I just got my copy of the latest Journal of Creation with several noteworthy articles. My first surprise was Peter Line's Homo gautengensis article that opens the issue. Unlike the online version, the print version stops just before the section where he criticizes my hominid baraminology paper. I suppose this could be just an editorial decision to shorten the article, or maybe Line decided to hold off his criticism until he could write a whole paper? I don't know. I'm actually disappointed, since I would prefer to cite his criticisms from a published paper rather than some webpage.
In other news, Don DeYoung has a paper arguing that appearance of age is a legitimate explanation for the starlight and time problem. In other words, he's arguing that it's theologically OK for a creationist to explain starlight as just light created "in transit." Presumably things like supernovae aren't really there. It's just light that God made. Yes, you read that right. I was surprised too. I didn't think there were any creationist astronomers who still thought appearance of age was viable. If DeYoung is right, I guess we don't need the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention. I might add that DeYoung's "mature creation" is also ad hoc and non-scientific for the same reasons that Lisle's idea is.
Feedback? Email me at toddcharleswood [at] gmail [dot] com.