The Truth™ About the Origin of Stars

From time to time, astronomers publish photos of Stellar nurseries, nebulae where new stars appear to be forming. One of the most spectacular images is the well-known Pillars of Creation — that’s a link to NASA’s Picture of the Day, and it’s certainly worth a look.

As you might imagine, images like that are offensive to Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. He just posted this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: “Newborn Stars” Form in the Pillars of Creation? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

“Pillars of Creation” is the name given to an iconic photograph of a vast region within the Eagle Nebula, a cloud of dust and gas seven thousand light years from earth. Secular astronomers [the fools!] consider these nebulas to be the birthplace of stars. A recent article [link omitted], reflecting on an updated infrared version of the Pillars of Creation photo, claims the tops of these pillars will disappear as baby stars grow.

“The birthplace of stars”? Hambo doesn’t like that. He says:

According to God’s Word, stars didn’t form slowly and gradually from “protostars” in nurseries. They were formed at God’s command when “he made the stars also” (Genesis 1:16). And he names them all: [All zillion trillion of them!] God determines the number of the stars and he gives to all of them their names (Psalm 174:4).

That’s how it’s done! After that revelation, Hambo tells us:

So what do we make of this claim that we can see “baby stars” in the Pillars of Creation? AiG astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner, who taught astronomy for over 26 years at University of South Carolina–Lancaster, shares this:

[Hambo quotes his creationist astronomer:] When the Pillars of Creation photo was released 25 years ago, it dazzled the world. The photograph still is considered one of the most beautiful photos taken by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). Its release was accompanied by explanation of how this photograph revealed much about the process of star formation. … An astronomer commented that we really ought to call this the “Pillars of Destruction,” because the processes of star formation eventually will disrupt the surrounding gas that produced the beautiful image.

But what have these photographs really revealed? Far less than claimed. These photos are static. That is, they don’t show any change over time. Rather, the images have been interpreted in terms of the current model about how stars form from gas clouds. That model has changed much over the past half century, and I’m sure it will continue to change. There are many examples of how astronomers in the past interpreted images in terms of what they believed at the time. Many of those interpretations are laughable today. Will the interpretation of these photos be any different?

Hambo and his creation scientists think those images of stellar nurseries are laughable. And so should you! He continues:

On Answers News (our weekly news commentary program) we often remark on how many articles we discuss completely change everything we knew about a secular model of origins. Will current star formation models follow the same pattern? Absolutely. [Huh?]

In his final paragraph, Hambo explains why all that secular astronomy stuff about the origin of stars is nonsense:

How can I say that with such certainty? Because God’s Word is true [Yes!] and has been confirmed over and over again by observational science. [Ooooooooooooh!] As astronomers continue to study the heavens, they will be forced to change their ideas because they start with the wrong foundation: man’s word. Only God’s Word is unchanging.

That was absolutely thrilling — don’t you agree, dear reader?

Copyright © 2020. 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

10 responses to “The Truth™ About the Origin of Stars

  1. Yesterday’s newspaper never changes either but that doesn’t prove it’s true.

  2. Richard Andersen

    In Revelation it says “And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind.” The sun, a typical star, has a diameter 108 times that of earth. Hey Dr. Danny Faulkner, explain to me what happens when a star “falls” to the earth!

    Do you think that said “astronomer” believes that the bible is ‘Inerrant” from the standpoint of this verse?

  3. God determines the number of the stars and he gives to all of them their names (Psalm 174:4).
    Just an FYI, many, if not most, of the prominent naked eye stars have Arabic names.

  4. Well, because of the fall we forgot their real names.

  5. Current estimate is around 10^22 for the number of stars. You will quickly run out of names.

  6. Dave Luckett

    The essential belief Ham must tout is that the Universe is static, except in those specific aspects where Ham doesn’t want it to be static. Ham wants the speed of light, for example, to be changeable, and the rate of radioactive isotopic decay the same. This is required to fit Ham’s cosmology, despite there being no evidence or theoretical explanation for it. But the clouds of coalescing dust and gas can’t be stellar nurseries. New stars can’t be forming. That would deny scripture.

    The fact that it wouldn’t, actually, is neither here nor there, to Ken. Scripture says God created the stars. It doesn’t say He has stopped doing it. But Ken can happily ignore that, because Scripture says what Ken Ham wants it to say. And so does science. The fact that it clearly doesn’t is a problem for him.

    That’s why it also suits Ken to deny science generally, as he is doing here. He’ll use anything he can find, or manufacture, to that end. It has gone beyond evolution and geology. He denies any science – stellar formation, nuclear physics, relativity, cosmology, population genetics, biochemistry – that he becomes aware of.

    That’s another pointer to Ham’s all-or-nothing, black and white authoritarian mind. If science is right in some things, it might be right overall. So Ken must attack all of it. At the very same time, for propaganda purposes, he must proclaim his love for “genuine” science, according to whatever distortion of reality he uses to define “genuine”.

    Arbiter of scripture, definer of reality, ruler of science. The common denominator in all this is Ken Ham’s monstrously swollen ego. He has become his own god.

  7. Aha. When cosmologists observe a freshly taken picutre from the Hubble Space Telescope they are not doing observational science. Got it.

    “Only God’s Word is unchanging.”
    Perhaps, because Ol’Hambo’s crap is getting making less and less sense.

    @RichardA: yes, I believe that. I have no doubt that Dannyboy can make up some story.

    @Hans: Ol’Hambo’s god is infinite, so he also can pull an infinite number of names out of his divine sleeve.

    @DaveL: “he essential belief Ham must tout …..”
    Well, yes, that’s creacrap for ya. X is true except when -X is true.

    “He has become his own god.”
    Nah, just number 4, immediately after the father, the son and the holy spook.

  8. chris schilling

    Well, as Ken’s compatriot Tony Abbott so memorably told us, “No-one…is the suppository [sic] of all wisdom.” (Who is Tony Abbott? I hear you not-ask. Tony Abbott was an Australian Prime Minister who…ah, who the hell cares?)

    I’d put Ken in the same league as Trump — men who see the world as merely a giant mirror that reflects their own overweening self-importance back at them. Men who vastly overestimate their position as some sort of bastion of knowledge or Truth™

    But hey, who am I to cast dispersions [sic] against these people?

  9. @Dave Luckett
    According to the premises of the Anthropic Principle, the findamental parameters of physics must be Fine Tuned to their values. This means that the speed of light, the rates of radioactive decay, etc. must have the values very close to the values that they have here and now.
    We know that that is so, because the universe is Intelligently Designed.

  10. Eh no, that’s the teleologically distorted version of the AP, which of course but not only is popular among creacrappers. The AP totally can be and has been defined without teleology and hence isn’t necessarily connected to creacrap. Two examples:

    “The anthropic principle is the belief that, if we take human life as a given condition of the universe, scientists may use this as the starting point to derive expected properties of the universe as being consistent with creating human life. It is a principle which has an important role in cosmology, specifically in trying to deal with the apparent fine-tuning of the universe.” (apparent stressed by me).

    Wikipedia cites one Nick Bostrom:

    “The anthropic principle is a philosophical consideration that any data we collect about the universe is filtered by the fact that, in order for it to be observable in the first place, it must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it.”

    In my very not humble opinion we should not hand the AP over to apologists, but instead point out their dishonesty when they use it to argue for their god.