It’s not easy being a creation scientist. All the evidence is against the idea of a universe that was created only 6,000 years ago. Nevertheless, the true believers never give up. We see this regularly at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.
Their latest effort is The Puzzle of Pluto, written by Danny Faulkner. Here’s AIG’s biographical information about him. They say he taught physics and astronomy until he joined AIG. His undergraduate degree is from Bob Jones University.
This isn’t the first time Danny has written about Pluto — see Answers in Genesis: Pluto Is Young! That was almost three years ago. He focused on the relative lack of surface craters on Pluto, and — like a good creationist — he ignored the abundance of craters on other solid bodies in the solar system. This time, Danny “remedies” that oversight. Here are some excerpts from his new effort, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
When a probe flew by Pluto, it made a shocking discovery: the surface is young. Astronomers are still scrambling to explain why.
That’s how he begins. We’re going to skip most of his description of Pluto so we can focus on how he insists on a recent creation of the solar system, despite all the contrary evidence. First, he describes the problem:
Why did astronomers expect Pluto’s surface to have many craters? This idea stems from a common belief that the solar system formed naturalistically over billions of years.
Naturalistic astronomers [Hee hee!] believe objects beyond Neptune’s orbit failed to reach the size of planets. These smaller objects, as well as smaller objects orbiting the sun within the region of the planets, are called asteroids. As asteroids formed, the argument goes, other small objects crashed into them and made them larger. These small bodies left craters on the surfaces of asteroids.
Craters supposedly accumulated on planets as well, but the surface of a planet is generally much more dynamic, showing significantly fewer craters than asteroids because volcanic eruptions and even weather can fill in and eventually cover ancient craters. This is the theory that most astronomers use to explain the limited number of impact craters on earth. The moon, in contrast, is less active than the earth, with very little volcanic or weather activity. So its surface still bears testament to many impacts.
Similarly, the small bodies of the solar system, including asteroids and Pluto, supposedly lack geological and significant weather processes. So their surfaces should be covered with craters. Several spacecraft have visited asteroids and sent back images revealing many craters on their surfaces. Most of the moons (or satellites) of the planets possess many craters as well. So astronomers expected Pluto to be more heavily cratered than our moon.
To their surprise, the images from New Horizons [the NASA probe that visited Pluto — see New Horizons] showed very few craters on Pluto’s surface. Pluto’s largest satellite, Charon, has more craters than Pluto, but far fewer than expected.
Then he tells us how those hell-bound “naturalistic astronomers” explain what was seen:
Why do Pluto and Charon have so few craters? Naturalistic astronomers don’t believe that Pluto itself is young, but that the surface is young. How can the surface be young but not Pluto itself? Their assumption is that material spewed from recent geological activity must have covered many craters.
They’re fools! Danny dismisses a few proposed explanations and says:
Astronomers may eventually suggest that Pluto and Charon just happened to have experienced some rare, catastrophic event recently (in the past few hundred million years). However, blaming a rare event amounts to an arbitrary rescuing device. It cannot be proven, so it hardly constitutes science.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Creationists would never resort to an unprovable “arbitrary rescuing device.” Let’s read on:
Another explanation — anathema to evolutionary astronomers — is possible. What if Pluto is not nearly as old as many scientists think? [Gasp!] If Pluto is very young, its surface may not have had enough time to accumulate many craters. Or perhaps Pluto was created with internal heat that is still there. That could drive geological processes that could not only erase many craters but also explain the gases that are released from within Pluto to sustain a thin atmosphere.
But if Pluto is billions of years old, none of its internal heat would remain. Scientists who believe in biblical creation would expect evidences of a young Pluto, and those are what we see.
So far, this is pure creation science, because it ignores all the other evidence of an old solar system. But now Danny remedies that problem from his earlier essay. He mentions the contradictory evidence:
If the solar system is young, you might be wondering why some bodies, such as the earth’s moon and Mercury, have numerous craters on their surfaces. One suggestion is that most craters may be the result of the rapid process that God used on Day Four to assemble solar system bodies. God may have made some bodies with internal heat, such as Io and Pluto, so that their surfaces have been refreshed, largely removing original craters.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Danny has deployed an unprovable “arbitrary rescuing device.” Skipping a bit we come to this:
At any rate, Pluto appears unique in the solar system. Why did God make Pluto this way? One possible reason is that God wanted to confound man’s thinking and to show us that He truly made the universe in the manner and time frame found in the Bible. … Bible-believing Christians look forward to new developments in man’s understanding of Pluto.
At the end he discusses one of Pluto’s moons and says:
Charon is the largest and most interesting of Pluto’s five satellites, or moons. While Charon has more craters than Pluto, it has far fewer than expected. This means it has not been around very long (the creationist view), or the ice on the surface has been active recently and covered the craters.
As with Pluto, the only explanation that evolutionists can come up with is that Charon has been geologically active in the relatively recent past. But we don’t know what mechanism could have produced all of this activity. These mysterious bodies at the edge of the solar system continue to confound evolutionary theory but give testimony to the Creator.
So there you are. Despite his brief and dismissive mention of the evidence for an old solar system, Danny’s article is an excellent illustration of what we call the Creationist Scientific Method:
Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.