William Paley Institute
Intelligent Design

Creation Astronomy

February 2, 2005 Research Papers
Institute for Creation Research

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of
God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do
appear. Hebrews 11:3

Home Email Page Print Page Newsletters Search
Contact Donate

P. O. BOX 889
Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Creationism
Pittsburgh, PA, August 3-8, 1998
Copyright 1998 by Creation Science Fellowship, Inc.
Pittsburgh, PA USA - All Rights Reserved

Astronomy, cosmology, big bang, design, age of universe
The current state of creation astronomy is reviewed. Creationists
have usually followed three basic approaches in the field of
astronomy: 1) criticism of the big bang, 2) the argument of design,
and 3) arguments for a recent creation. Many arguments that recent
creationists use are found to be rather dated. Many of these
arguments are still valid, but must be continually updated to
reflect new ideas and discoveries in the field. A new argument for a
recent lunar origin is presented. Suggestions for future research
are made.
Among creationists there is much disagreement about the age of the
earth and the age of the universe. Most opinions can be classified
into one of three groups. One group is the belief that both the
earth and the universe were created during the literal six-day
creation week a few thousand years ago. That is the position of the
Institute for Creation Research and most members of the Creation
Research Society (CRS). A second opinion is that while the earth and
all that is on it were created a few thousand years ago, most of the
universe was created in the distant past of "in the beginning" of
Genesis 1:1. A careful reading of the statement of belief of the CRS
reveals that this belief is compatible with that statement. The
third possibility is that both the earth and the universe are quite
old, in general agreement with what most of modern science claims to
be the ages. That position is difficult to reconcile with the CRS
statement. The many writings of Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb
have addressed this issue and have argued that the first opinion is
the correct one. This author is in agreement with that position, and
for the purposes of this paper, that is the definition of the
creation model.
The creation was only the first of three major events that have
affected the world. The second event was the fall recorded in
Genesis chapter 3. The fall had very strong spiritual implications
(the introduction of sin, the need for salvation), but was also
accompanied by physical consequences, such as death, the cursing of
the ground, and the groaning of the whole world as recorded in
Romans 8:22. There is some debate among creationists as to what the
full effects of this fall upon the world were. For instance, many
suggest that the second law of thermodynamics may not have been
operating in its fullness before the fall [57]. The third major
event was the world wide flood of Noah recorded in Genesis 6-8.
Being one year in duration, the catastrophic flood must have had a
profound effect not only upon life, but the shape of the earth's
surface itself. There is also some discussion among creationists
about how much affect that the flood had upon the rest of the
What modern science has to say about the origin and history of the
world has caused many to dismiss these three events. On the other
hand creation scientists take the Biblical account seriously, and so
accept these events as real and have attempted to reexamine the
world for evidence for those events. In the fields of biology and
geology much progress has been made. The biological creation model
assumes that there was a sudden appearance of life, with
reproduction only occurring within "kinds." The term "baraminology"
has been coined to mean the study of what constitutes a kind. It
seems that for some organisms the kind is to be identified as the
species, but for others it is at the genus or higher levels. At one
time most creationists argued that speciation (as defined by
reproductive viability) does not occur. However most now accept that
reproductive barriers, and hence speciation, are observed to arise
today, but our model allows this to occur within certain limits.
This process operating since the flood would have greatly reduced
the number of animals required on the ark.
The creation model of geology is basically a flood model, that is,
the antediluvian world was totally obliterated by the flood to the
extent that virtually all geological features that we see today were
formed in the flood and its aftermath. The wealth of geological data
available to us has made it possible for several competing flood
models to be developed. The oldest and perhaps the most familiar is
the hydraulic model propounded by Price early in this century and
again by Morris in recent decades. This theory attempted to explain
the general fossil sequence found in the geologic column (GC) by the
tendency of objects to be sorted according to size, shape and
density by hydraulic action while suspended in a fluid. In recent
years several other models have been proposed to incorporate the
apparent success of plate tectonics over the past three decades. Two
of these models popular in the United States are the hydroplate
theory (HPT) of Brown [12] and the catastrophic plate tectonics
(CPT) theory [58]. Some would like to place the flood boundary much
lower in the GC, making many strata post-flood, while others seem to
doubt the reality of the GC itself. This is contrary to the position
of Morris, who maintains that virtually no strata have been
deposited in the post flood world. Such disagreements are
encouraging in that they are evidence of the maturing of creation
science. Creationists are often criticized for having rigid
preconceptions that do not permit reevaluation of our ideas. Anyone
making this point has obviously not considered the case of
creationist geology.
Unfortunately the situation in astronomy is not as good. As with
biology and geology, astronomy has become permeated with
evolutionary assumptions and conclusions. Unlike those other
disciplines, there is no overall theory or, if you will, paradigm,
of astronomy from a creationist perspective. Part of the problem has
been the lack of researchers in the field. Most people see the
obvious effect that evolution and long time scales have had on
geology and biology, and this has attracted Christian young people
to pursue these sciences. The result has been that while
evolutionary thinking has come to dominate much of astronomy, this
has escaped the notice of most creationists.
A second cause for the lack of creationist astronomy is the lack of
Biblical specifics. Genesis 1:1 mentions the creation of the
heavens, and many understand that to refer to the creation of space.
But space (astronomical heaven) was not filled with what we
understand to be astronomical bodies (the sun, moon, and stars)
until the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1:14-19). What, if
anything, existed in space between these two events? Does the "whole
creation" of Romans 8:22 include the astronomical world? That is,
did the fall have an effect upon astronomical bodies? If so, what?
Did the flood have an effect upon the astronomical realm? Some have
offered speculations on this, but with the lack of Biblical
specifics, these are not much more than conjecture.
It should be noted that some recent creationists have attempted to
avoid the light travel time difficulty (to be discussed later) by
asserting that the mention of the creation of the stars on the
fourth day does not mean that the stars were created on that day.
Instead, it is argued that mention of the stars in Genesis 1:16
refers to their purpose (for signs and time reckoning) rather than
their creation at that time. In this scenario the stars would have
been part of the primordial creation of Genesis 1:1 and are
mentioned in verse 16 only in the context of purpose along with the
sun and moon. It is true that the Hebrew of Genesis 1:16 merely
mentions "the stars also," leaving in some peoples minds the
possibility of ambiguity whether this refers to the stars creation
or function. Another related variation is that the sun, moon, and
stars existed all along and merely became visible from the surface
of the earth when the atmosphere cleared on the fourth day. While it
is true that a number of Biblical scholars have endorsed these
interpretations of Genesis 1:16, this has been done to accommodate
the supposed great age of the astronomical world. It is the opinion
of this author that these are quite a stretch of the passage and
that it is quite doubtful one could reach such a conclusion from the
Bible alone. For this reason it is assumed here that Genesis 1:16
refers to the creation of the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth
Paul Steidl made this basic assumption when he wrote what is perhaps
the best book to date on creation astronomy [50]. Because this book
does not go into great depth nor is a primary source in the sorts
arguments that will be described here, it will not be referenced
often in this paper. Its great strength is that it is a general
treatment of astronomy that covers a broad range of subjects with
emphasis given to Biblical and creation interpretations. While
nearly 20 years old, the book has aged very well considering the
rapid advances in astronomy in the intervening period.
Given these restraints, creationists have proceeded with some ideas.
These ideas have generally fallen into three categories:
Criticisms of the big bang
Arguments of design in the universe
Arguments for a recent creation.
Each of these topics will be discussed here. The first review of
creation astronomy was the one of Mulfinger [38] 25 years ago, so
the time seems right for a second one.
Cosmology is the study of the structure of the universe, while
cosmogony is the study of the history of the universe. For three
decades the big bang has been the predominant theory of the origin
of the universe, and so it is sometimes referred to as the "standard
model." While until recently no creationists have done original
research in cosmogony, many creationist writers have attacked
assumptions and alleged evidences of the big bang or otherwise made
use of the work of others that have revealed difficulties with the
big bang. There are several creationist discussions of the big bang
[12, pp. 21-22], [19], [35], [45].
Many supporters of the big bang model claim that three evidences
support the big bang:
The expansion of the universe
The helium and deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) abundances of
the universe
The three-degree background radiation.
Creationists sometimes note that the first two items are not
predictions of the standard model (for example, see [12, pp. 21,22].
The expansion of the universe was discovered before the model was
devised, and in fact the big bang is an attempt to explain why the
universe is expanding. This is a fine point involving logic and
philosophy of science, and so should be further discussed here. Any
model requires the input of facts or data to guide the construction
of the theory. In many cases a fact involved is the problem that
needs to be solved. In this case, the big bang was developed to
explain the observed expansion of the universe. Any number of
theories could be devised to explain why there is a cosmic expansion
(e.g. the steady state theory). But can the expansion then be used
as evidence of these theories since they were devised to explain the
expansion? This appears to be circular reasoning. While a good
theory must be explanatory, it must also be predictive. The big bang
explains why there is a cosmic expansion, but it hardly predicts it.
By necessity a theory must be consistent with the input data. The
real power of a model is its predictive ability. What experiments or
observations could be done that could conceivably falsify the
theory? Cosmic expansion is hardly a prediction, given that it must
patently agree with the big bang. This should not be construed as a
criticism of the big bang model. Rather, it is an attempt to clarify
the relationship between observed cosmic expansion and the big bang
theory. Some sources list the expansion of the universe as a
prediction of the big bang model. It is not; it is, however,
something that is well explained by the model. This topic urgently
needs to be further developed by creationists.
There is a similar, yet less incestuous, relationship with the big
bang model and the abundances of the lighter elements. These
abundances generally were known when the standard cosmology was
developed. While they have been helpful in deciding which versions
of the standard model are more tenable, this does not appear to be a
clean prediction either, but is rather more of an input.
On the other hand the 3K cosmic background radiation (CBR) is an
impressive prediction of the big bang. The prediction was
qualitatively made nearly 20 years before the discovery of the
microwave background in 1965. The steady state theory, which was the
competing evolutionary model at the time, did not predict this
radiation. A few cosmologists such as Fred Hoyle still believe the
steady state theory, but have had no success in explaining the
background in the intervening years. Akridge, et al. [4], has
attempted at least one creationist explanation for the 3K CBR. They
suggested that the energy from starlight that was absorbed and
re-emitted by dust particles over a few thousand years is the source
of the 3K background. But given the very uneven distribution of
dust, this should result in a much more patchy emission than what is
observed in the CBR. In reality infrared emission from dust has long
been observed, and at much higher temperatures than 3K.
But at the same time, this apparent triumph of the big bang could be
its undoing. The universe today is arranged into stars and galaxies.
Presumably these resulted from slight unevenness, or perturbations,
in the early universe that caused gravity to vary from point to
point and resulted in the clumping of material into these objects.
These perturbations would have resulted in slight temperature
differences in the cosmic background radiation. Cosmologists have
estimated how great the perturbations should have been, as well as
the amount of temperature fluctuations that should be observed
today. The COBE (COsmic Background Explorer) satellite launched a
few years ago was designed to measure these fluctuations. The first
two years of observations revealed that the background is completely
smooth (for a brief creationist discussion of this, see Matzko
[35]). Only after a complex statistical analysis of the data were
any variations allegedly found [43]. Though supposedly confirmed by
two additional studies, there is much reason to be skeptical of the
temperature fluctuations. First, the alleged fluctuations are well
below the sensitivity of the detector. Second, no one can point to
any spot in the sky and say, "this is a spot of warmer or cooler
temperature" [24].
Even if the temperature fluctuations turn out to be real, it has
generally been missed that these fluctuations are an order of
magnitude too low for the standard cosmology. COBE was designed to
measure the fluctuations predicted by the theory, but the
fluctuations were not directly observed, hence the statistical
treatments. Attempts are being made to refine the big bang model to
fit the data. There are other problems with the big bang, such as
the flatness problem, dark matter, and the assumption that the
universe would have been in thermal equilibrium when it came into
existence. Creationists have made use of all of these arguments
against the big bang.
Another problem with the big bang is discordant redshifts. Halton
Arp [6] has made a career producing data that calls into question
whether the redshifts are cosmological, that is, is redshift
directly proportional to distances? If Arp is correct, then at least
some redshifts must be due to some other effect other than cosmic
expansion. Quite understandably, creationists have made use of this
There are several problems with the creationist approach to the big
bang however. First, it is obvious that in some papers creationists
have improperly stated the big bang model. For instance, some have
assumed that the geometry of the universe is Euclidean, while others
picture the big bang as having been an explosion of matter and
energy into preexisting space and time [1], [2]. The standard model
actually assumes non-Euclidean geometry, and the big bang is not so
much an explosion of matter into space as it was an explosion of
space and time as well. In other words, there was no space or time
before the big bang. Others deride the standard cosmology by asking
such questions as "how can an explosion give rise to complexity?"
What is missed in this is that the name "big bang" is a bit of a
misnomer, and that the standard model has never actually been
proposed as an explosion. A few years ago a popular astronomy
magazine held a contest to give a better name for the standard
cosmogony - no one won [8]. If a creationist misunderstands these
basics of the big bang model, then would any of his conclusions
regarding the big bang be valid?
Second, many creationists greatly overstate the case against the big
bang. In some presentations it has been stated that cosmologists are
in despair with the big bang and are nervous to debate the model (a
statement that this author heard during a lecture by a prominent
creation speaker a few years ago). A typical quote is that of
DeYoung and Whitcomb [19, p. 11]:
"However, in spite of the current popularity of this theory, the
dramatic beginning of the universe which the big bang assumes has
proven to be an embarrassment to many cosmologists."
While I share opposition to the big bang model with DeYoung and
Whitcomb, it has not been my experience that cosmologists are
embarrassed by the theory. While recognizing problems that the model
has, most big bang scientists are convinced of the fundamental
correctness of the model and believe that with time the model will
be improved.
A third problem is our lack of an alternative. Even if we succeed in
destroying the big bang, do we have a model with which to replace
it? There have been several cosmological models that creationists
have put forth (e.g. Wests polytropic model [55]), but only one
cosmogony model has been proposed. This is the Humphreys white hole
cosmogony [30], which will be discussed later.
Much evidence of teleology (design in nature) exists in the
universe. For human, animal, and plant life this is very easy to
see. If certain changes are made in the physiology or the chemistry
of organisms, then life becomes impossible. The same could be said
about the universe as a whole. If certain constants of nature are
changed, then the chemistry necessary for life becomes impossible,
and the universe begins to appear very suited, or designed, for life
[16]. The same is true for the earth: if we change its size,
composition, distance from the sun, tilt of its axis, or any number
of characteristics, then the earth becomes uninhabitable. Secular
scientists have spent much thought on these questions, and have
dubbed this the "anthropic principle" [7].
The anthropic principle as usually formulated has at least two great
differences from the design argument used by creationists. First,
the secular scientists that developed the anthropic principle have
done so from an atheistic viewpoint. Their basic conclusion is that
no matter how much the universe may seem to have design, it really
does not. This sets the design argument completely upon its head,
and it is time that creationists retake this argument. A second
problem is that much of anthropic principle has been developed in
the context of an old universe. Some creationists who are
comfortable with an old universe have made great use of this kind of
argument [40], [41]. These two objections have probably caused most
creationists to ignore the anthropic principle. One exception is
Bergman [9], whose recent paper is an excellent start on this
subject. Creationists are encouraged to explore this topic.
Design is a very powerful argument, but can it be overstated? Have
some seen design where none exists? When examining the diversity
among the moons of the solar system revealed by the Voyager probes,
some appeal to the design argument. The case is stated something
like this: the moons of any of the Jovian planets exhibit varying
orbital distances, compositions and surfaces, suggesting a very
complex origin and history. Because uniformitarian and evolutionary
theories have difficulty explaining all that we see, these must be
the result of design and creation. Similar arguments are made for
ring systems, stellar diversity, and galactic structure. But does
something like the orbital distances and ordering of planetary
satellites reveal design? If there are ten moons orbiting a planet,
they must each assume their own orbits. Though the number of
possible combinations is virtually infinite and the probability of
any particular one slight, the moons must be in some configuration.
In order for a design argument to be valid, it must be demonstrated
that any other configuration would not work. The root of the problem
here may be a lack of a concise definition of design that can be
objectively applied. Progress toward this definition and its
application is encouraged.
A much more fruitful argument is the one for a young creation. The
universe is usually assumed to be between ten and twenty Gyr old,
with the solar system and the earth having formed about 4.6 Gyr ago.
Of course this is based on evolutionary and uniformitarian
assumptions. Our model places an age of only a few thousand years
for the earth and everything else in the universe. Thus a very clear
distinction between the creation and evolution models exists. There
have been several arguments put forth for the young age of the
earth, such as the mineral content of the ocean [36] and the helium
content of the atmosphere [54]. Several arguments for recent cosmic
creation have been given [44], [46], [47]. We will discuss five
arguments for the solar system and three for the universe.
A Young Solar System: Comets
The existence of comets has been used as an argument for a young
solar system for a long time [47]. Comets have been known since
ancient times. Bright ones are rare, occurring every decade or two.
Comets appear without warning, erratically move across the sky, and
then just as mysteriously disappear. The seemingly unpredictable
nature of comets stems from their orbits being very different from
the orbits of planets. One difference is that while planetary orbits
are nearly circular, comet orbits are very elliptical. This means
that the comets usually travel at great distances from the sun, but
once each orbit they come very close to the sun, often closer than
any of the planets. The orbits of the planets are nearly in the same
plane, but comets can have any inclination to that plane, with some
of them orbiting nearly perpendicular to the plane.
For about 40 years the model of a comet has been Whipple's dirty
iceberg theory, and much evidence has been amassed in its support.
It states that a comet consists of a nucleus only a few kilometers
across made of various ices and dust. At great distances from the
sun, where comets spend most of the time, the ices remain frozen.
However as a comet is near closest approach to the sun, the intense
radiation from the sun evaporates the ices to produce a tenuous
cloud of gas around the nucleus called the coma. Solar wind and
radiation sweep gas molecules and dust particles outward to produce
the tail. During the spring of 1996 we were treated to Comet
Hyakutake, followed by Comet Hale-Bopp in the spring of 1997.
Each close passage to the sun results in a large amount of material
being removed from the nucleus. Obviously, given the small size of
the nucleus, a comet cannot survive many trips around the sun.
Comets of short orbital period that have been observed during many
orbits have become noticeably fainter as a result of material loss.
It has been estimated that a bright comet could not remain bright
for more than 100 passes near the sun. With a period of about 10,000
years and being so bright, Comet Hyakutake could not have been
orbiting the sun in its current orbit for very long, certainly not
4.6 Gyr, the supposed age of the solar system.
If comets date from the beginning of the solar system, and they can
only survive 100 trips around the sun, what is the maximum age of
the solar system? If comets travel too far from the sun, they will
be lost to other stars. Let us assume that a comet nucleus can
travel 1/3 the distance to the nearest star and still remain part of
the solar system (the maximum distance is probably less than that).
Keplers third law shows that the maximum orbital period would be
about 10 million years. One hundred trips would give an age of one
Gyr. This is a maximum age: the actual would be less. This would
result in no bright comets - we do see bright comets, so they could
not be that old. Therefore we can conclude that the existence of
comets gives us an age of the solar system far less than 4.6 Gyr.
This has long been recognized as a problem for the long age of the
solar system, so in 1950 the Dutch astronomer Jan Oort suggested an
explanation. He proposed that 4.6 Gyr ago during the origin of the
solar system, comet nuclei either formed at great distances from the
sun or formed in the inner solar system and were ejected to the
outer regions. At these great distances from the sun the low
temperature would allow the ices to remain frozen indefinitely.
Occasional gravitational perturbations of other stars or molecular
clouds would from time to time cause comet nuclei to change orbit so
that they come toward the inner solar system once each orbit. As
comets die they would be replaced by new incoming nuclei so that a
steady state is achieved.
This Oort comet cloud is assumed to exist, even though there is
absolutely no evidence for it. Of particular interest is the quote
of Sagan and Druyan [42]:
"Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort
Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not
yet a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence."
About the time the Oort cloud was suggested, Kuiper proposed a belt
of comet nuclei just beyond the planetary region as the source of
short period comets. For a long time the Kuiper belt was largely
ignored, because it was thought that the Oort cloud could explain
the existence of both long and short period comets. Since 1980
simulation studies have shown that the Oort cloud is incapable of
producing short period comets in the number observed [20], [21], so
the Kuiper belt has been invoked to explain comets of shorter
orbital periods. In the view of some people today the Kuiper belt is
considered to be an inner portion of the Oort cloud. In recent years
a few studies have searched for Kuiper belt objects, with some
apparent success. One search claimed to have found about two dozen
"candidate" members of the Kuiper belt. The word "candidate" is used
because none of the objects photographed can be clearly identified
as a Kuiper belt object. Furthermore, a follow up search failed to
reproduce the earlier result. The Oort cloud is something that has
been devised to salvage the great age of the solar system, but
perhaps the existence of comets is telling us that the solar system
is young.
Slusher [47] and others, based upon studies done about a decade
earlier, discussed this argument for a recent creation. A more
recent article that includes original quantitative modeling is the
one by Stillman [51]. Since Slushers work, the Oort cloud
hypothesis has been refined, and the Kuiper belt hypothesis has been
developed as well. Ejection from the solar system is now recognized
as an important loss mechanism for comets, perhaps exceeding
evaporation in the case of short period comets. With these recent
developments, this whole issue from a creationist perspective has
been in need of revision, which Faulkner [22] has done. His
conclusion is that this is still a valid argument for a recent
creation of the solar system, but that any discussion should include
Oort cloud and Kuiper belt.
Lunar Dust
Back in the 1960's estimates of the depth of the dust on the moon
were made. This was important information to know during the Apollo
program, because if there were a thick layer, the lunar landers
could have sunk and disappeared. The dust on the moon results from
meteors falling onto the surface. Each meteor strike, no matter how
small, knocks some debris from surface rocks, and this gradually
accumulates along with the incoming material. If we can measure the
rate at which meteors are falling today, then we can estimate how
much should accumulate over 4.6 Gyr. Actually, this would be an
upper estimate since the meteor flux would have been greater in the
past. Measurements of the meteor flux made nearly 40 years ago
indicated that the lunar dust should be many meters thick. The
actual depth is only a few centimeters, consistent with a recent
creation but not an old one.
This remained a mystery until new meteor flux measurements in the
early 1970's were far lower, consistent with the measured depth of
lunar dust and an old age. Creationists apparently were ignorant of
these newer measurements that were consistent with an ancient moon,
and were rightly criticized [52, pp. 143-145], [53, pp. 67-82] for
this lapse. Snelling and Rush [49] have reevaluated this issue, and
they recommended against using this argument for recent creation.
Many creationists have abandoned this argument, but some continue to
use it. It seems that there are some questions about the more recent
meteor flux measurements, especially when one considers that the
earlier measurements that were supposedly too high have never been
explained. About the time that the paper by Snelling and Rush
appeared, a new, more direct, and higher measurement of meteoroid
influx was published [34]. This has been one factor in the rejection
of some creationists to the warning by Snelling and Rush against
this argument. The newer measurements should not be taken as the
final word in this matter, and future measurements should be
carefully monitored. Furthermore, laboratory measurements show that
the bulk of lunar dust is made of lunar material rather than
meteoritic material (the ratio could be as much as 67:1 [12, pp.
213-215]). If that is the case, then the depth of lunar dust would
be more consistent with a young moon rather than a 4.6 billion year
old moon.
Planetary Magnetic Fields
Many of the planets possess magnetic fields, and it is generally
believed that a current in a metallic core of the planets causes
these fields. In the case of the earth the current is in the iron
and nickel core, while the Jovian planets have currents in a
metallic hydrogen core or mantle. As with any current that is not
externally sustained, these currents should eventually reduce and
then vanish due to friction. Historic measurements of the earth's
magnetic field show that it is decreasing. Thomas Barnes has shown
that at the current rate of decay the earth's magnetic field would
have been implausibly large much more than 10,000 years ago.
Magnetic field reversals have been invoked to explain how the field
can be decreasing today and yet be very old. There is some fossil
evidence of reversals, but the CPT model predicts rapid reversals at
the time of the flood, but with generally decreasing amplitude. What
is left unexplained by gradual reversals over millions or billions
of years is how the field is regenerated once it ceases to exist. It
is assumed that some dynamo mechanism regenerates the current and
hence the field, but the mechanism has not been identified. In all
fairness it should be pointed out that the sun's magnetic field
reverses approximately every 11 years.
Prior to the Voyager measurements of the magnetic fields of Uranus
and Neptune Humphreys [28] used a recent creation model to correctly
predict the strength of those fields. This is some of the more
original research done by a creationist, and is an excellent counter
example to critics who complain that the creation model offers no
Interplanetary Dust
There is much microscopic dust orbiting in the plane of the solar
system. Presumably this material results from the break up of comets
and asteroid collisions. The problem is that solar radiation removes
this material, smaller particles being ejected from the solar system
and larger ones spiraling into the sun. Creationists have argued
that the cleansing rate exceeds the dust production rate [47]. That
is, if the solar system is 4.6 Gyr old, then there is far too much
interplanetary dust currently present. An obvious solution could be
that the solar system is quite young. Evolutionists [52, p. 145],
who argue that interplanetary dust is in a steady state balanced
between the creation and destruction rates, have criticized this
argument. This subject needs a new analysis from a creation
standpoint paying particular attention to the rate at which new dust
is introduced.
Tidal Evolution of the Earth-Moon System
Due to tidal interaction between the earth and moon, the moon should
slowly spiral outward from the earth, while the earths rotation
slows. The rate of lunar recession has been measured by reflecting
laser beams off of mirrors left on the moons surface during the
Apollo program and timing the transit times. The current rate is
about 4 cm/year, which if extrapolated into the past, would place
the moon at about half its current distance 4.6 Gyr ago. This
distance would not have been a problem, but such a gross
extrapolation into the past is not warranted. It is generally
understood that the rate of lunar recession goes as the inverse
sixth power of the moons distance [26], and so the rate should have
been greater in the distant past. DeYoung [17] has produced a plot
of this functional dependence to show that for the past 1 Gyr the
lunar distance has been a nearly linear function of time. At about 1
Gyr ago the slope dramatically changes, so that the moon would have
been in contact with the earth less than 1.5 Gyr ago.
It is not only creationists who have drawn attention to this
problem. The title of one article by a non-creationist scientist
[33] asked the question, "Where Was the Moon Eons Ago?" One problem
is that when the moon would have been in close proximity of the
earth there would have been immense ocean tides that should have
left clear records in the fossil record that are not seen. Another
problem is that tidal evolution places an upper limit on the age of
the earth-moon system that is scarcely 1/3 that of the usually
assumed 4.6 Gyr age. It should be emphasized that this is not a
clear indication that the earth and moon are only a few thousand
years old, but that in a very young solar system tidal evolution is
not a problem.
Evolutionists have countered that due to changes in the earths
surface due to plate tectonics, the distribution of ocean floor and
continental shelves has varied with time. Much of the tidal braking
that causes lunar recession occurs in relatively shallow water near
coastlines, so it is conceivable that the rate of lunar recession
has an additional time dependence [52, pp. 146-148]. This
explanation requires that we live in a time of unusually large lunar
recession rate. However, several studies of varve and fossil coral
growth have suggested that the current rate of tidal evolution has
been nearly constant for several hundred Myr. These studies have
generally been dismissed, but a recent new study of varves spanning
the past 900 Myr [48] present strong evidence that the average rate
of lunar recession over that interval closely matches the current
rate. Note that this agrees with DeYoungs contention, that the 1/r6
produces a nearly constant rate for the past 900 Myr. One could
argue that the unusually high rate has coincidentally prevailed for
nearly 1 Gyr, but with the shuffling of plates that should have
occurred in that time, this seems extremely unlikely.
It must be noted that recent creationists reject the age and perhaps
the interpretation of the varves in this recent study, but
evolutionists are generally not in a position to do so. The topic of
lunar recession has not been fully explored by creationists. A full
discussion that goes beyond the relatively simple ones thus far is
badly needed.
Lunar Ghost Craters
A final argument for the youth of the solar system that we will
discuss is evidence that apparently has not been published in
creation literature as of yet. The term "ghost crater" is perhaps an
obscure one, and is not often heard in the post-Apollo era. Alter
[5] defined a ghost as "the bare hint which remains of a lunar
feature that has been practically destroyed by some later action."
Alter also discussed a number of photographs that included ghost
The moon has two types of terrain: the maria and the highlands. The
maria are the relatively smooth, darker regions easily visible to
the naked eye. On the other hand the highlands are lighter in color,
much more heavily cratered, and as the name implies, are generally
at higher elevations. The color difference is due to a difference in
composition: the highlands are primarily composed of granite, a
lighter colored, less dense rock, while the maria are made of
basalt, a darker, more dense material. The density differences
accounts for the different elevations between the two lunar
terrains, but the difference in cratering is a matter of conjecture.
The moon is assumed to have formed 4.6 Gyr ago with the rest of the
solar system. The leftover material at first was large in number and
caused a huge amount of impacts on the formed bodies of the solar
system. With time the amount of potential impacting bodies would
have decreased exponentially, and this would have caused the
formation rate of new craters to decrease as well. Under this
scenario the highlands reveal a nearly primordial surface, while the
maria have a more recent surface. Probably volcanic eruptions
overflowed the maria, erasing most of the craters already there and
preparing a smooth surface to record any impacts since the time of
the overflow.
Why did the lava overflow only occur where the maria are today? A
clue is provided by the roughly circular shape of the maria, which
suggests that they were the sites of the largest impacts. Here is
the history of the moon as generally believed [56]. The moon formed
4.5 - 4.6 Gyr ago. Many impacts followed, but decreased
exponentially with time. The outside cooled and hardened first,
while the interior slowly cooled. Sometime around 3.5 to 4.2 Gyr ago
several final large impacts occurred, forming very large craters
called "impact basins." The impacts facilitated the overflow of
lava, either by providing the heat from conversion of kinetic energy
to melt material or by providing deep fractures to allow molten
material from the interior to reach the surface. Either way one
would expect the overflow to rapidly follow the excavation of the
impact basins. One would not expect that it would have taken many
millions of years for the second event to follow the first.
However, it is generally thought that as much as a half Gyr elapsed
between these two events [56]. The reason is the existence of many
ghost craters, craters that are faintly visible due to volcanic
overflow after they formed. Note that impact basin formation should
have obliterated any craters that previously existed on the site, so
that there can be no craters visible today that predate that event.
But to be a ghost crater the crater must predate the volcanic
overflow. The amount of ghost craters on the moon indicates that the
amount of cratering between the two events (the formation of the
impact basins and the subsequent volcanic overflow) must have been
substantial. With a long time frame (4.6 Gyr) and the presumed
cratering rate over time, one is forced to hypothesize a long period
of time between the two events.
Above it was argued that it is more reasonable to conclude that the
two events must have occurred in rapid succession. If that is the
case, what else must follow? The amount of ghost craters and the
brief period of time in which they could have formed forces the
adoption of a past cratering rate several orders of magnitude larger
than usually thought. At the same time the relative lack of fresh
craters on the maria suggest that there was a much steeper decline
in the cratering rate than is usually thought. Both of these
concepts are unacceptable to uniformitarianism, but fit very nicely
with a model of recent creation and catastrophism.
The Age of the Universe: The Break Up of Galaxy Clusters
Let us now turn our attention to the age of the universe. A galaxy
is a vast collection of billions of stars orbiting about a common
center of mass. Galaxies are usually found in clusters, collections
of tens to thousands of galaxies. Several decades ago Fritz Zwicky
noticed that the members of clusters of galaxies were traveling too
fast to be gravitationally bound to one another. The result is that
the cluster should evaporate over a time scale of about 1Gyr, far
shorter than the 10 to 20 Gyr year age of the universe. Thus the
existence of clusters of galaxies suggest that they must have been
created more recently than generally thought [46]. As with some of
the other arguments of recent creation presented, this one does not
directly produce an age of a few thousand years. Instead it
indicates an upper limit for the age that may be better reconciled
with a recent creation rather than an old one.
The answer that evolutionists have devised is that the clusters are
held together by the gravitational force of unseen, or dark, matter.
Calculations reveal that the amount of matter required to do this is
many times the mass of the visible matter. In many estimates only
about 10% if the total matter of the universe is visible. If the
apparent break up of galaxy clusters were the only reason for
hypothesized dark matter, then one could easily doubt its existence.
Binney and Tremaine devote an entire chapter of their book [10, pp.
589-641] to the discussion of dark matter. They give several lines
of evidence for dark matter that are independent of galaxy cluster
dynamics. These include the motions of stars in the solar
neighborhood, the motions of galactic Population II tracers, and
mass-to-light ratios of the central regions of elliptical galaxies.
Perhaps the best probes of dark matter are rotation curves of spiral
galaxies. According to Binney and Tremaine [10, p. 599], nearly all
of more than 70 spiral galaxies for which there are suitable
rotation curves strongly indicate large amounts of dark matter.
Rotation curves of galaxies suggest that dark matter may really
exist, but the identity of the dark matter remains a mystery,
despite many attempts to identify it. Only time will tell if this is
a good argument for a recent creation. Given this additional data,
it is doubtful that the alleged break up of galaxy clusters is a
good argument for recent creation. Unfortunately, when discussing
this topic, many creationists fail to mention that there is other
evidence for missing mass, or even acknowledge that missing mass is
a proposed explanation for the observed velocities.
Spiral Structure of Galaxies
Another possible clue to a recent origin of the universe is the
existence of spiral galaxies. Spiral galaxies are called such
because of the very beautiful spiral or pinwheel shape that they
have. The inner portions of the galaxy should orbit more quickly
than the outer portions, and so any patterns such as this should be
smeared out in just a few revolutions. This smearing should require
no more than 2 Gyr, much less time than the supposed 10-15 Gyr that
the galaxies have existed. For a discussion of this from a recent
creation perspective, see [46].
This was recognized as a problem for many years, but most thought
that the problem was solved by "spiral density wave" (SDW) theory
suggested more than 30 years ago. Briefly stated, this theory
suggests that the spiral arms of a galaxy are a density
enhancements, or shock waves, that continually move around in a
galaxy's gravitational field. This shock wave would form the dense
clouds and bright stars that we see in spiral arms. Humphreys [31]
says that SDW theory requires that a number of parameters be fine
tuned to make the theory work. If this is true, then the SDW is not
such a straightforward answer to the problem of spiral structure in
old galaxies as is usually thought. This entire subject is in
serious need of a creationist reevaluation. Creationists are urged
to discuss the possibility of SDW when using this problem as an
indicator for recent creation.
The Lack of Superdeca Remnants
A final young universe indicator that we will discuss is the age of
superdeca remnants (SNR). Superdecae are large explosions that
destroy massive stars and can rival an entire galaxy in brightness
for a short time. In a given galaxy three or four superdecae are
believed to occur each century, a number confirmed from the many
superdecae that are observed in other galaxies each year. While a
superdeca is only visible for a few months, the SNR consisting of
expanding gas should be observable for millions of years. Our
location in the galaxy does not permit us to observe most superdecae
in the visible part of the spectrum (in the 400 years since the
invention of the telescope a superdeca in our galaxy has not been
observed), but many SNR's are detectable in our galaxy with radio
telescopes. In fact, observations in the radio portion of the
spectrum are the most common means in which SNRs are studied.
The visibility of a SNR is a function of distance, size and
expansion rate, and the age can be inferred from the observations.
As a SNR ages, it becomes more extended and rarefied so that
eventually it is no longer observable. Surveys of all of the
observed SNR's in our galaxy reveal many young ones, generally
thousands of years old. In fact, only a few older than a few
thousand years are observed at all. Theoretical considerations show
that many older SNRs should be observable, but observations seem to
show that most of them are missing. This appears to be a very
powerful argument for a recent creation, and has been discussed by
Davies [14].
Let us now turn to some problems that creation astronomers face
today and examine where work should progress. We have talked about
the solar system and the universe as a whole, but we have talked
very little about the "middle ground" of stellar astronomy. Stellar
astronomers have developed very compelling evolutionary theories to
explain the origin and diversity of stars as well as the elements.
In the only creationist critique of stellar evolution, Mulfinger
[37] argued for the rejection of all of stellar evolution theory. A
possible problem with this approach is that the theory has a very
strong basis in physics, a situation very different from biological
evolution. Faulkner and DeYoung [23], who cautioned that
creationists must be prepared to give strong physical arguments for
rejecting stellar evolution, noted this.
There are many who reject biological evolution but accept stellar
evolution. Indeed, there is some question of the word evolution
meaning the same thing in these two fields. Many creationists view
stellar and biological evolution in the same light. Morris has
argued for the fixity of stars, that one type does not evolve into
another. He has also argued that the birth of new stars would be
tantamount to the appearance of a new kind of animal, something that
the creation model does not allow. But is the birth of new stars
more like the creation of new creatures, or is it more like the
replacement of dead ones? We know that animals die and so must be
replaced, so perhaps this is the proper analog to stellar birth.
Some creationists seem to be in the inconsistent position of
insisting that stellar evolution does not occur, but when it does,
it is actually stellar decay.
While many Christians have entered the fields of biology and geology
to combat evolution the takeover of astronomy by evolutionary
thinking has scarcely been noticed, and there are few qualified
creationist astronomers. Creationists need to do much more work in
stellar astronomy. Many questions need to be addressed; we will
briefly discuss two. First, are stars forming today? It is generally
theorized that stars form from gas clouds. As mentioned above, many
creationists insist a new star today would be equivalent to a new
kind of animal arising today, and that the completion of the
creation week precludes this possibility. But a superdeca appears to
be the death of a star, and if death occurs, why could not the birth
occur as well? In other words, perhaps the birth of a star is
equivalent to the birth of an individual organism rather than a new
kind of organism. It has long been known that a cloud of gas is
generally stable against collapse to form a star. The reason is that
the gas pressure present in the cloud will resist the compression.
If some agent condenses the cloud to a certain point, then the
gravitational force of the cloud can lead to a star. The theoretical
difficulty has been to identify a natural process that can bring an
originally diffuse cloud to this point.
Several agents have been proposed to initiate the process of
proto-stellar collapse. Two of the more popular, shock wave
compression and cooling by radiation from dust, will be briefly
mentioned here. It has been suggested that a superdeca explosion
near a gas cloud could cause the cloud to be compressed to a size
that would allow gravitational contraction to occur. Alternately,
for a given size and mass, a cloud could be caused to contract if it
could shed some of its heat. This could be accomplished by the
radiation of dust particles embedded in the cloud. Both of these
mechanisms suffer from the same problem: they require that some
stars must exist first. A superdeca explosion obviously requires at
least one preexisting star, but evolutionary theories of the
universe demand that the elements found in dust particles could only
have been produced by stellar nucleosynthesis and that the dust
grains themselves could only have been formed in the atmospheres of
red giants. This presents the obvious problem of where the first
stars came from.
In passing it should be noted that some creationists believe that
the formation of a star violates the second law of thermodynamics
[37], but this is not true. If one starts with a sphere of gas of
larger radius and contracts the sphere to a smaller radius, then the
simple application of gas equations does seem to suggest a decrease
in entropy. It is also obvious that in the lab gases do not
spontaneously contract, which seems to be a consequence of the
second law of thermodynamics. At least two differences exist between
the laboratory situation and a contracting protostar. One is that
the protostar possesses considerable internal energy in the form of
gravitational potential energy that the lab gas does not. The other
difference is that the protostar sheds considerable energy by
radiation. As the protostar contracts, the gravitational potential
energy is liberated. By the virial theorem, half the released energy
heats the gas, while the other half is radiated. Recall that the
definition of entropy change is dS=dQ/T, where dQ is the heat flow
and T is the temperature. Since the heat loss is negative, the
entropy change of the protostar would be negative, as it is for any
radiating object.
In fact, Mulfingers entropy calculation can be generalized to any
self-gravitating spherical gas (cloud, protostar or star) with the
result (in molar units):
D S=3/2 R ln(r2/r1)
where R is the ideal gas constant, r1 is the radius of the object at
some time and r2 is the size at some later time. Since the cloud or
star is contracting, r2 < r1, so that D S is negative. Mulfinger
applied this sort of equation to demonstrate that since this entropy
change is negative, the second law of thermodynamics prohibited the
contraction of a gas cloud to form a star. What he ignored was the
fact that energy is radiated from the protostar (thus D S is
negative), but that the absorption of that energy elsewhere produces
an even larger positive increase in entropy, so that the total
entropy change is positive.
To emphasize that something is amiss here, let us apply this
approach to another self-gravitating gaseous object. Since the
announcement in 1979 that the sun may be shrinking, many
creationists have seized upon the possibility that the sun may be
powered by the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism rather than by
thermonuclear reactions. Of course this strongly implies a greatly
reduced solar age [27] (this idea is less attractive than it once
was; for a good creationist review of this see [18]). If the above
approach is applied to the Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction, a negative
entropy change seems to be the result. Of course, most creationists
believe that Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction does occur.
The last problem that we will discuss is probably the single biggest
problem that recent creationists face today: the light travel time.
Simply stated, if the universe is billions of light years in size,
then how did the light from most objects get here in a few thousand
years? Several answers have been proposed. One is that light travels
in a non-Euclidean geometry. This was suggested more than 40 years
ago by a couple of non-creationist physicists to address a different
problem. Though still mentioned from time to time, few take it
seriously anymore [3]. There is a prediction about close binary
stars that the model makes, and the predicted effect is not
observed, but this apparently has not been published.
Setterfield, who showed that the measured speed of light had
decreased since the first measurement was made three centuries ago,
proposed a second answer. Extrapolating the much higher speed of
light into the past could produce a speed that was near infinite in
the early universe and would permit the light from the most distant
objects to have reached us. In the past 15 years there has been much
debate among creationists over this issue, with some insisting that
the effect is real and others convinced that it is not. A
mini-symposium on this topic appeared in the Creation Research
Society Quarterly a few years ago. The early measurements provide
the greatest evidence, but are also subject to the greatest error.
It is most curious that the decrease seemed to end about 1960. There
are some theoretical problems as well. The speed of light is not a
constant that can be arbitrarily changed. It depends upon some
fundamental constants that have an effect on the structure of
matter. If the speed of light is changed much, the structure of
matter will be dramatically changed.
Most creationists have adopted the concept of a fully functioning
universe as the best explanation for the light travel time problem.
In the garden Adam would have been a particularly healthy male. If
we could go back in a time machine and examine him we might have
concluded that he was 20 to 30 years old. Of course we would have
been wrong, because Adam was created only a few days before. In
other words, creation implies some sort of apparent history. It is
argued that in like fashion, for the stars to serve their intended
purpose (for the marking of time and seasons) their light must have
reached earth in time for Adam to see them two days later. Thus God
must have created the light in transit.
But did Adam bear the scars of past history, such as injuries that
never happened? When the fossilized remains of large extinct and
previously unknown creatures were unearthed over a century ago, some
Christians responded that the fossils were created in the rocks and
that the creatures never existed; they just appeared to have
existed. Most people would reject this as absurd. Yet the creation
of starlight in transit raises a similar philosophical point. In the
spring of 1987 a superdeca was observed in a nearby galaxy called
the Large Magellanic Cloud. Since that time the progress of the
explosion and its aftermath have been carefully observed. We have
been able to piece together many fine details of what happened. But
if the notion of light created in transit is correct, then none of
the observed events happened. How is this different from God
creating fossils in the ground? This idea also has no predictive
power like the other two suggestions above, which relegates it more
to a philosophical idea rather than a scientific one.
On the other hand the white hole cosmogony of Humphreys [29], [30]
is a very detailed scientific model that seeks to answer the light
travel time question. As with the big bang or steady state theories,
this model assumes modern relativity theory, but with a different
set of initial conditions for the universe. One of the big
differences is that the universe started as a white hole. Humphreys
assumes that the matter of the universe is bounded. He had chosen to
call his model a white hole cosmology, because he perceives that the
initial condition is similar to what is called a white hole. Most
people have heard of black holes: regions of space where matter and
light are falling inward and cannot escape. Most people are not
aware that the same theory predicts the possibility of white holes,
regions of space very similar to black holes except matter and light
are streaming outward. Such a condition is unstable, and so unlike
black holes which may exist forever once they form, white holes
exist for a relatively short time before ceasing to exist. That is
one reason why white holes largely have been largely ignored.
Another reason they have been ignored is that we have a theory of
how black holes can form naturally at this time in the universe, but
not white holes. Any primordial white holes should have ceased to
exist by now.
The Humphreys cosmology assumes that the universe began as a white
hole. Sometime during late in the creation week the white hole
ceased to exist, giving us our present universe. The particle
horizon swept past the distant stars on day four when the starlight
reached the earth on that day. The important point is that through
relativistic effects, time proceeds at very different rates in
different parts of the universe. While only a few thousand years
elapsed near and on the earth, billions of years could have elapsed
elsewhere. This would allow light to travel millions or billions of
light years to reach the earth while only a few thousand years
occurred on the earth. This all happens because of the different
rate at which time passes in different reference frames in general
relativity. Not only does this cosmogony purport to answer the light
travel time problem, it also provides creationists with a Biblically
based cosmology as well.
However, several questions remain. For instance, why does the solar
system, which is not the product of stellar nucleosynthesis, and the
rest of the universe, which has undergone stellar nucleosynthesis,
have the same basic composition? As mentioned earlier, most
creationists reject stellar evolution, but the Humphreys cosmology
seems to demand that it has occurred. The Humphreys cosmology also
demands that the universe is indeed Gyrs old, though only a few
thousand years has elapsed since the beginning of creation in the
reference frame of the earth. It would seem those indicators of a
young universe, such as sprial structure in galaxies, the break up
of clusters of galaxies, and the ages of SNRs cannot be reconciled
to the Humphreys cosmogony. While only six days occurred on or near
the earth, exactly when in those six days did the creation of the
stars take place? If the particle horizon swept past the distant
stars on the fourth day so that the stars first became visible on
the earth, then how is that different from those who argue the same
thing (that stars were created earlier, but only became visible on
the surface of the earth on day four), but that the cause was a
clearing of the atmosphere?
While the Humphreys cosmogony met with little discussion or
opposition at first, the level of debate has increased tremendously.
Several critical papers have been written [11], [13], and Humphreys
has responded [32]. Humphreys' critics have charged that he has
either misunderstood or improperly applied general relativity in his
model. Byl [11] has argued that while time dilation effects are
real, the sense of time corrections are always in the wrong
direction and/or are too small to solve the light travel time. Byl,
along with Connor and Page [13], concludes that the approach that
Humphreys is attempting would more properly describe the time
difference between an observer in the universe to one outside of the
universe. If this is true, then the Humphreys model certainly does
not succeed in addressing the question as framed. This criticism has
led the editorial staff of the ICC to conclude that there was a
failure in the peer review process of Humphreys' 1994 paper [29] in
which he first publicly presented his model. Humphreys is convinced
that his model is still viable and is continuing to correct and
refine his model. Whether this model survives or not, we should
applaud this very serious effort that Humphreys has made.
So what is the state of creationist astronomy? We have seen that it
has some good points to make. We have also seen that there have been
some false starts and some problems. We must go beyond arguing what
is wrong with evolutionary models. What is needed is an overall
model or paradigm to describe the universe. A formation and history
of the solar system must be explored. A particularly important
question to address here is when and how the cratering that we see
in the solar system occurred. Did the cratering occur during
creation, at the fall, during the flood, or at some other time? A
few authors have begun work on this question [25], [39]. If we are
not satisfied with stellar evolution, then we must provide physical
arguments against it and supply our alternative. For the universe as
a whole we must explain the light travel time in a plausible way.
Some progress has been made in creationist astronomy, but there is
much work to be done. Older arguments must be continually
reevaluated and expanded. The words of the late George Mulfinger in
his early review are just as true today as they were 25 years ago
"much work remains to be done the in the area of creationist
astronomy. Christians who have sufficient background in the field
who have strong enough convictions to take a good stand on the
issues involved should be encouraged to write."
It is hoped that this discussion has inspired some who are already
competent in the field to pursue these matters or encouraged bright
young people to enter the field for this purpose.
[1] Akridge, G. R., The Expansion of the Universe: a Study of the
Initial Conditions, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 16 (1979)
pp. 176-181.
[2] Akridge, G. R., The Expanding Universe is Internally
Inconsistent, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 19 (1982) pp.
[3] Akridge, G. R., The Universe is Bigger than 15.71 Light Years,
Creation Research Society Quarterly, 21 (1984) pp. 18-21.
[4] Akridge, R., Barnes, T., and Slusher, H. S, A Recent Creation
Explanation of the 3K Background Black Body Radiation, Creation
Research Society Quarterly, 18 (1981) pp. 159-162.
[5] Alter, D., Pictorial Guide to the Moon, third edition, 1973,
Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York, NY.
[6] Arp, H., Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, 1987,
Interstellar Media, Berkeley, CA.
[7] Barrow, J. D. and Tippler, F. J., The Anthropic Cosmological
Principle, 1986, Oxford University, New York, NY.
[8] Beatty, C. J., and Fienberg, R. T., The Big Bang Challenge,
Sky and Telescope, 87:3 (1992) pp. 20-22.
[9] Bergman, J., The Fine-tuned Watch Revealed in the Delicate
Balance of the Earths Forces, Creation Research Society
Quarterly, 33 (1996) pp. 80-88.
[10] Binney, J. and Tremaine, S., Galactic Dynamics, 1987,
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.
[11] Byl, J. On Time Dilation in Cosmology, Creation Research
Society Quarterly, 34 (1997) pp. 26-32.
[12] Brown, W., In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation
and the Flood, 1995, Center for Scientific Creation, Phoenix, Az.
[13] Connor, S. R. and Page, D. N., Light-travel Time in Starlight
and Time, Bible-Science News, 33:7 (1995) pp. 12-16.
[14] Davies, K., Distribution of Superdeca Remnants in the Galaxy,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, R. E.
Walsh, Editor, 1995, Creation Science Fellowship, Inc.,
Pittsburgh, PA, Volume 3, pp. 175-184.
[15] DeYoung, D. B., The Redshift Controversy, Design and Origins
in Astronomy, G. Mulfinger, Editor, 1983, Creation Research
Society, Norcross, GA, pp. 41-59.
[16] DeYoung, D. B., Astronomy and the Bible, 1989, Baker Book
House, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 123-126.
[17] DeYoung, D. B., The Earth-Moon System, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Creation, R. E. Walsh, Editor, 1990,
Creation Science Fellowship, Inc, Pittsburgh, PA., pp. 79-84.
[18] DeYoung, D. B. and D. E. Rush, Is the Sun an Age Indicator?,
Creation Research Society Quarterly 26 (1989) pp. 49-53.
[19] DeYoung, D. B. and Whitcomb, J. C., The Origin of the
Universe, Design and Origins in Astronomy, G. Mulfinger, Editor,
1983, Creation Research Society, Norcross, GA., pp. 11-26.
[20] Duncan, M., Quinn, T. and Tremaine, S., The Origin of
Short-period Comets, Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 328 (1988)
pp. L69-L73.
[21] Everhart, E., Evolution of Long- and Short Period Orbits,
Comets, L. L. Wilkening, Editor, 1982, University of Arizona,
Tucson, AZ, pp. 659-664.
[22] Faulkner, D. R., Comets and the Age of the Solar System,
Creation Technical Journal, 11 (1998) pp. 264-273.
[23] Faulkner, D. R. and DeYoung, D. Toward a Creationist
Astronomy, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 28 (1991), pp.
[24] Feinberg, R. T., Sky and Telescope, 84:6 (1992) pp. 34-35.
[25] Froede, C. R. and DeYoung, D. B., Impact Events Within the
Young-Earth Flood Model, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 33
(1996) pp. 23-34.
[26] Goldreich, P. Tides and the Earth-moon System, Scientific
American, 226:4 (1972) pp. 43-52.
[27] Hinderliter, H., The Shrinking Sun, Design and Origins in
Astronomy, G. Mulfinger, Editor, 1983, Creation Research Society,
Norcross, GA, pp.107-112.
[28] Humphreys, D. R., The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields,
Creation Research Society Quarterly, 21 (1984) pp. 140-149.
[29] Humphreys, D. R., Progress Toward a Young-earth Relativistic
Cosmology, Proceedings of the International Conference on
Creationism, R. E. Walsh, Editor, 1995, Creation Science
Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, Volume 3, pp. 267-286.
[30] Humphreys, D. R., Starlight and Time, 1994, Master Books,
Colorado Springs, Co.
[31] Humphreys, D. R., Evidence for a Young World, 1995, Creation
Science Fellowship of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
[32] Humphreys, D. R., Its Just a Matter of Time, Creation
Research Society Quarterly, 34 (1997) pp. 32-34.
[33] Kerr, R. A., Where Was the Moon Eons Ago?, Science, 221
(1983) p. 1166.
[34] Love, S. G. and Brownlee, D. E. A Direct Measurement of the
Terrestrial mass Accretion Rate of Cosmic Dust, Science, 262
(1993) pp. 550-553.
[35] Matzko, G., Death Knell for the Big Bang, Creation Research
Society Quarterly 28 (1991) p. 67.
[36] Morris, H. M., and Parker, G. E., What is Creation Science?,
1987, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, pp.281-291.
[37] Mulfinger, G., A Critique of Stellar Evolution, Creation
Research Society Quaterly 7 (1970), pp. 7-24.
[38] Mulfinger, G., Review of Creationist Astronomy, Creation
Research Society Quarterly, 10, (1973) pp. 170-175.
[39] Parks, W. S., The Role of Meteorites in a Creationist
Cosmology, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 26 (1990) pp.
[40] Ross, H., The Fingerprint of God, 1989, Promise Publishing,
Orange, CA.
[41] Ross, H., The Creator and the Cosmos, 1993, Navpress,
Colorado Springs, CO.
[42] Sagan, C., and Druyan, A., Comets, 1986, Random House, New
York, p. 201.
[43] Silk, J., , Nature, 356 (1992) pp. 741-742.
[44] Slusher, H. S., Some Astronomical Evidences for a Youthful
Solar System, Creation Research Society, 8, (1971) pp. 55-60.
[45] Slusher, H. S., The Origin of the Universe, 1978, Institute
for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, pp 23-42.
[46] Slusher, H. S., Age of the Cosmos, 1980, Institute for
Creation Research, San Diego, CA.
[47] Slusher, H. S., The Age of the Solar System, 1982, Institute
for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.
[48] Sonett, C. P., Kvale, E. P., Zakharian, A., Chan, M. A., and
Demko, T. M., Late Proterozoic and Paleozoic Tides, Retreat of the
moon, and Rotation of the Earth, Science, 273 (1996) pp. 100-104.
[49] Snelling, A. A. and Rush, D. E., Moon Dust and the Age of the
Solar System, Creation Ex Nihilo Tech. Journ., 7 (1993) pp. 2-42.
[50] Steidl, P., The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible, 1979,
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ.
[51] Stillman, W. E., The Lifetime and Renewal of Comets,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, R. E
Walsh, Editor, 1990, Creation Science Fellowship, Inc.,
Pittsburgh, PA, Volume 2, pp. 267-278.
[52] Strahler, A. N., Science and Earth History, 1987, Prometheus,
Buffalo, NY.
[53] van Till, H. J., Young, D. A., and Menninga, C., Science Held
Hostage, 1988, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.
[54] Vardiman, L., Age of the Earths Atmosphere, 1990, Institute
for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.
[55] West, J., Polytropic Model of the Universe, Creation Research
Society Quarterly, 31 (1994) pp. 78-88.
[56] Wilhelms, D. E., To a Rocky Moon, 1993, University of Arizona
Press, Tucson, p367.
[57] Williams, E. L., Thermodynamics and Evolution: a Creationist
View, Thermodynamics and the Development of Order, E. L. Williams,
Editor, 1981, Creation Research Society, Norcross, GA, pp. 9-22.
[58] Wise, K. P., Austin, S. A., Baumgardner, J. R., Humphreys, D.
R., Snelling, A. A., Vardiman, L., Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A
Global Flood Model of Earth History, Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Creationism, R. E Walsh, Editor, 1990,
Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, Volume 2, pp.

Additional Resources:
Astronomy and the Bible by Donald B. DeYoung (1989, 146 pp.)
The Origin of the Universe by Harold S. Slusher (1980, 90 pp.)
The Age of the Solar System by Harold S. Slusher and Steven G.
Robertson (1982, 131 pp.)
Origin of the Universe - video by Duane Gish (50 min.)
What is Creation Science? by Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker (2nd
ed., 1987, 336 pp.)
Age of the Earths Atmosphere by Larry Vardiman (1990, 32 pp.)
Journeys to the Edge of Creation - 2 videos: "Our Solar System" &
"The Milky Way and Beyond"
by the Moody Institute of Science (40 min. each)
Research Papers Menu Complex Life Cycles in Heterophyid
Trematodes - Armitage Earthquakes and the End Times -
Austin/Strauss The Tunguska Explosion of 1908 - Austin/Brazo Rapid
Erosion at Mount St. Helens - Austin Excess Argon in Mineral
Concentrates from Mount St. Helens Volcano - Austin Evidences for
Rapid Formation and Failure of Pleistocene "Lava Dams" -
Austin/Rugg Discordant Potassium-Argon Isochron Ages -
Austing/Snelling Catastrophic Plate Tectonics -
Austin/Baumgardner... Computer Modeling of Large-scale Tectonics -
Baumgardner Runaway Subduction as Driving Mechanism for Genesis
Flood - Baumgardner Patterns of Ocean Circulation During Noah's
Flood - Baumgardner/Barnette Instrument for Measuring a Christian
Creationist Worldview - deckard/Sobko The Current State of
Creationist Astronomy - Faulkner Comparing Origins Belief and
Moral Views - Overman Submarine Flow and Slide Deposits in the
Mojave Desert, California - Sigler/Wingerden The Cause of
Anomalous Potassium-Argon Ages - Snelling U-Th-Pb Dating: An
Example of False Isochrons - Snelling Regional Metamorphism within
A Creationist Framework - Snelling The Cooling of Thick Igneous
Bodies on A Young Earth - Snelling/Woodmorappe A Biblical Model of
Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation - Vardiman Rapid Changes in Oxygen
Isotope Content of Ice Cores - Vardiman Newton's Approach to
Science: Honoring Scripture - Vardiman Numerical Simulation of
Precipitation Induced By Hot Mid-Ocean Ridges - Vardiman
Sensitivity Studies on Vapor Canopy Temperature Profiles -
Vardiman/Bousselot Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate -
Baumgardner Numerical Climate Modeling at ICR - Acts & Facts

Copyright 2005 Institute for Creation Research. All rights reserved.

Return to Top Email Page Print Page Newsletters Donate ICR MENU
ICR Home Page About ICR ICR Books & Videos ICR Events ICR Good Science
ICR Grad School ICR Creation Museum ICR Publications ICR Radio Program
ICR Research Scientists ICR and Scripture ICR Stewardship & Trusts ICR
Tours Donate to ICR ICR Adventures - For Kids Search Help
Looking for Something?
Nothing on this website may be reprinted in whole or in part without
obtaining permission from ICR

Click the above link to be taken to ICR's profile on the website of the
Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability
Our site is best viewed at a resolution of 800 x 600 or higher.

Promoting an Understanding of the Intelligent Design of the Universe