Jason Lisle’s Extra-Solar Planet Predictions

We found an entertaining article by Jason Lisle, the creationist astrophysicist who used to be employed by Answers in Genesis (AIG), ol’ Hambo’s online ministry. For reasons which have never been explained, Jason left AIG a few years ago to go to the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom, where he is now “Director of Physical Sciences.”

Jason’s new article is Exploring Exo-planets. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

In the last two decades, astronomers have discovered over 3,000 planets orbiting other stars. These are called extra-solar planets, or exo-planets, and they’ve caused a lot of excitement and speculation. What do we really know about these distant planets, and what is their significance for biblical creation?

There’s no better source of information than Jason. He says:

Astronomers long suspected that stars might have orbiting planets just as the sun does.

Yes, that’s true of astronomers. But Jason neglects to mention that until recently, creationists were certain that our solar system was the only planetary system in existence, and the Earth, having been uniquely created for us, was the only life-sustaining world in the universe. The discovery of extra-solar planets is an outright contradiction of the belief of ICR’s founder, Henry M. Morris (1918 – 2006), considered by many to be the father of modern creation science. Look at this oldie-goldie from the 1970s at the ICR website: The Stars of Heaven. It was written by old Henry himself, who, said:

[T]he earth is unique in the solar system and, for all we know, the solar system is unique in the universe. So far as we can observe, there are not even any planets anywhere else, let alone a planet equipped to sustain biological life.

Those were the days! But they’re gone now, and it’s not polite to mention them. Okay, back to Jason:

However, it’s nearly impossible to observe something as small and faint as an exo-planet next to the bright glare of its host star. So, astronomers have relied primarily on indirect methods of discovery.

We’ll skip a few paragraphs in which Jason describes observation methods. Then he says:

Currently, we know virtually nothing about what extra-solar planets look like. We have very little information on their composition and can only roughly estimate their temperature. Astronomers will require advances in technology if we are to learn more about these distant worlds. What do we expect to find? Will we find life?

Brace yourself, dear reader. Jason will now predict what we’re going to find:

As biblical creationists, we predict extra-solar planets will manifest evidence of recent creation and defy secular age estimates. For example, we expect that many exo-planets will have evidence of strong magnetic fields. Since magnetic fields naturally decay on a timescale of thousands of years, such evidence would confirm biblical creation. We expect that some exo-planets will have internal heat like Jupiter and Neptune do. Such heat cannot be maintained over billions of years.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And we all know that Jupiter and Neptune are only a few thousand years old. After that he tells us:

Furthermore, we expect diversity that challenges secular formation scenarios, such as gas giants that orbit very close to their stars. Astronomers have already detected such “hot Jupiters.” We expect to find more of these and also other types of planets that do not readily fit the secular mold.

The secular mold? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! If we find things we don’t expect, it’ll because they exist in the divine mold. Jason continues with his predictions:

We may find planets that orbit in a different plane from their host star’s rotational plane, contrary to the predictions of the nebular hypothesis. We might find that some exo-planets even orbit their star backward, just as the Lord created some moons in our solar system that revolve retrograde.

Jason saved his best predictions for last:

We predict that exo-planets will not have life because the earth seems to be unique in this respect (Isaiah 45:18). And we expect beauty and diversity because the heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1).

So there you have it. Now you know what to expect. It must be true, because you heard it from a creation scientist.

See also: Jason Lisle Discovered a Planet!

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 responses to “Jason Lisle’s Extra-Solar Planet Predictions

  1. Mike Elzinga

    Heh. This Jason Lisle, “astrophysicist extraodanaire;” the guy who claims the the speed of light is c/(1 – cosθ) and thinks that the rate of recession of the Moon’s orbit is dr/dt = k/r^6.

    So now he thinks he can tell us all about extrasolar planets? I’m not buying it.

    I sometimes wonder if he and Ham had a falling out of some kind. If so, the disagreement must have been over something spectacularly bizarre no matter which side he or Ham took.

  2. It is just astounding to me to see how they argue for uniformitarianism whenever it suits them, and against it when it doesn’t. They aren’t just wanting their cake and eating it too, they’re denying the existence of cake while shoveling forkfuls into their mouths.

  3. @dweller42
    Or how they argue that the universe as a whole, and Earth in particular are so wonderfully created to our understanding, yet our best efforts mislead us. That does not declare the glory of God.

    Einstein said that the Lord was subtle, not malicious.

  4. Michael Fugate

    its like finding goji berries in a 1950s jello mold…

  5. I do think the Curmudgeon owes us all something- I would suggest stronger than 70 proof- for subtly making us read Morris the Older’s scientific meanderings. It makes you want to take your keyboard, stretch it out and use it to strangle the screen with.

    Because I’m actually a nice guy, and totally in control of my senses, no really!, I will not link you to the place where Morris the Younger explains that plants are not alive.

    Now I have to go, the nice young men in their white coats are waiting for me.

  6. Interesting that he also suggests that maybe “worms” and sponges are not living.

    John 12:24 “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.”

    I wonder whether a creationist could admit that evolution operated fully throughout the Precambrian?

  7. Or would finding things like prokaryotes, plants or “lower” animals would be counted as not living, in the Biblical sense?

  8. Holding The Line In Florida

    Curse you Draken! My curiosity got the best of me! Only a true bible believing wacka-tron could swallow such bilge! I need a visit to Margaritaville to erase this from my mind!

  9. Holding The Line In Florida

    You made up for it Draken with Nap the XIV however. Been a long time!

  10. Ceteris Paribus

    Jayson Says: “In the last two decades, astronomers have discovered over 3,000 planets orbiting other stars.

    I’m quite that sure if Jason just takes minute to look in his Bible, he will find that the discoveries were made by Astrologers, not “astronomers”.

  11. Ross Cameron

    Notice how creos beliefs are undergoing—dare I say it—-evolution?

  12. Well, Morris DID put in some wiggle words…other than that, it’s the usual stuff from them.

    If you want something really haywire? Look at what Lisle says about the fact that there are pictures of galaxies colliding:


  13. Charles Deetz ;)

    Wow, sounds like Lisle himself was heavily into the 70-proof when he wrote this. Seriously, it is about the level of a drunken rant of ‘wahht I reeely tink’.

  14. Eric B. Lipps

    There are no “creation scientists.” There are those with scientific training and even degrees, but they aren’t scientists because they put the Bible first and then try to waterboard the physical evidence into agreeing with it.