NOTE TO READER:

At the time this chapter was written, first in 1986, then updated in 1993, creationist cosmology was in its infancy. Many of the arguments I used in this chapter, though popular with creationists at the time, are now out of date, and we have much stronger information now. The first version of Revolution Against Evolution was written just before the second Voyager mission was completed, and the second edition just after. The Hubble telescope had not had its corrective lenses fixed by a visit from the space shuttle, and NASA scientists were scrambling to craft explanations for what they were observing. I think it is instructive to show this chapter as it was written with my comments to show how the thinking of creationists concerning these matters has progressed. It is also interesting to note that evolutionary explanations for many of these observations hadn't yet been crafted.

VII. The Stars and Planets

Recent discoveries of NASA space missions have created "astronomical" problems for evolutionists. NASA engineers designed the lunar lander with spindly legs so that it could land in space dust they presumed accumulated on the moon over billions of years. One scientist predicted that the dust levels would be over a hundred feet thick, based upon the amount of cosmic dust and rate of erosion.¹ Isaac Asimov also believed that the thickness of dust may be dozens of feet thick.² When the astronauts landed on the moon, the dust was less than an inch thick. Using the observed rate of dust accumulation, this is evidence for a young moon.

Like many other dating methods, moon dust is a poor chronometer. Evolutionists point out that though this was the thinking at the time the space program sent the man to the moon, the studies upon which they based their prediction of the amount of space dust accumulation were in error. These studies took place on mountaintops on earth, presuming the dust gathered there all came from outer space. Subsequent measurements from satellites show that the actual amount of space dust is much less. The actual rate of accumulation is unknown since dust from comets, meteoroids and other objects in space is highly variable. We must note, though, that the amount of dust on the moon still falls well within what might be predicted if the moon were young, though our argument concerning this may be partially neutralized.

The currently accepted uniformitarian theories on the origin and age of lunar craters can be challenged by observing the rate they wear down. Over long periods of time, solids behave like liquids, with expansion and contraction causing the surface of the moon to “flow” until the surface becomes level. Since lunar craters still exist, it shows their relative youth. Morton, Slusher, and Mandock use viscosity studies to show that lunar craters cannot be more than a few thousand to a few million years.³

Again we must note that the rate of flow due to expansion and contraction is a poor chronometer. Though this still is a superficial argument where the observations fall within the parameters of a young solar system, it is not enough to convince a dedicated evolutionist.
 

The Big Bang: A Lot of Noise?  

There are three different non-creationist theories of the origin of the universe: the Big Bang Theory, the Steady State Theory and the Pulsating Universe Theory. Evolutionists promote these theories with impressive mathematical detail involving lots of premises and speculations. The problem is that each theory begs the question, and by assumption rules out a supernatural origin. If the universe is running down, somehow the laws of physics and thermodynamics got reversed to “wind” up the universe.

Has astronomical observation produced evidence that cannot be explained by the creation model? I have to admire the imagination of non-creationists, and their ability to extrapolate data back billions of years to produce a model of the universe. Yet, even if everything did fit a mathematical and scientific model, since we cannot observe, test, or repeat it, there is no proof that it occurred that way. The creation model is by far the simplest.  

We can reveal the motivation behind the “big bang" theory by examining the assumptions. If evolutionists do not allow for the possibility that God created the universe, it is not surprising what conclusions they will come to. The way they think, if it “could have possibly" happened that way, they therefore don't have to believe in God.

It is still valid to point out that both the creation and evolution models for the origin of the solar system are heavily assumption driven. Both models make an attempt to incorporate the evidence in either a created or mechanistic universe.

Creationist Cosmologies

If we assume an ancient cosmos, it would not necessarily violate the integrity and accuracy of scripture. But, given the record of evolutionary assumptions, it is unwise to dismiss the possibility that the creation of the cosmos took place at the same time as the creation of the earth and solar system. Let us review assumptions evolutionists make in their theories:

1. Light travels in straight lines.
2. The speed of light is constant.

3. The Doppler effect causes the red shift.

4. The distance of stars can be determined by the Hubble constant and comparisons of star cluster size.

5. The second law of thermodynamics was reversed, or began at the big bang.

6. Time, space, and distance are consistent throughout the universe.

7. Space is a vacuum.

One creationist view of the universe explores the idea that the universe is not Euclidian in nature, but curved. If light travels in arcs over vast distances, the source of the light would appear to be much further away than it actually is because of triangulation problems.⁴

The vast distance of stars may then be apparent distances of images, and not the actual distance of the light source. Triangulation distance measurements have an out- ward limit of 60 to 400 light years. This is due to the limits of the base of the triangle, which is the diameter of earth's rotation around the sun six months apart, or 186 million miles. Beyond 400 light years, evolutionists rely upon comparisons of the magnitudes of stars, and calculations based on the Hubble constant. The Hubble constant is derived from the Doppler shift. The question is why do the most distant stars show the highest red shift? Another explanation could be that gravity fields and dust, both plentiful in space, could cause the same effect.⁵ Could this be a better explanation?

Evolutionists are hoping that the nearsighted Hubble telescope with its new corrective lenses will provide answers someday.

Other creationists have suggested that the speed of light has decreased over time, or decays over long distances. The “tired light” theory, as it is sometimes called, would explain a young universe with an apparent great age.⁶ Recent works by Morton and Setterfield have attempted to show historical measurements of the speed of light to be slightly higher than they are today.^7,8 The results of these studies have raised a spirited debate, since to preserve conservation of energy, other “constants” also would have to vary: permeability of free space, atomic rest mass, Planck’s constant, Gyromagnetic ratio, the radioactive decay constant, and thermal conductivity of a substance. Another model concerning speed of light assumes that in the beginning, the speed of light was infinite, instantaneously decreasing to its present speed.

Light is an electromagnetic disturbance. If God created mature electromagnetic fields the same time He created the stars, he could have created the light from the distant stars in route at the instant of creation. Therefore the light from stars appearing to be millions of light years away may have been created en route only a few thousand years ago.

Dr. Danny Faulkner, a creationist astronomer, points out many reasons to believe that the vast distances to stars are real and that we need to abandon attempts to question them. The curved-space argument no longer is seriously being considered, and the idea of creation with appearance of age is pretty much out of date. Instead, there are two young-universe proposals that are currently being debated. The first is the Setterfield theory concerning decay of the speed of light. The second is the white-hole cosmology of D. Russell Humphreys where time itself is a variable in a universe expanding from a central point. These theories are discussed at length in the updated chapter.

Evidence for Youth: Comets

The rate of space dust accumulation and the existence of lunar craters are evidence for a young solar system. Other bodies in the solar system that cannot be very old are comets. Comets disintegrate quickly in comparison to the long expanses of time required by evolution. The breakdown of several comets has been observed in the course of history. An example is Belia's comet, which one year split into two comets, then on successive returns broke into pieces, becoming a meteor shower. If comets and the solar system were formed at the same time, it would show that the solar system is young.

Therefore, most astronomers have to assume that the origin of comets is separate from the origin of the solar system, and develop elaborate theories for their capture by planetary perturbations.

Calculations for a short period comet of its loss of mass in each orbit show that they probably cannot last more than 10,000 years. Furthermore, the same perturbations that might cause them to be captured in orbit also would eject them out of the solar system under the influence of Jupiter and the other planets. If the solar system is as old as 4.5 billion years, there would be few comets.

Evolutionists recognize this problem, so they have postulated that outside of the solar system there are two "belts" of primordial comets that provide the origin of long period and short period comets. The "Oort Cloud," presumed to be the origin of long period comets, has never been observed, at least at this date. The "Kuiper Belt," just beyond the orbit of Neptune and Pluto, is presumed to be where a number of comet-like objects orbit the sun. Periodically we hear of new planetoids being discovered in this region. The creationist argument concerning young comets had its foundation in the assumption that the origin of comets occurred at the same time as the origin of the solar system. Evolutionists would agree that comets are young, but circumstances causing them to travel in elongated orbits occurred after the origin of the solar system.

Io

One of the most fascinating events of this century was the missions of the Pioneer and Voyager space probes, and the amazing photographs they transmitted to earth. From the findings of these missions, the discovery of active volcanoes on the Galilean moon of Io produced the most amazement and controversy.⁹ If that moon was millions of years old, it would have cooled by now. Why would there be so much volcanic activity on this moon if it was really millions of years old? The photographs sent back by Voyager portrayed a "hell" of molten lava and an active, erupting volcano spewing ejecta hundreds of miles above the surface of the moon.

The problem of active volcanoes is not limited to Io, but also contradicts the idea of an old earth. If the earth is really billions of years old, it would be expected that it would have cooled by now. According to calculations based upon cooling rates and the size of the Io and the earth, there should be no volcanoes. Therefore, evolutionists have to come up with an explanation for the internal heat generated by both the earth and Io.

One such explanation is that the earth creates heat through a dynamo effect caused by friction of molten magma within the earth's core. For Io, they postulated that the gravitational pull between the various Galilean moons causes friction and heat. Even those explanations do not account for the loss of that heat over millions of years.

Loss of heat in a planetary core, and the effect of gravitational pull on Io, which is the innermost Galilean moon toward Jupiter, is a poor chronometer. Evolutionists believe the tidal pull on Io to be the explanation why it is still volcanically active. This explanation does not necessarily support the notion that Io is old; it merely neutralizes the observation that Io appears young.

Saturn

The flight of the Voyager spacecraft revealed many odd things about the planet Saturn. Finger like projections or spokes stretch across the B ring and are slightly darker than the ring itself. Also found were eccentric rings, and some rings were fatter on one side than another. The problem with these explanations is that they defy known laws of orbital mechanics. Theoretically spokes in the rings would not form since the closer ring would move faster than the outer rings. The spokes should tear apart.

Since this book was written, theories have been developed concerning the effects of "shepherding moons" that cause wave patterns in the rings of Saturn.

The moons of Saturn are heavily cratered, which many have pointed to as evidence for recent catastrophe. Mimas, the innermost moon, exhibits the largest impact crater known in the solar system. Its diameter is one third that of the moon. It seems that freezing and expanding would soon eliminate the craters on these moons if they were millions of years old. Yet Mimas has extensive cratering, so much that to make more, you would have to make craters on top of craters.

The doctrines of evolution are based upon uniformitarianism, the idea that all processes observed today have remained the same over millions of years and have occurred gradually. The evidence is to the contrary in the solar system.

Stellar Evolution

Astronomers have an elaborate theory regarding the origin of the stars that establishes the age of each star according to its size and chemical makeup. According to this theory, the star undergoes changes from its initial contraction from interstellar gas, through stages of intermediate sizes, expansion to gigantism, finally to collapse, becoming a white dwarf. Each stage is supposed to take millions of years.

A problem with the stellar evolution theory is binary star systems containing stars of different evolutionary ages. Most of the binary star systems involve two or more stars of different stellar" ages" revolving around each other. This does not make sense, because the physics involved in one star capturing another would have to involve a third star perturbing one of them. If two bodies encounter one another, their orbits follow hyperbolic paths, not elliptical, unless a third heavenly body changes its orbit. Such encounters would be extremely rare. The same dynamics would catapult them out of orbit.

The most likely situation is that the stars in a binary star system would have formed simultaneously. Since there are an abundance of binary star systems, it is easier to believe that the stellar “ages” were the result of the star's original gas content than to believe that they were formed by star capture. Despite size and chemical makeup, the best conclusion is that binary stars would have to be the same age.

The Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field

Dr. Thomas G. Barnes has prepared a technical monograph describing the earth's magnetic field in detail, and measurement of its strength over the last 130 years.¹⁰ According to Dr. Barnes, these measurements show that the magnetic field of the earth is decaying in intensity and strength at a measurable rate.

The graph of this decay shows that the half-life of the earth's magnetic moment is 1400 years, which is very short on a historical point of view. One interesting aspect of this observation is that we can extrapolate the strength of the magnetic field backward along that curve. His calculations show that if the earth were more than 10,000 years old, that it would have had enough magnetic energy to be a star.

If the earth's magnetic field was much stronger in the past, it would have reduced the production of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. Carbon-14 dating is based upon the assumption that the rate of carbon-14 production in the atmosphere has been constant. The net effect would be that dates previously thought to be old would be greatly reduced in age.

A high magnetic field could have provided a protective effect as part of the environment before the flood, shielding the earth from cosmic radiation. Researchers conducted experiments where they kept mice in an environment with a high magnetic field surrounding them. These mice lived much longer, were fatter, larger, and healthier than the control mice. If the magnetic field of the earth was stronger before the flood, this could perhaps help to explain the long ages of the patriarchs, and the abundance of large animals in the fossil record.

Evolutionists believe that a series of magnetic field reversals took place and that the Earth's core acts as a dynamo to fuel the energy for the magnetic field. Dr. Barnes shows that the evidence for this idea is weak because the data does not give conclusive evidence of reversals. He points out that Cowling proved that it is not possible for fluid motions to generate a magnetic field with axial symmetry (such as the dipole field of the Earth).

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys has expanded upon this concept and shows that the strength of magnetic fields in the solar system fits the predictions of the decaying magnetic field observation originally proposed by Dr. Barnes. In addition, he has revised the original model to take in account the magnetic reversal data. See the updated chapter.

UFO's

Unidentified flying objects have been the subject of speculations concerning evolution and the origin of life upon the earth. Some non-creationists, like Sir Fred Hoyle and Frances Crick, have resorted to this explanation, faced with the impossible odds of the chemical origin of life. Unwilling to embrace the Biblical supernatural God, they create a super-technological one.

But, the Chariots of ti1e Gods theory popularized by Erich von Daniken years ago, and similar ideas published recently by Sir Fred Hoyle only pushes the question of origin of life back in time a bit. Now, the evolutionary problem is compounded. Not only do they have to explain the origin of life on the earth, but the origin of space travelers, how they imported life here, and how they overcame the barrier of the speed of light to do it. For years, people thought there might be life on Mars. Then, when our space probes proved otherwise, scientists began to look for signs of life elsewhere. Venus and Mercury are much too hot and inhospitable; Jupiter, Saturn and the rest are much too cold. The nearest stars are many light years away. A natural explanation for UFO's is nonexistent.

The Bible speaks of Satan as the prince and power of the air. I believe that UFO's are just another one of the manifestations of Satan. It is likely that the controlling demonic principalities and powers spoken of in the Bible sometimes reveal themselves as super technological gods of the air.

Some believe that UFO's are manifestations of angels. I highly doubt that. Angels serve God and His truth, and have specific roles to play. I can't imagine Michael and Gabriel as UFO drivers.

Many New Age and occult religions base their teaching upon UFO worship. The fruit of this teaching speaks for itself. Which is more likely to be true? Take your choice: a supernatural God and devil as describe by the Bible, or super technological space aliens? I have always held revulsion for science fiction which focuses heavily on the occult. There is little science involved in these stories, just plenty of horror, demon-like aliens, and man-glorifying technology. Now it has become a religion.

It is possible to come up with many theories and explanations for the origin of the solar system and universe. One is limited only by his imagination and intellectual capacity. We must keep in mind, however, that we are searching for truth, and examine our motivation for seeking out origins. If a person makes the assumption that God did not create the universe, naturally he will arrive at the same conclusion when he finishes his theory. Can we call the big bang theory, stellar evolution, the steady state theory and all the rest science, or is it a religion?

In contrast, creation is a simple explanation of origins by comparison. It is consistent with the laws of cause and effect, thermodynamics, and other observed physical laws.