Changes

==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====

==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====

One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.

One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.

Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref>

Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref>

Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia,  and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).

Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia,  and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).

They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" />

They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" />

However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref>

However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref>

==== Russell Humphreys's model ====

==== Russell Humphreys's model ====