard way),

a coefficient of determination of 1 can only be realized if the data points

lie precisely on the curve in question, yet Setterfield shows a pathetic

ignorance of this fact by following the above claim with, "All told, 17

values were above the curve and 21 below, the r^2 value indicating a

perfectly balanced distribution of the cluster of points as well as close

proximity to the curve."

In fact, as Setterfield openly admits, not a single data

point of the 38 considered lay on the curve, yet this does not

prevent him from claiming a perfect correlation.

The reaction to the many howlers listed above from Setterfield's initial

article was depressingly predictable; creationists fell over themselves

praising the work, while the scientific community practically wet themselves

in hysterical laughter, then proceeded to give Setterfield's research the

shellacking it so royally deserved.

A letter to the editor in the very next issue of the journal asked, "Have

statistical tests [e.g. X^2] been applied to the fit of the data to the

postulated curve of decrease in the velocity of light? If so, with what

result?" Assuming that the X^2 value mentioned is actually the statistical

"chi-squared" measure, the question is actually rather meaningless.

Rather than recognizing this, Setterfield responds that, "X^2 is the same

as r^2 in the article," which it most certainly is not. Setterfield then

emphasizes the same statistical nonsense contained in the original article

with, "This r^2 is the 'Co-efficient of Determination' which tells how

accurately the proposed curve fits the data. If the fit is perfect the

value of r^2 is 1.000000000," which is of course utter rubbish since

not a single point actually lay on the curve.

Setterfield provides some unintentional hilarity by adding, somewhat

gratuitously, "The DEC 10 computer at Flinders University decided that the

published curve had an r^2 value of 1.000 to nine significant figures. I am

therefore satisfied that the postulated curve fits the observed data beyond

any doubt."

As a doctoral student in computer science, I must admit to some

amusement regarding the image of a computer "deciding" what the correct

answer is when this answer is so obviously wrong. Perhaps it really is the

computer's fault after all. Bad computer, baaaaaaad computer. (As a side

note, the other half of the page containing the above describes the genetic

variation in dogs as "devolution, a downward trend in efficiency," and

concludes that, "The fall affected dogs and man. [Romans 8:20-21]" One has

to wonder whether the poor dogs should be held responsible for original sin.

But I digress. Onward.)

After several critical letters to the editor regarding Setterfield's work,

stressing particularly the suspicion of carefully selected data, Setterfield

was finally forced into some damage control. In vol. 5, no. 3, Setterfield's

article, part two (b) has the revealing subtitle, "Using all measurements of

c."

Having taken quite a pounding until then regarding his statistical

analysis, Setterfield begins by defining his 'Co-efficient of

Determination,' r^2, and its relation to the standard correlation

coefficient. He follows this up by again (correctly) explaining the

significance of an r^2 value of 1, but finally twigs to the many objections

by adding, "It was subsequently noticed that [the r^2 value] had been

obtained at an incorrect point in the computer programme, and a check

gave the value as r^2 = 0.99+ which appeared in the International

Edition."

(This value, unfortunately for Setterfield, turns out to be wrong

as well. In a later publication of the same journal, Setterfield again

revises his value of r^2 downward to 0.986 based on, of all things,

correspondence from readers who calculated it for themselves. In all, five

different values for r^2 were published.)

At this point, one might almost give Setterfield the benefit of the doubt

and accuse him only of gross incompetence and mathematical illiteracy, but

the saga does not end just yet. A cursory examination of Setterfield's data

on which his curve is based reveals that the exact formula for the curve is

heavily dependent on two values from the 17th and 18th century, and it

behooves us to ask just how much confidence we can place in values this old,

or whether Setterfield has even recorded the values properly.

The very first value in his table, dated 1675, is credited to Romer and

is listed as 301,300 plus or minus 200 km/sec. According to Setterfield,

"'Sky and Telescope' June '73 45:353 gave Romer's 1675 value after reworking

a selection of his data. The result was 0.5% above the current value i.e.

301,300. Froome & Essen placed it higher. The minimum value was used."

The first question is how, given two conflicting values, Setterfield could

arbitrarily choose between them, or whether he should choose either of them.

The next issue is considerably more serious.

The referenced article in Sky and Telescope is actually a short summary

of a full article by Goldstein, Trasco and Ogburn in the Feb. 1973 issue of

The Astronomical Journal.

Why Setterfield chose not to refer to the original

article is unclear, but there is little doubt that this is

extremely unprofessional behaviour, although this is insignificant compared

to what one finds upon reading the original article. After considerable

mathematical analysis, the three authors conclude, "... we estimate that the

difference between light travel time three hundred years ago and today's

value is less than 0.5%" (emphasis added). In fact, the authors plot a set

of residuals against light travel time and state, "The best fit occurs at

zero where the light travel time is identical to the currently accepted

value value," completely contradicting the value in Setterfield's table. In

short, the 1675 value is completely fictitious and is based on deliberate

misrepresentation.

Precisely this accusation was made by a Mr. R. Holt in a letter to the

editor in the vol. 1, 1984 issue of the creationist journal EN Tech. J.

(apparently an abbreviation for Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, although every

effort is made to conceal this). Holt minced no words and described the

1675 value as "not only erroneous, but entirely unsupported by his

references and contrary to the actual data." Setterfield's response was

that the reference "... was NOT a direct use of the Goldstein et al result."

If this is true, what was the point of using an indirect reference to the

article in the first place, if not to use its results?

Setterfield further justifies the value with, "What was done was to take the

Froome and Essen value of 303,000 km/sec with its error margin of 2,000

km/sec and the error limit of the Goldstein et al re-working of 1,500 km/sec

above the present value and reconcile the two authorities by taking the

common ground of 301,000." Ignoring the fact that the original value is

listed as 301,300, and NOT 301,000, this method clearly has no value

whatever, and completely avoids the fact that the Goldstein conclusion is

that the value of c has NOT changed. How the Goldstein paper can be used in

support of a value of c 0.5% higher than the current value is a total

mystery, and testifies to Setterfield's lack of integrity in his research.

There is little doubt that the above glaring flaws and outright dishonesty

on Setterfield's part would cause the immediate rejection of his material by

any reputable and well-refereed journal, and it seems unnecessary to

continue the dissection. There is, however, one final issue that deserves

some mention.

Although the final blame for the early work must rest

ultimately with Setterfield, it seems that the editors of the Australian

creationist journal Ex Nihilo are not without fault as they seem to be

just as capable of misrepresentation as the authors of the articles they

publish. A rather blatant example of this is found in vol. 6, no. 4 of the

journal, on a page entitled "on what's being said about Barry Setterfield's

work on the Speed of Light."

Amidst glowing reviews from noted creationists such as Thomas Barnes, Walter

Brown and Setterfield's collaborator Trevor Norman, there are two

testimonials from Dr. Barry Tapp and Dr. Peter Cadusch, both faculty

members at institutes of technology in Australia. While the quotes

attributed to them appear to represent positive support for Setterfield's

work, inspection of the original letters to the editors show that they are

based on a ludicrous misrepresentation of both individuals.

Tapp is quoted as stating that, "The values of c determined between 1870

and 1940 do show a definite decay patterning." In fact, Tapp's exact words

were, "The values for 'c' determined between 1870 and 1940 do however

appear to show a definite 'decay' patterning." It is already unconscionable

that the editors cannot seem to faithfully reproduce a single line of text.

The case of Cadusch is far more serious. Cadusch is quoted as saying,

"Despite extensive reworking and analysis, these determinations [of c prior

to 1940] cannot be harmonised with today's values." The accuracy of this

quote is so poor, it is laughable. Cadusch's actual words, as given on

p. 81 of that issue, are, "The sudden change of measured c after the war has

already been commented on, and current feeling seems to be that, despite

extensive re-working and re-analysis, pre-war determinations are now

mainly of historical interest."