The blog of the Classical Astronomy Update, a free email newsletter especially for Christian homeschool families about astronomy happenings in the night sky (though everyone is welcome!) Also, watch this space for progress reports about "Signs and Seasons," the author's upcoming homeschool astronomy curriculum!
Subscribe to the Classical Astronomy Update! An Astronomy Email Newsletter Especially for Christian Homeschoolers!
Astronomers and other scientists are always baffled when they find evidence that suggests that the universe is younger than billions of years. Long ago, the existence of volcanos and the molten interior of the Earth was taken to be strong evidence of a young Earth, since our world should have theoretically cooled to a rock within billions of years. Upon discovering radioactivity in the late 19th century, it was decided that the release of heat from radioactive material kept the Earth's interior hot. (There must be a whole lot of radioactivity under our world!)
Anyway, the brain boys have done it again. Since the Cassini probe arrived at Saturn not long ago, astronomers had been mystified by the heat that fueled the geysers that spewed forth from Saturn's moon Enceladus. This little iceball should also have cooled off in the billions of years of "Saganian" time. According to this article, after scratching their heads for a while, they've now decided that Enceladus must also have some unseen, unknown, undetected source of radioactivity. However, for such a tiny ball to stay hot for 5 billion years, it must have a nuclear reactor inside!
Enceladus is only 1/7 the diameter of our Moon, or less that 1/300 of its volume. And according to all mainstream theories, the Moon cooled off naturally billions of years ago and is now a solid rock with no tectonic activity of any kind. Even if little Enceladus did have its own internal power supply, I wonder if any of these scientists bothered to calculate how much radioactive material it would have to contain to heat such a tiny object for so long a time in the dead freezer-vacuum of space.
Astronomers were similarly puzzled by Jupiter's moon Io when Voyager discovered in 1979 that it had enough heat to sustain active volcanos after "billions" of years. It was decided that land tides raised by mighty Jupiter imparted a near-infinite supply of heat energy to this small satellite. But many conundrums remain around the solar system. Astronomers still can't explain why Saturn has rings, since such formations should dissipate under the Sun's rays after only a few million years. We're told that it's strictly a coincidence that the rings exist during human history.
Mainstream astronomy has a knack for reverse-engineering theories that explain away clear evidence against the supposed great age of the universe. And we, the "unwashed herd," are always supposed to just swallow their musings on authority, as though it were the Gospel.
havoc, I haven't wasted much time reading Hugh Ross, but I don't agree with what I have read. As far as I can tell, he's a scientist who wishes to enshrine scientific conclusions over a literal reading of Genesis 1. This is exactly what the evolutionists do. Ross simply does not go as far as they do in his devotion to fallible human scientific methodology. IMHO, people like that are lukewarm, with feet in two worlds, having a strict devotion to neither.
For more on my views of science and faith, you might want to read the statement of faith at the main web site:
"...he's a scientist who wishes to enshrine scientific conclusions over a literal reading of Genesis 1.... IMHO, people like that are lukewarm, with feet in two worlds, having a strict devotion to neither."
From what I've seen from Reasons to Believe, those are extremely unfair and biased comments. The thing that scares me most of all about the Young Earth community is it's unrelenting condemnation of anyone who would dare to question their interpretation of scripture. In contrast, I don't see that condemnation in the stuff I've read from Hugh Ross and company. The grace and compassion obvious in the Reasons literature that I've seen resonates with me.
I used to be a staunch young earther, but the attitude of the leadership of YEC organizations has caused me to re-examine my devotion to a teaching that I have had many other reasons over the years to question on it's own merits. I have been condemned and isolated for even daring to question YEC. When I see your condemnation (and the condemnation of all of the other major YEC organizations) of Hugh Ross, compared with the grace he and his organization exemplify, I am left comparing the fruit of the trees.
Like I said, I haven't read Ross, though I do have one of his books sitting on my shelf. Sorry if you feel my opnion is some sort of condemnation. It's just that - an opinion. You have your opinion and I have mine and we will each one day give an account for our own selves.
I'm capable of having a conversation on the subject and listen to arguments I am not inclined to agree with. But I started out as a devoted evolutionist and have already long-since dispensed with this "old earth" issue. There's nothing to be gained by continually revisiting the subject.
You might be interested to know that my skepticism of science runs much deeper, and I am also very dubious of many conclusions from e.g. modern physics (my degree BTW). We are conditioned in this culture to accept on authority anything presented in the name of science. Professional scientists today sit in the place formerly occupied by Galileo's churchmen.
Even the creationist movement expects us to roll over at the words of Ph.D.'s who happen to accept a literal reading of Genesis. For this reason, I am also very skeptical of a lot of the unprovable theories presented by creationists. So be more careful when you troll around the web looking to paint people with a broad brush.
Anyway, you visited my blog and asked my opinion and I gave you and answer. Sorry if you can't deal with it.
dealing
3:20 PM, Thursday, April 5, 2007 Posted by havoc
don't worry about me. worry about propagating false teachings.
For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
Isn't it always the way of Christians to think they win an argument by putting on their "spiritual" hat.
We are indeed instructed to "prove all things, hold fast to that which is good." (1 Thess 5:21). This all the more reason why we should be skeptical of the works of man, especially science. Next time you accuse someone of "false teachings," try to present a better case. You'll sound like you know what you're talking about.
there is no winning
3:46 PM, Thursday, April 5, 2007 Posted by havoc
I do love Classic Astronomy, though. I will cling to what is good.
Young or Old Earth?
6:18 PM, Friday, May 11, 2007 Posted by MKGilbert
You're right. There's no winning...personally, I don't see why it really matters exactly how old the earth is as long as we're spending our time here serving the Lord and growing more like Him day by day in preparation to spend eternity with Him. I think the earth is somewhere between billions and thousands of years old, leaning towards the lesser #'s. I don't think it's as old or young as either side says. Does that make me luke-warm? I don't think so. I'm a very strong, conservative Christian. I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but I'm not sure we can just count up all the gererations listed and say that's how old the earth must be.
I'm far from an expert, but I think there's a Gap Theory that says we have no idea how long the earth remained "void" before God created all the things listed in Genesis...
