Skip to content

Today's Creation Moment

Aug
22
A Simian Shakespeare Theatre?
Romans 1:20
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;...
You may never see a troop of monkeys traveling from city to city to perform Shakespeare, but some researchers now believe that monkeys do, indeed, develop culture. This unexpected discovery does not...
RSS
share

A Precision-Designed Universe

Author: 
by Paul A. Bartz

The solar system clearly has not been thrown together by chance. The precision with which the solar system is designed is far greater than anything man has ever manufactured.

Consider that many stars, perhaps most stars, vary in their energy output much more than does our star - the sun. Our sun varies in its energy output by less than one-tenth of one percent. Life would be impossible on a planet orbiting many, if not most, other stars. In addition, our distance from the sun is very precisely set to favor life on Earth.

Even the size and position of the Earth's moon support Genesis. Genesis records that God made two great lights, one with the purpose of ruling over the day, and one with the purpose of ruling over the night. The apparent size of these bodies from Earth is clearly an important factor in this position of rulership. Yet they appear to be the same size, even though the sun is almost exactly 400 times larger than the moon. This is because the moon is almost exactly 400 times closer than the sun. This precise relationship means that the Earth may be the only place in the universe where one can see a total eclipse of a star like the sun.

Taking the bang out of creation

Recent months have seen more excited claims that the Big Bang theory has been salvaged. These claims and the press that follows them are designed to breathe life into a theory that is suffering from a terminal case of contrary evidence.

Scientists thought that they heard a heartbeat in the corpse when astrophysicists claimed to have measured a 0.00001 degree difference in temperatures 14 billion light years away.

The first problem with these claims is that the "discovery" has not been confirmed. Normally, scientists remain skeptical of new discoveries until all the work has been checked and others have made the same observations. That these so-called "ripples" from the Big Bang itself were enthusiastically embraced as fact before the normal process was completed illustrates that the Big Bang theory rests more on faith than on science.

Astrophysicist Halton Arp has discovered several objects in space that violate basic assumptions of the Big Bang. That didn't win Arp any friends. In a letter published in Science News (July 27,1991.), Arp challenges claims that the expanding universe is "very well verified observationally," and "the evidence taken together … hangs together beautifully." Such claims are found in every textbook and news release prepared for public consumption about the Big Bang.

Arp says that these claims "overlook observational facts that have been piling up for 25 years and that have now become overwhelming." Arp is no creationist, though. He is proposing a "general theory of continuous creation." Continuous creation, according to Arp, takes place in "mini-bangs" within a non-expanding universe.

Arp seems to feel that the Big Bang orthodoxy knows that its theory is dead. He wrote, "There are now five or six whole classes of objects that violate this basic assumption [of the Big Bang]. It really gives away the game to realize how observations of these crucial objects have been banned from the [Hubble] telescope and how their discussion has met with desperate attempts at suppression."

Arp's letter confirms a prediction we made in BSN in October of 1990. In that editorial we predicted, "You can be sure that astronomers like Halton Arp (who is not a creationist), will never be granted time on the Hubble for researching his theories which question the idea of an expanding universe."

All this fighting among evolutionary astronomers shows us that the "obvious scientific facts" used to support this branch of evolution are not really as "factual" as they would like us to believe.

The origin of the moon

Scientists have debated for years about the origin of the moon. Its size, in relation to the Earth, makes it a most unusual satellite. No other known planet has a moon that is so large in comparison to the planet. Just as the Earth seems to be special, compared to other known bodies in space, so our moon seems to be quite unique, too.

The Bible says that the moon was made separately from the earth, less than ten thousand years ago. We can begin to predict some scientific findings about the moon from what the Bible tells us. For example, the Bible's account does not limit the expected composition of the moon. It need not be the same as the Earth's. In fact, creationists could argue that the moon might have a different composition since it was created for a different purpose than the Earth.

Several theories have been proposed to explain the origin of the moon. One theory says that the moon condensed out of the same space dust and gases as the Earth during the solar system's formation. The primary problem with this theory is that it predicts that the Earth and the moon should then have a similar composition. Analysis of moon material has shown that the Earth and the moon are quite different in composition.

Even if all the gases and water long ago escaped the moon, we could tell whether they were once there. Latest analysis shows that lunar samples have never known any water or free oxygen. This is significant because the Earth was formed out of the waters. The moon, a separate creation on another day, was formed in place, having nothing to do with water, according to the Bible. Three minerals that do not occur on Earth have been found in moon samples. Chemical elements in the lunar material also show a higher proportion of those metallic elements that melt at higher temperatures than the Earth.

This rules out the idea that the moon condensed from the same material as did the Earth. It also rules out the theory that the moon was, at one time, part of the Earth that was pulled from the Earth in some sort of cataclysmic event. Creationist-science has had no need to limit our expected chemical analysis of the moon. However, both of these long-age theories for the origin of the moon are ruled out by what has been learned. It appears that the moon was formed in place, not on the Earth, which is exactly the result we expect from the Genesis description.

If the moon had a magnetic field at one time, it would have been subject to the same decay as the Earth's. While the creation-believing scientists see decay of the Earth's magnetic field as irreversible from the beginning, the evolutionist sees such decay as a reversing, recharging process. If the moon once had a magnetic field, the creationist would expect it to have very little or none left, due to its smaller size and mass.

The moon has no detectable magnetic field today. Interestingly, however, it has revealed preserved evidence that it once had a magnetic field. One evolutionary writer called this "baffling and unexpected." While creationists did not expect to find remnant magnetism on the moon, we have long talked about magnetic fields decaying to nothingness, based on our study of the Earth's decaying magnetic field.

Creationists maintain that the Earth was given its magnetic field at its creation. The rate of decay in the Earth's magnetic field is so rapid that it has been measured. These measurements show that ten thousand years ago the Earth's magnetic field would have been so strong that life on Earth would have been impossible. In other words, the Earth is young.

Evolutionists have admitted that the measurements are accurate. However, they claim that after a period of disintegration, the Earth's magnetic field reverses, and is reestablished with renewed strength. Findings on the moon illustrate that magnetic fields can wear down to nothing. The moon is an illustration of where there was no reversal or recharging. There is no reason to believe that the earth is any different.

The rings of Saturn

Scientists have puzzled over the origin of Saturn's rings. Though Saturn's rings are unique, we have learned that all the giant outer planets have ring systems. One traditional method of explaining the rings has called upon a combination of the near-collision theory, along with the mathematics of Roche's Limit. Roche's Limit is a mathematical principle. It says that when a body comes within a certain distance of a larger body, it will break up into ever smaller pieces. Evolutionists have said that there was a near collision of some large body with Saturn. However, the mass difference between Saturn and the unknown body was too great. So when the body came within Roche's Limit, natural forces took over, and through the ages this body was reduced to a ring of dust around the planet. This is, of course, a simplification but presents the facts essential to our argument at this point.

Dr. Harold Slusher of the Institute for Creation Research has pointed out that the evolutionists' theory is essentially correct, except for one minor detail. When Roche proposed his formula, he had in mind a body composed of a gas or a liquid. He was not thinking of a solid body, as are today's evolutionists. The formula does not work with a solid body, and yet the rings are made not of gaseous or liquid material, but solid. So, says Dr. Slusher, we can rule out the disintegration of another body as the explanation of the rings of Saturn.

The other model, proposed by evolutionists to explain the formation of Saturn's rings, suggests that the rings are left over from the formation of the planet. Dr. Harold Jeffreys, a British Geophysicist, wrote that, assuming the rings are leftover from the planet's formation, the rings of Saturn should be completely stabilized within one million years of the formation of the planet. Dr. Slusher has pointed out that the rings are not stabilized, and thus we have evidence that the solar-system is indeed young.

Voyagers I and II

The Voyager spacecraft revealed that the ring-system of Saturn is very complex. Voyager II showed, for the first time, that Saturn has literally hundreds of distinct rings, with sharp divisions. If the solar system is a couple of billion years old, these sharp divisions should have become bluffed. The very existence of these sharp divisions argues for a young solar system.

Even more amazing is the "F" ring of Saturn. This narrow, well-defined ring system was described from the Voyager One photos as having knots. This was amazing enough. Then Voyager Two showed that these rings were actually intertwined and braided. They are not at all stable! Scientists have suggested that the presence of nearby "shepherding" satellites may be the cause of this instability. Even if those satellites have been there for only a short (on the evolutionists' time scale) million years, the relationship between those satellites and the rings should have stabilized. Evolutionists refer to the issue as an open question.

Star clusters

Evolutionists claim that space is full of the proofs for a young universe. Is it? Let's look first at star clusters. These are groupings of stars that are all connected by gravitational forces. The Big Bang theory says that since they are connected by gravitational forces, they were formed about the same time, by the same forces. Is this what we really find?

Astronomers divide stars into various groupings, according to what type they seem to be. For example, type 0 and type B stars are considered very young stars, by the evolutionists' figuring. Type G stars are very old. Dr. Harold Slusher is a creationist who has scientific credentials in astrophysics, geophysics, and astronomy. He points out that there are star clusters with type 0 and B (young) stars, as well as type G (old) stars all gravitationally connected to one another. The big bang theory cannot have this sort of arrangement, yet it is there. Dr. Slusher reports that evolutionists have thought up all sorts of fantastic schemes to explain this. Ultimately they call it an enigma.

We have an even more amazing (for the evolutionist) state of affairs in Trapezium, in the Orion nebula. These four stars are moving away from a common point in space at high speed. If you take their current speeds and compute backwards, you will find them at a common starting point only about 10,000 years ago. This means that they can't be older than 10,000 years.

The conclusion that one is left with is that the classification system commonly used for stars is inaccurate because it is based on the evolutionary need for a great age for the universe. The more direct evidence indicates that the classification system is in error. The stars that are supposed to be ancient, when tested against other evidence, are, in fact, young. This state of affairs poses no problem for creationists.

Dr. Wernher von Braun concludes

Today we often hear that should creationist science win the day, man's learning, progress and betterment would be forever set back. One can think of few Twentieth century scientists who have done more to move man into new scientific frontiers than Dr. Wernher von Braun. Dr. Wernher von Braun is considered one of the 20th century's greatest scientists. After pioneering work in rocketry, Dr. von Braun developed the Saturn V rocket that successfully powered the first manned moon landing.

In 1972 this great scientist was asked to comment on the case for design as a scientific theory for the origin of the universe. He wrote:
"For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose.... While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design.... Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer.... But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers, the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of nature without divine intent. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must one really light a candle to see the sun?"

The incomprehensible size of the universe is woven of immeasurable power. Yet it is arranged on meticulous precision to support life in Earth. Truly these facts form a shining beam from the Creator that dwarfs the sun itself!

References for further study

Slusher, Harold S., Robertson, Stephen J. The Age of the Solar System: A Study of the Poynting-Robertson Effect and the Extinction of Interplanetary Dust (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research), 1978.

Slusher, Harold S., Gamwell, Thomas P. The Age of the Earth (El Cajon, CA- Institute for Creation Research), 1978.

Slusher, Harold S. The Age of the Cosmos (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research), 1980.

Slusher, Harold S. The Origin of the Universe: An Examination of the Big Bang and Steady State Cosmogonies (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research), 1978.

 

Footnotes: 

Copyright © 1992 Bible Science Newsletter. Creation Moments, Inc. PO Box 839 Foley, MN 56329
800-422-4253 www.creationmoments.com