Introduction
Dramatic space pictures from the Hubble Telescope and other new instruments have become frequent news events. Everyone is awed by these colorful images ofdistant planets, stars, and galaxies. For the creationist, important questionsarise: Are new stars forming today, as often reported? Are newplanets which circle faraway stars beyond the solar system actually being discovered? Since our creation model is solidly in place, based on both scienceand Scripture, it is not threatened by new astronomical discoveries. Instead,publication of fresh data is welcomed since it helps us further refine thecreation position.
New Stars?
Standard astronomy must assume that stars are continually forming inabundance throughout space. After all, the universe is thought to be ancient,and its stars are observed to die out sooner or later as novae or supernovae.Yet stars are still present in vast numbers, some "young" in age. If theuniverse is old, new stars must arise to maintain the stellar population. Even our sun is thought to have formed relatively recently in the history of theuniverse. For many years astronomy texts have been hard-pressed for evidence ofnew star formation. In 1995, newborn stars were reported to be emerging from giant pillar-likestructures of gas and dust in the Orion and Eagle Nebulae, both a few thousandlight years from the earth.[1] Stars are thought to form inside the cloudsafter which their stellar winds of radiation slowly clear the region. A part ofthe beautiful Eagle Nebula is shown in figure 1. The Hubble Space Telescope willsurely find many other equally fascinating regions in future years, becauseafter all, at this time we know very little about the detailed structure ofspace. The complexity of space appears to be designed to get our attention andalso to frustrate all natural origin theories.
 Figure 1. Photo of a small part of the Eagle Nebula,7000 light years from earth. The pillars, several light years in size, consistof gas and dust. The stars at the tips of pillars are said to be newly formed.NASA
To see a 1024 by 684 view.
(Depending on your connection, this 2MB file can take several minutes to down load.)
Creation Comment
Only on an evolutionary time scale can regions like the Eagle Nebulaproperly be called "star nurseries." In stellar evolution modelshundreds of thousands of years are required for a dust cloud somehow to collapseand a new star to form. A variety of stars are known to exist, and dust cloudshave now been discovered. The theory says that dust clouds collapse to become astar, but the process has not been observed. One alternative creationist model is that the entire heavens were formedmuch as we see them currently. If Adam and Eve had had access to a telescope,their space view then would have been very similar to ours today. That is, theuniverse appears to have been formed in a fully functioning state in everysense, complete with stars in all their variety. This would include red giantand white dwarf stars, pulsars, and also dust clouds. In this view all thestars we see were created on the fourth day, just a few thousand years ago. Inthis creation model all stars are "new" stars. Given unlimited time, might a star naturally form in space? Theoretically,the answer is a qualified "yes." If a vast cloud of gas and dust couldsomehow be squeezed inward to a critical size, gravity would stabilize it, andnuclear fusion reactions might then begin. The sun itself is a stable gaseoussphere, as is the planet Jupiter. The needed initial condensing of gas to thecritical size, however, appears to be a rare event. Astronomers have looked farand wide for indications of cloud collapse, but as yet have not found any. Onrare occasions it may occur, as perhaps in compact globules of gas. However,this slight possibility falls far short of explaining the existence of themyriads of existing stars, most of which are located light years apart and farfrom gaseous nebulae. It should also be remembered that astronomers have no satisfying formationmechanism for the vast nebulae themselves, from which stars are assumed to growspontaneously. To make the popular assumption that the gas and dust came frompreexisting stars is simply to reason in a circle.
New Planets?
It is quite certain that only nine planets circle the sun, with Mercury andPluto as inner and outer boundaries. But what about additional planets farbeyond the solar system? Such objects circling other stars have long been soughtby astronomers. They reason that the earth naturally condensed from a disk ofgas and then later quickly blossomed with evolved life. If true, then this alsoshould be happening in many other places in space. The search for evidence ofplanets outside the solar system is sometimes described as seeking the "HolyGrail," a much overused term in current astronomy. In the past, manyexperts have reported planets orbiting distant stars, only to retract theirclaims with embarrassment later. Over the years, Barnard's Star, 61 Cygni, VB8B,and several other stars showed wobbles that were heralded as planet-caused. Eachplanet report was later debunked.[2]
In 1992, a planet was declared to be orbiting anearby pulsar.[3] Variation in the light signal was later embarrassingly shownto be caused by the earth's own orbital motion instead of by a new planet.[4]
In recent months there has been a flurry of new planet reports. Computer andinstrument improvements have greatly increased detection abilities. We willconsider three stars that show evidence of having planetary companions. In each case, no actual planet has been seen. It is difficult enough to observedistant Pluto in our own solar system; the new planets under consideration are500,000 times more distant than Pluto. Astronomers look for small, regular variations in the Doppler shifts oflight emitted by stars. Such changes indicate a back and forth "wobbling"of the star's motion, perhaps due to gravity effects from an unseen, orbitingplanet. Analysis of the light signal also permits estimates of the planet'smass and orbital characteristics to be made. 51 Pegasi. This sun-like star is 45 light years (250 trillion miles)from the earth.[5] If a planet does indeed circle this star, it is nothing likethe earth. The star's light signal indicates a companion that is 190 timesheavier than the earth and 22 times closer to its star than the earth is to thesun. As a result, the planet's surface temperature probably exceeds 1300oC,hot enough to melt copper metal. The planet also poses additional challengesfor astronomers. First of all, theorists have long assumed that planetsspontaneously coalesce from a protoplanet disk of material surrounding a star.In such models it is doubtful that such a large planet could ever form so closeto a star. Secondly, sun-like stars such as 51 Pegasi are thought to go througha "T Tauri" phase in their youth. During this time the star would be100 times brighter than it is today and would blow off a massive stellar windof radiation, enough to evaporate any nearby planet. Thus, according to stellar evolution, this new planet should not exist where it does. 70 Virginis. The announcement of a possible planet circling thisstar follows seven years of close observation.[6] The planet appears to be 2500times heavier than the earth (eight times greater than Jupiter) and twice asclose to its star as the earth is to the sun. The speculated planet could possibly have a warm temperature, which has led astronomers to speculate wildlyabout the possible presence of liquid water there. Time Magazine evencarried the false caption, "Astronomers have detected water-bearingplanets around nearby stars." [7] In truth, water has not been found beyondtrace amounts anywhere else in our solar system, let alone on unseen, distant planets. Why the emphasis on water when the presence of any chemicals onfar-distant planets remains completely unknown? The persistent hope is thatwater might accommodate the origin and evolution of life elsewhere. The planetof 70 Virginis, however, presents a severe challenge to any thoughts ofextraterrestrial life. The planet's large size would result in enormous surfacegravity and pressure. Because of this, some suggest that the planet might havea moon which harbors life. The planet also seems to have a highly ellipticalorbit, leading to uneven heating of itself and any moons. Some astronomers do not believe new planets have been found at all. [8]Instead, the massive objects circling other stars may be brown dwarfs. Theseare sub-stars that lack sufficient mass to begin vigorous nuclear fusion. 47 Ursae Majoris. This star resides in the Big Dipper constellation.Its wobble reveals a companion that is 1000 times heavier than the earth. Likeother massive planets, this companion of 47 Ursae Majoris is probably gaseousrather than solid. It is twice the earth-sun distance from its star, resultingin a possible low temperature of -100oC. The planets of our solar systems,however, have shown that distance from a star may be a poor indicator oftemperature. Venus, for example, is farther from the sun than Mercury, yet itis much warmer, with a temperature of 500oC compared to Mercury's 125oC. The major impetus for new planet discovery is the "Search forExtraterrestrial Intelligence" or SETI. After spending untold millions oftax dollars over 35 years with zero results, Congress stopped funding SETIprojects in 1993. The search is being continued today with private funding. Thusfar, though, the only message received from radio signals in space is randomstatic.
Conclusion
Claims of discoveries are flooding in from the new generation of spaceinstruments. These reports are often given an evolutional "spin,"especially regarding new stars, planets, and origin theories.Creationists are encouraged to enjoy and study the new data and photographs. They should also be ready to separate the unneeded, anti-creation statementsthat often accompany these reports. Our enlarging view of creation shows acomplex universe that completely frustrates any attempt to explain its originor content by natural processes alone. The heavens clearly declare God's glory!
|
References
1. NASA, Office of Public Outreach, Hubble Space Telescope, via Internet, 1995. Return to Text
2. MacRobert, A.M. and J. Rother, "The Planet of 51 Pegasi," Sky and Telescope 91(1), 1995, pp. 38 40. Return to Text
3. Bailes, M., A.G. Lyne, and S.L. Shemar, "A planet orbiting the neutron star PSR1329-10," Nature 352(6333), 1991, pp. 311-313. Return to Text
4. MacRobert, A.M., et al. op. cit., p. 40. Return to Text
5. Mayor M. and D. Queloz, "A Jupiter-mass companion to a solar-type star" Nature 378(6555), 1995, pp. 355-359. Return to Text
6. Cowen, R., "Two Extrasolar Planets May Hold Water," Science News 149(4), 1996, p. 52. Return to Text
7. Lemonick, M.D., "Searching for other worlds," Time 147(6), 1996, pp. 52-57. Return to Text
8. Cowen, R., op. cit., p. 52. Return to Text
|
