In his response, Danny R. Faulkner addresses John G. Hartnett's critique of his proposed framework for resolving the starlight travel-time problem. Faulkner clarifies that his model differs significantly from previously discounted ideas because it restricts the miraculous acceleration of light strictly to Creation Week—specifically Day Four—rather than assuming an ongoing mechanism or relying purely on natural processes like Barry Setterfield’s model. He argues that creation scientists often make the mistake of extrapolating present natural laws backward into Creation Week, emphasizing that physics as currently understood was not yet fully operating before God completed Creation. Consequently, a temporary, supernatural acceleration of light or stretching of space on Day Four does not constitute an improper suspension of physical law. While acknowledging that his proposal is currently a basic outline rather than a fully developed scientific theory, Faulkner admits open questions remain, such as whether transitions in light propagation modes leave observational evidence. Ultimately, he maintains that because Creation itself is inherently supernatural, relying on miraculous explanations for Creation Week events is both necessary and valid.