Jason Lisle is the new Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Our last post about him was Jason Lisle and the Solar System, in which he tiptoed through the tulips — and the minefield — of what we learn from astronomy and scripture, which is (shall we say) not always consistent.
Today he continues our education in creationist astronomy with The Solar System: The Sun. A lot of it is just high school science, so we’ll skip that and give you only the unique parts — with bold font added by us for emphasis and scripture references omitted. Okay, here we go:
At the heart of our solar system is the sun, a stable hydrogen “bomb” that gives off more energy every second than a billion major cities would use in an entire year. The sun is remarkable in its complexity and power. When we examine the science of the sun, we find that it confirms biblical creation.
A most promising beginning! Hang on, it gets better:
The sun and other luminaries in the sky were created on the fourth day of the creation week. Genesis informs us that the purpose for these lights in the sky is (1) to separate day from night, (2) to help us mark the passage of time, and (3) to give light upon the earth. A fourth purpose is revealed elsewhere in Scripture — to declare God’s glory.
Yes, that’s what is says. Let’s read on:
Curiously, God provided a temporary light source to separate day from night for the first three days. [A footnote says: "Some people have supposed that these cannot be ordinary days without the sun. But in fact, the rotation of Earth relative to a light source determines the length of the day. So, of course the first three days would also have been 24-hour days."] Why was the creation of the sun displaced until day four? Also, why doesn’t the Genesis account mention the sun or the moon by name? They are only referred to descriptively as the “greater light” to govern the day and the “lesser light” to govern the night.
Creation science is all about vital problems like that. Here’s Jason’s answer:
The answer to both of these questions [why not name the sun and the moon, and why wait until day four to create them] may have been to discourage the worship of the sun and moon as “gods.” The sun is not the primary source of life — God is, hence the beginning starts with God on day one, not the sun. The sun is not a personal being with a personal name — it is part of creation and merely a great light made by God.
Good thinking! Jason continues:
[I]t is clear that the sun is designed for life to be possible on Earth. Some stars have superflares that release enormous amounts of deadly radiation. Fortunately for us, the sun doesn’t. Solar flares are mild. The sun’s temperature and distance from Earth are ideal for life. By contrast, hotter stars produce far more ultraviolet radiation that would have harmful effects on living tissue. And cooler stars emit far more infrared “heat” for a given amount of visible light.
The sun was designed for us — we’re so lucky! Imagine how difficult things would be if we lived on a planet orbiting a really hostile star. Here’s more:
Even the position of the sun in the galaxy seems optimized for life and for science. If the sun were close to the galactic core, harmful radiation could be a big problem. If the sun were on the outer rim, half of the sky would be nearly void of stars, making it harder to measure seasons or to investigate the universe.
Wowie — we’re in just the right place! It’s a miracle! Moving along:
The sun has long been a problem for those who reject Genesis. Secularists believe that the sun has been fusing hydrogen for nearly five billion years. But nuclear fusion gradually changes the density in the core, causing a star to brighten over time. The effect is negligible on a 6,000-year timespan. However, if the sun were billions of years old, it would have been 30 percent fainter in the distant past. But if the sun were that much fainter, then Earth would have been a frozen wasteland and life would not have been possible.
We never heard that before, but Jason provides a helpful footnote — citing an article in ICR’s creationist magazine. Instead of pursuing that worthy authority, we went to the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims, and there we found an entry for the faint young sun paradox. They say it’s not much of a problem at all.
Another excerpt from Jason’s article:
The sun resists naturalistic formation scenarios. Secular astronomers currently believe that the sun (as with other stars) was formed by the collapse of a nebula — a giant cloud of hydrogen and helium gas in space. Astronomers have discovered thousands of nebulae, but no one has ever seen a nebula collapse in on itself to form a star. The outward force of gas pressure in a typical nebula far exceeds the meager inward pull of gravity. As far as we know, nebulae only expand and never contract to form stars.
Jeepers — Jason says we’ve never seen a star being formed. Oh, wait — it only took a minute to find this: A burst of stars 13 billion years ago. We’re getting near the end. Does Jason have any other wonders for us? Well, there’s his final sentence:
It seems that science confirms what Scripture teaches: God made the greater light to rule the day.
So there you are, dear reader. Now you know the latest findings of creation science about the sun. Aren’t you glad?
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.