In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

Below is the online edition of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, by Dr. Walt Brown. Copyright © Center for Scientific Creation. All rights reserved.

Click here to order the hardbound 8th edition (2008) and other materials.

[ The Scientific Case for Creation > Astronomical and Physical Sciences > The Universe, Solar System, Earth, and Life Were Recently Created. > Theories for the Evolution of the Solar System and Universe Are Unscientific and Hopelessly Inadequate. > Strange Planets]

43. Strange Planets

Many undisputed observations contradict current theories on how the solar system evolved.^a One theory says that planets formed when a star, passing near our Sun, tore matter from the Sun. More popular theories hold that the solar system formed from a cloud of swirling gas, dust, or larger particles. If the planets and their known moons evolved from the same material, they should have many similarities. After several decades of planetary exploration, this expectation is now recognized as false.^b [See Figure 23.] According to these evolutionary theories:

Backward-Spinning Planets. All planets in our solar system should spin in the same direction, but Venus, Uranus,^c and Pluto rotate backwards.^d [See "Is Pluto a Planet?" on page 30.]

Backward Orbits. If planets and moons evolved from swirling dust clouds as is commonly taught, each of the almost 200 known moons in the solar system should orbit its planet in the same direction as the planet spins, but more than 30 moons have backward orbits.^e Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.

Tipped Orbits.

Moons. The orbit of each of these moons should lie very near the equatorial plane of the planet it orbits, but many, including Earth’s moon, are in highly inclined orbits.^f

Planets. The orbital planes of the planets should lie in the equatorial plane of the Sun. Instead, the orbital planes of the planets typically deviate from the Sun’s equatorial plane by 7 degrees, a significant amount.

Angular Momentum. The Sun should have about 700 times more angular momentum than all its planets combined. Instead, the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the Sun.^h

Is Pluto a Planet?

In 2006, after years of internal disagreement, 4% of the members of the International Astronomical Union (IAU)—those meeting in Prague—voted to no longer call Pluto a planet. Instead, they said Pluto is a trans-Neptunian object (TNO). Far more astronomers and planetary scientists quickly signed a petition opposing the IAU’s vote. [See Endnote 43i on page 87.]

The IAU had no jurisdiction to change the definition of “planet” for the rest of the world. It is fine for an organization to tell others what it considers a word to mean, but common usage is the basis for definitions. Our language is filled with scientific words whose meanings have changed based on new discoveries and broader understandings. Few meanings have changed based on an organization’s vote.

Since Pluto’s discovery 76 years earlier, it has been a thorn in the side of astronomers trying to explain how planets evolve, because so many characteristics of Pluto do not fit evolutionary scenarios. No longer calling Pluto a planet (although it is spherical, has five known moons and a thick atmosphere, and orbits the Sun in the right direction) may reduce those man-made problems, but it now calls attention to the more difficult question of how thousands of trans-Neptunian objects evolved.

In 1930, after astronomers had been searching for a suspected ninth planet for 25 years, a tenacious farm boy from Kansas, Clyde W. Tombaugh (1906–1997), discovered Pluto at Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona. He later became one of my favorite professors. Going to his backyard to use his 9-inch handmade telescope was memorable. Professor Tombaugh was a warm, unpretentious man with the biggest smile you have ever seen. However, in class, he sometimes became irate at astronomers who made pronouncements but seldom touched a telescope.

Classification can be a useful tool, but at other times it leads to endless arguments, because the world (or, in this case, the solar system) is usually more complicated than theories imply. We can call Pluto anything we wish, but tens of thousands of books and hundreds of millions of students have called Pluto a planet.

What is a planet? Its original meaning was “wandering star.” I will always associate Pluto with Clyde Tombaugh and the worldwide excitement of finally discovering the ninth planet. For historical reasons, if nothing else, I suspect that millions of others will continue to call Pluto a planet as well as a trans-Neptunian object.

Semantics aside, the scientific question remains: how could Pluto, the largest TNO known, form? Indeed, how did all TNOs form? Later in this book, you will see.

astrophysicalsciences-saturn_and_six_moons.jpg Image Thumbnail

Figure 24: Saturn and Six of Its Moons. Saturn has 62 known moons. One of them, named Phoebe [FEE-bee], is dominated by water,^g and its orbit is almost perpendicular to Saturn’s equator. Why? As explained in "Earth: The Water Planet" (Category 44 below), it is difficult enough for evolutionist astronomers to explain why Earth (the water planet) has so much water. So why would tiny Phoebe be a water-rich rock? Pages 341–385 will explain why that rock and its water were once part of Earth. (But, don’t skip pages 110–150.)