Mystery Still a Mystery for Evolutionists
The biblical explanation for the origin of the Universe is simple. God spoke the Universe into existence, creating it out of nothing (Genesis 1:1). The explanation for planet and star formation is equally as simple. On day one of the Creation week, God made the Earth. On day four, He created the Sun, Moon, stars, and celestial bodies (Genesis 1:14). On the other hand, evolutionists believe that planets formed after the Big Bang when cosmic space dust and gas circled a “newborn” star and gradually grouped together to form a larger mass. These evolutionary ideas about planet formation have posed serious problems for several reasons. One of the main objections to the evolutionary scenario is that, according to the evolutionists’ own theoretical calculations, the gravity from stars would suck all the materials toward the center before they could form planets.
New findings allegedly solve this problem. Interestingly, the “new findings” provide an excellent case-in-point of how evolutionary bias and unproven assumptions combine to render “findings” that fall far short of their boisterous claims. Staff writer for Space.com, Dave Mosher, reported on research done by Mordecai-Marc Mac Low, an astrophysicist at the American Museum of Natural History (2007). Mosher began his article by saying: “Planet formation is a story with a well-known beginning and end, but how the middle plays out has been an enigma to scientists—until now” (2007). Notice that Mosher claims that the beginning of planet formation is “well-known.” One can only assume that he is referring to the Big Bang, yet even evolutionary scientists would argue that to describe the alleged beginning as “well-known” would stretch the meaning of the term “well-known” far beyond recognizable limits. In fact, recent admissions from astrophysicists cast a dark shadow on the idea that anything concerning the Big Bang is known by the evolutionists (Lyons, 2007). [NOTE: The reason nothing is known for certain about the Big Bang is simply because it did not happen. For an extended critique of this false theory, see Thompson, et al., 2003.] The “end” of planet formation to which Mosher refers must be the fact that we have planets today and their existence needs an explanation.
Mosher, using Mac Low’s recent research, then attempted to fill in the huge blank. He proceeded to explain that: “The stuff of rocky planets originates in an accretion disk, or collection of gas that circles around a newborn star. Over time the dust particles bunch together and form large boulders....” It is here that we must stop and ask how Mosher knows that this is the case. Has anyone ever seen clouds of dust circling stars, turning into boulders, and eventually forming planets? No. Is there some place in space to which evolutionary scientists could point us to witness the process, proving that a planet was formed from it? No, again. In fact, this “well-known” beginning is a mental concoction of the evolutionarily biased mind. Why is this scenario suggested, one might ask? The answer to that is found near the end of the article. Mosher quotes an astrophysicist, Alan Boss, from the Carnegie Institute in Washington D.C. Boss commented that he appreciated Mac Low’s research because it presents “an encouraging approach to understanding how something happened that we know must have happened, at least for the terrestrial planets” (2007, emp. added).
Notice the circular reasoning involved in this process. First, it is suggested that the beginning of planet formation is well-known, even though scientific and biblical evidence militates against it. Then it is suggested that planets must form from dust clouds circling “newborn” stars, even though there is no place in the Universe where such can be observed as the origin for a planet. And then we are told that “we know” planets “must have” formed in this way. If we were to ask the innocent question, “Why must they have formed this way?,” we would surely be told that the answer is obvious: We know planets exist so they must have formed materialistically. Notice the built-in assumption to the whole game is that planets could not have been formed by a supernatural Creator Who spoke them into existence. In truth, there is no reason to force data to “prove” a materialistic explanation for planet formation that “we know must have happened,” simply because it did not happen materialistically.
So what does Mac Low’s research solve? Basically, Mac Low developed computer-simulated models of how he thinks large boulders could bunch together and form clusters large enough to avoid falling into stars. Yet, Mac Low himself admitted, “There are enough uncertainties that [planet formation] is not going to be an open and shut case any time soon. We don’t know how that collapse into a planet actually occurs” (as quoted in Mosher, 2007). In truth, the research does not “solve” major planet formation at all, Mosher’s overstated title (“Major Planet Formation Mystery Solved”) notwithstanding.
This is yet another example of beginning with a conclusion—planets must have a material explanation—and forcing data to “explain” the conclusion, rather than following the data to the actual conclusion they prove. In reality, if astrophysicists would clear their heads of false, evolutionary preconceptions, and allow the data from space to dictate their conclusions, they would be forced to concede that the “heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1).
Lyons, Eric (2007), “The Big Fizzle: Admissions from an Evolutionary Astrophysicist,” Reason & Revelation, [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3393.
Mosher, Dave (2007), “Major Planet Formation Mystery Solved,” [On-line], URL: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070829_planet_formation.html.
Thompson, Bert, Brad Harrub, and Branyon May (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique [Part II],” Reason & Revelation, 23:49-63, June, [On-line], URL: http/www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30.