Earth’s Magnetic Field: Is it Young or Old?

Magnetic field lines representing the earth’s magnetic field. Image from http://www.nasa.gov.

The earth generates a giant magnetic field.  The magnetic field produced by the earth causes a compass needle to point north.  Why does the earth have a magnetic field?  Scientists agree it is the result of electrical currents generated in the earth’s core. Two different models have been developed to explain the origin and behavior of Earth’s magnetic field: the dynamo theory and the rapid decay theory.

In the dynamo theory, the convective (heat-driven) motion of electrically conductive fluid (liquid iron) in the earth’s outer core generates an electric current, which produces a magnetic field. This magnetic field interacts with the moving fluid to produce an additional magnetic field. These combined fields result in the earth’s overall planetary field. The rotation of Earth is what provides the needed motion to sustain the magnetic field. This theory is the most popular model of magnetic fields, and it allows a magnetic field to be sustained over long periods of time, even billions of years.

A young-earth creationist physicist, Dr. Russell Humphreys, developed another model of planetary magnetic fields based on the Bible.  This model could be called the “rapid-decay theory.”  The rapid decay theory assumes that the earth’s magnetic field is generated by decaying electrical currents in the core.  According to Humphreys, the earth was initially created with all of its particle spins aligned, which produced a magnetic field. Once the spins become disoriented, an electric current would form, maintaining this strong magnetic field. Because of the electrical resistance in the core, however, the electrical current would decline over time, reducing the strength of the magnetic field over time. Thus, today’s magnetic field is simply a remnant of the initial magnetic field at creation. Interestingly, in order for this model to be correct, the earth must be no older than 8,700 years.

If we test these models using the scientific method, which model can we conclude is the stronger scientific hypothesis?

Mercury.  Since the dynamo model depends on rotational speed, Mercury was not expected to have a magnetic field. As one article stated:

Because of the low rotation rate Mercury was not expected to generate a field.¹

In 1974, it was found that Mercury did possess a magnetic field.  Thus, the dynamo model incorrectly predicted the lack of a magnetic field on Mercury.  The rapid-decay model, on the other hand, has no difficulty explaining the existence of Mercury’s field, since it predicts that all planets started out with magnetic fields.

The rapid-decay model also predicts that the strength of a planetary magnetic field decays over time.   In 1975, the Mariner 10 spacecraft flew by Mercury and measured the strength of its magnetic field.  In 1984, Humphreys predicted the amount by which Mercury’s magnetic field would decrease over time.  In 2008, the field was measured again by NASA’s Messenger spacecraft, and that measurement appears to confirm the prediction of his model, at least better than the dynamo model.

Photo of the surface of Mars, where evidence of a past magnetic field was found in its crustal rocks. Image from http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA00563_modest.jpg.

The moon and Mars.  The dynamo theory predicted that Mars should have a planetary magnetic field,² but it does not.  In contrast, the rapid-decay model is consistent with the lack of a planetary field on Mars.  In addition, the rapid-decay model predicted that Mars would show evidence of a prior magnetic field (evidence of a past magnetic field can be detected in remanent magnetization in crustal rocks).³  In 1999, this evidence of a past magnetic field on Mars was found, confirming Humphreys’s prediction from 1984.

The dynamo theory predicts that if a planet starts out with a magnetic field, that field should be sustained over long periods of time.  Thus, the fact that Mars shows evidence of a past (i.e., crustal) magnetic field is surprising to dynamo theorists, as Mars would be expected to still have its magnetic field today if it had one at all in the past.

Since the dynamo model depends on rotation and the amount of conducting material in the core, the moon was expected to possess no magnetic field at any time in its history.  However,  evidence was found for a past magnetic field preserved in its crustal rocks, just as on Mars.  Thus, the dynamo model incorrectly predicted the lack of any magnetic field in the moon’s past.  On the other hand, the rapid-decay model’s expectations fit these observations perfectly, since it predicts that all bodies start out with a magnetic field, and that a body like the moon would lose its magnetic field rather quickly due to its specific properties.  Thus, we would expect to find evidence of a past magnetic field in its crust if the rapid-decay model is correct.

Uranus and Neptune.  When Humphreys developed the rapid-decay theory in 1984, the magnetic fields of two planets, Uranus and Neptune, had not been measured yet.  Using his model, Humphreys predicted the strength of the magnetic fields of those planets.  The predictions were on the order of 10²⁴ J/T (joules/tesla) for both planetary fields.  When NASA’s Voyager II spacecraft flew by the planets, they measured the magnetic fields of those planets, and the measurements confirmed Humphreys’s predictions to within an order of magnitude.

In contrast, the dynamo model initially predicted a weak or nonexistent magnetic field for Uranus.  This is because the planetary dynamo is expected to generate much heat, which should be detectable as heat flow from the surface of the planet.  However, Uranus has an extremely low heat flux.  As a result, dynamo theorists recognized this a problem and tried to “adjust” the model when they began to see evidence for a magnetic field on the planet.⁴ Even after the existence of a magnetic field on Uranus was confirmed, dynamo theorists continued to try to reconcile these data with their models.⁵

Magnetic Reversals on Earth.  There is strong geological evidence that the Earth’s magnetic field has reversed multiple times in the past.  This means that at certain times in the past, a compass needle would have pointed south instead of north.  Both the dynamo model and the rapid-decay model agree that the Earth’s magnetic field can reverse.  However, the old-earth dynamo model predicts that reversals generally take place at a rate of once every 1,000 years or even tens or hundreds of thousands of years.  The reversal itself is thought to take at least 1,000 years to occur.  The rapid-decay model predicts that a reversal would happen as fast as once per week on average, during the Biblical global flood.  In 1989, geologists examined thin lava flows that showed evidence of magnetic variation that took place within weeks.⁶ Further evidence for reversals happening in a few years were discovered later by other geologists.⁷

Which model predicted these data more accurately?  Well, the young-earth model predicted reversals happening once per week.  The data do not fit this prediction exactly, but it is close.  The data from the two studies in Footnote 6 indicate that at the measured rate for the change in direction of the magnetic field, a full magnetic reversal could happen over a period of 60 days.  Thus, the young-earth model was off by the following factor:

60 days / 7 days = ~8.57

If we are generous to the old-earth model and assume that reversals take place once every 1,000 years, we can calculate that its prediction is off by a factor of:

1000 years = 365,000 days / 60 days = 6,083

Thus, the old-earth model for magnetic fields was wrong by a factor of over 6,000 in its prediction!  The young-earth model’s prediction differed only slightly from the data, by a factor of 8.57.  Likewise, for the study in Footnote 7, the young-earth model is off by a factor of 180, and the old-earth model is off by a factor of between 285 and 5,780.⁸  Either way, the young-earth model’s predictions were far more successful than the old-earth model’s predictions in these instances.

In summary, the young-earth model of planetary magnetic fields based on the Bible and developed by Humphreys is consistent with current observations of the moon and planets’ magnetic fields.  In addition, it has predicted certain data accurately before they were measured.  In contrast, the old-earth dynamo model has incorrectly predicted the existence/non-existence and strength of some of the planets’ magnetic fields.  Clearly, the young-earth model for planetary magnetic fields is a much stronger scientific hypothesis than the old-earth model.  Once again, the data fit the young-earth view better than the old-earth view.

—————

1 Parker, E. N. 1983. Magnetic fields in the cosmos. Scientific American, 249(2):44-54 (August), p. 51.

2 Ibid, p. 52.

3 In his 1984 paper, Humphreys wrote, “Older igneous rocks from Mercury or Mars should have natural remanent magnetization, as the Moon’s rocks do.”

4 Smoluchowski, R. 1979. “Origin of the magnetic fields in the giant planets.” Physics Of The Earth And Planetary Interiors 20, no. 2-4: 247-254.  Link.   Torbett, M., and R. Smoluchowski. 1980. “Hydromagnetic dynamo in the cores of Uranus and Neptune.” Nature [London] 286, no. 5770: 237-239.  Link.  Smoluchowski, R.  “The Magnetic Field of Uranus.”  Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 10, p.577.   Link.

5 Sabine Stanley and Jeremy Bloxham. “Numerical dynamo models of Uranus’ and Neptune’s magnetic fields.” Icarus.  Volume 184, Issue 2, October 2006, Pages 556–572.

6 Coe, R.S. and Prevot, M., “Evidence Suggesting Extremely Rapid Field Variation During a Geomagnetic Reversal,” Earth and Planetary Science 92:292-298, 1989; Coe, R.S., Prevot, M., and Camps, P., “New Evidence for Extremely Rapid Change of the Geomagnetic Field During a Reversal,” Nature 374:687-692, 1995.

7 Bogue, S. W., and J. M. G. Glen (2010), “Very rapid geomagnetic field change recorded by the partial remagnetization of a lava flow,” Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L21308, doi:10.1029/2010GL044286.

8 The reversals in Footnote 6 took place at the rate of 1 degree/week, or 1 reversal/180 weeks = 1260 days. 1260 days (measurement) / 7 days (young-earth prediction) = 180. For the old-earth model, 1000 years = 360,000 days (old-earth prediction) / 1260 days (measurement) = 285.7.   If we use a maximum time of 20,000 years for a magnetic flip (e.g., see this article), the old-earth model’s prediction would be off by a factor of 20,000 years / 3.46 years (180 weeks for one reversal) = 5,780.

Failed Predictions of the Big Bang

In an earlier post, I talked about the scientific method and how a good hypothesis is one that makes successful predictions of the data. The scientific method allows us to weed out the good hypotheses from the bad ones by assessing their ability to make accurate predictions.

The most popular view of the origin and formation of the universe is called the Big Bang theory.* Interestingly enough, this term was coined in 1949 by astronomer Frederick Hoyle, who used it in a derogatory manner because he did not like the theory.

Image of the Big Bang, based on an animation. Image from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PvnNREu4KQ.

Observations of the galactic redshift seem to indicate that the galaxies are moving further away from us. This means that the universe is expanding and would have been much smaller in the past.  One possible model of the universe that seeks to explain this expansion of the universe is the standard Big Bang model.  The Big Bang states that 13.8 billion years ago, the universe expanded out of a point of infinite density called a singularity.

Allegedly successful predictions of the standard Big Bang model are often touted and presented as evidence for the theory.  In addition to the redshift observations I just discussed, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and the relative abundances of light elements are presented as successful predictions of the Big Bang.   However, many of the standard Big Bang’s predictions have actually failed.

One of the most well-known failed predictions of the Big Bang is the “horizon problem,” which I discussed in an earlier post. As Big Bang cosmologist Alan Guth says:

The horizon problem is not a failure of the standard big bang theory in the strict sense, since it is neither an internal contradiction nor and inconsistency between observation and theory…The problem, instead, is one of predictive power.  One of the most salient features of the observed universe – its large-scale uniformity – cannot be explained by the standard big bang theory; instead it must be assumed as an initial condition (The Inflationary Universe, 1998, p. 184, emphasis added).

While Alan Guth does not see this as a contradiction between the Big Bang and observations, he does acknowledge that it is a problem with the Big Bang’s predictive power.  In an attempt to rescue the Big Bang from this failed prediction, he proposes a solution to the horizon problem known as inflation, which has been widely accepted by physicists today. However, this “solution” is not based on any observations, has problems of its own, and is questioned by various scientists (such as theoretical physicist Paul Steinhardt from Princeton).

Although the Big Bang is consistent with the abundances of light elements such as hydrogen and helium in the universe, and although this is considered a successful prediction of the theory, the Big Bang actually incorrectly predicted the abundances of another element in the universe known as lithium (the element consisting of 3 protons, one more proton than helium).  As a New Scientist article explains:

“When we count up the lithium atoms held in stars, there is only one-third as much of the lithium-7 isotope as there should be. Another isotope, lithium-6, is overabundant: there may be as much as 1000 times too much of it.”

Thus, even though the Big Bang is thought to predict the abundances of some elements correctly (hydrogen and helium), it actually incorrectly predicts the abundances of the isotopes of another element (lithium).

We find protons in the universe, but not many antiprotons as the Big Bang would predict. The same applies to other subatomic particles. Image from http://www.universetoday.com.

The Big Bang also states that the universe started out with a high energy density and no matter initially.  Eventually, as the universe expanded and cooled, matter was formed.  However, according to the laws of physics, this process would have resulted in equal amounts of matter and antimatter (consisting of particles similar to the particles comprising matter, but with opposite charges and other properties).  However, for some unexplainable reason, an imbalance occurred and the amount of matter won out.  This problem is known as baryon asymmetry or the “missing antimatter” problem, and is another failed prediction of the Big Bang.

Another component is “missing” in the universe, according to the Big Bang.  The Big Bang predicts that magnetic monopoles would have formed, but again, we don’t find them.

One interesting failed prediction of the Big Bang concerns the amount of matter and energy of the universe. In 1998, observations of supernovae showed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. In order to explain this, Big Bang cosmologists had to propose that the majority of the energy of the universe is currently undetectable.  Since we have not and cannot observe this needed “missing energy,” it has been called “dark energy.”  Thus, in order to make the Big Bang consistent with the data, cosmologists have to propose that over 95% of the matter and energy of the universe is unobserved and unobservable (currently).

What can be gleaned from these failed predictions of the Big Bang?  Do they mean the theory itself is fundamentally incorrect?  That is certainly one possibility, but I think that some observations still need to be explained: the galactic redshift and the cosmic microwave background radiation, for example.  Together, these observations suggest that the universe has expanded and that it was much hotter in the past.  Any model explaining the origin of the universe must explain these facts.

The Big Bang is clearly a “long ages” or “old-universe” cosmology that contradicts young-earth creationism.  However, we have seen that the Big Bang has many failed predictions, which makes it a questionable hypothesis.  Is there any alternative cosmology that explains observations but is consistent with a young earth/Solar System?  Yes.  Physicist Russell Humphreys proposed a model of cosmology known as white hole cosmology in his book Starlight and Time.  Although his cosmology is still in the early stages of development, it does explain the redshift as well as the cosmic microwave background, and it is consistent with a young earth on the order of 6 – 10 thousand years old. Another physicist/cosmologist, John Hartnett, developed a similar cosmological model that is consistent with a young earth.

Because of its many failed predictions, the “old-earth” cosmology, the Big Bang, should not be relied on.  In addition, the burden of proof is on those who hold to the Big Bang to provide solutions for its problems and failed predictions.

———————–

* This post discusses some of the failed predictions of the Big Bang.  Many Christians and other theists have used the Big Bang to argue for the existence of God based on the Cosmological Argument. Thus, if the Big Bang is called into question, this would seem to call that argument into question as well. However, whether or not the Big Bang is correct, the Cosmological Argument remains valid and is still supported by the evidence, in my opinion.

The Sun’s Nuclear Fusion: One Data Set Consistent with a Young Earth

Image from http://www.space.com.

Have you ever wondered what powers the sun and provides its energy? Scientists today have discovered that the process of nuclear fusion, which occurs when two or more atomic nuclei combine to form a single atomic nucleus of a different element, provides the primary source of energy for the sun.

Remember, all atoms contain a nucleus of protons and neutrons surrounded by electrons. The “type” of atom, called an element, is determined by the number of protons in the nucleus.*  For example, an oxygen atom contains 8 protons (and usually 8 neutrons) in its nucleus, but a helium atom contains only 2 protons (and usually 1 or 2 neutrons).

The sun is mostly composed of hydrogen and helium. In the sun’s core, the temperatures are extremely high, increasing the movement and collisions of particles. When two or more hydrogen nuclei combine in the core, they form helium nuclei. This process results in the release of energy. Over time, the combination of hydrogen atoms to helium atoms decreases the total number of particles in the core (because four hydrogen particles replace one helium particle in the proton-proton chain). This causes the core to shrink, which increases the temperature and makes fusion happen even faster.¹ Thus, over time, the rate of nuclear fusion reactions will increase, and the sun will become brighter over time.

Image from https://www.sciencenews.org/article/faint-young-sun

Now, this process has interesting implications for the history of the earth. The most popular figure cited for the age of the earth is 4.54 billion years. However, calculations show that 4 billion years ago, the sun’s brightness would be less than 75% of its brightness today (see graph below). As a result, the earth would have been cooler in the past. These lower temperatures would have actually caused water on the surface of the earth to freeze.² However, the geologic data indicate that in the early earth, liquid water was abundant to support life and climate was warm (also see here). Thus, if we assume the earth is 4.54 billion years old, there is a contradiction between the geological evidence and what we understand about nuclear fusion in the sun.

Scientists who believe the earth is old recognize this problem, and refer to it as the “faint young sun paradox.” Carl Sagan and a colleague discussed this problem and proposed an increased greenhouse effect “solution.”  A study in 2010, however, demonstrated that this solution does not work, since there is no evidence for [sufficiently] higher concentrations of greenhouse gases on the earth at the time needed.  As a result, the authors of that study propose another “solution,” which was shown later to be insufficient by a factor of two in another study.  The faint young sun paradox has been such a long-standing problem that scientists organized a symposium in 2012 to discuss the problem! Solutions continue to be offered (a recent one is found here), but so far, none have been strong enough to gain traction in the scientific community as the standard explanation.

Reproduced from Feulner 2012

Thus, it appears that the sun’s nuclear fusion is currently inconsistent with the old-earth view, to the best of our knowledge. However, does this mean it is consistent with the young-earth view? To answer this question, one must look at the graph on the left, which is reproduced from this paper (Try this link if the previous one doesn’t work.) This graph shows the sun’s luminosity (brightness) as you go back in time. In the young earth view, the earth is only about 6 – 10 thousand years old. However, if you try to locate the time 10,000 years ago on the horizontal axis of the graph, you won’t see it. Why is that? Because the graph covers a much larger time scale, on the order of 4.5 billion years. Each tick mark on the horizontal axis represents a full 200 million years (theoretically), so it would be difficult to find the spot on the graph corresponding to 10,000 years ago, as it would be extremely small. However, if you were able to do so, you would find it located just slightly to the left of the “0” on the horizontal axis.  Now, what value of the sun’s brightness corresponds to 10,000 years ago? According to the curve on the graph, 10,000 years ago corresponds to almost 1.00 (100%) of today’s brightness.

What does this tell us? It tells us simply that the brightness of the sun 10,000 years ago is essentially the same as its brightness today. This means that the temperature conditions of the early earth (as affected by the sun) were not much different than they are today. Therefore, it would be entirely possible for liquid water and life to survive on the planet, in agreement with the geological evidence. Thus, the sun’s nuclear fusion is perfectly consistent with the young-earth model.

Another way to look at this issue is to derive a maximum age, or “upper limit” for the amount of time earth’s climate was hospitable for life.  Based on the paper cited above, the sun’s brightness could not be less than 18% below today’s brightness to support current conditions on Earth. According to the graph above, that would have occurred about 2.6 billion years ago. Thus, the absolute maximum age of life on earth would be 2.6 billion years.  This upper limit does not fit well into the most commonly accepted age of 3.7 billion years for life on earth, but it is consistent with an age of 10,000 years.

Currently, our best understanding of physics and geology suggests that the sun’s nuclear fusion is inconsistent with a 4.54-billion-year-old earth, but consistent with a young earth.

———————-

* The original version of this post read: “The “type” of atom, called an element, is determined by the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus.”   As a commenter below (Robb Wilson) correctly pointed out, this wording could be confusing and wrongly imply that the element is also based on the number of neutrons, so I have revised the original statement to be more accurate.

1 Jeffrey Bennett, Megan Donahue, Nicholas Schneider, and Mark Voit. “The Cosmic Perspective.” Sixth Edition. Pearson Education, 2010, p. 477.

2 James F. Kasting. “Early Earth: Faint young Sun redux.” Nature 464, 687-689, 1 April 2010.

Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham: The Arguments

This is not the main review of the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye the Science Guy. If you have not read my review of the debate, you should read the review first before reading this post. In this post, I simply discuss some of the specific arguments each debater presented in a little more detail, for anyone who wants to delve further into the issues.

Both Ken Ham and Bill Nye each gave a 30-minute opening presentation. In general, Ken Ham argued that one must choose the correct philosophical foundation (which he asserted is the Bible rather than evolutionary ideas) in order to have a correct position on origins. He also presented several examples of scientific observations that support creationism.

Bill Nye presented several lines of scientific evidence that he said falsifies creationism, as well as the ideas of a young earth and a global flood.

Ken Ham’s Arguments: The Affirmative Case (Evidence for Creation)

Ken Ham argued that there is a difference between experimental science (performing experiments and explaining observations in the present) and historical/origins science (inferring things about the past). I think this is a valid distinction to an extent. However, in many cases, scientists can use observational science to test claims from historical science. This is the basis of making predictions from hypotheses.

Ham pointed out that there are many practicing scientists, engineers, and inventors who are young-earth creationists, and who can carry out their work without accepting evolution. This is certainly correct; indeed, there are many examples of PhD scientists who are creationists.

Ham brought up several excellent examples of observations that confirm predictions of creationism. He pointed out that observations confirm the creationist “orchard” view of life rather than the evolutionary “tree” of life. We see various basic types of animals diversify into many species (such as dogs), he noted, but we do not see one basic type of creature evolve into another.

One of the most important points Ken Ham raised concerned the three assumptions that radiometric dating is based on:

1. Known initial conditions;
2. A closed system; and
3. Constancy of the decay rate.

Radiometric (radioisotope) dating uses the known fact that certain isotopes (variations of an element) spontaneously (automatically) “decay” (change) into other isotopes over time. For example, rubidium-87 changes into strontium-87 over time, potassium-40 changes into argon-40, uranium-238 changes into lead-206, carbon-14 changes into nitrogen-14 (the basis for carbon dating), etc. The original isotope is called the “parent isotope” and the new isotope is called the “daughter isotope” or “daughter product.”  Over time, then, the amounts of the parent isotope and daughter isotope change in a given system (such as a rock). Because scientists have measured the rate at which parent isotopes change into their respective daughter isotopes (called the rate of decay), they can theoretically determine how much time has elapsed since the formation of a rock based on the amounts of parent and daughter isotopes that are currently present in the rock.

In order to determine the correct age of the rock, however, you need to have a handle on the assumptions listed above. For example, if any parent or daughter material has seeped into or out of the rock since it first formed, the measurement of the amounts that remain will not give an accurate age reading. Furthermore, if the rate of decay has changed over time since the rock first formed, the age calculation will also be incorrect. The point is, one needs to be reasonably certain that all three assumptions are met when using radiometric dating. Otherwise, the resulting age calculation will not represent the true age of the rock.

Geologists (both non-creationists and creationists) have shown that there are often problems with the first two assumptions. In a later presentation during the debate, Ken Ham presented an example of radiometric dates that contradict each other as well as an example where radiometric dates contradicted the known ages of certain rocks.

More significantly, however, there seems to be a major problem with the third assumption of radiometric dating: the constancy of the decay rate. Creation scientists have recently completed a major research project known as RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth), in which they discovered evidence indicating that the rate of radioactive decay has not been constant throughout earth history. If decay was accelerated in the past, then radiometric “ages” based on today’s measure rates of decay would be much higher than the true ages of the materials analyzed.

Radiometric dating is the basis for the accepted 4.5 billion-year “age” of the earth. However, if some of the foundational assumptions required to use this dating method are flawed, then this “age” is meaningless.

Bill Nye’s Arguments: The Opposing Case (Evidence against Creation)

For someone who is not very familiar with the research creationists have done, Bill Nye’s objections would be reasonable. However, his comments indicate he is not aware of much of the evidence scientists have recently discovered that shows his objections are not very strong.

Bill Nye’s first argument against a young earth was the formation of thick rock units such as limestone, which presumably would take longer than the time available in a young-earth framework (about 6,000 years). However, this argument is based on outdated geology. We know now that thick layers can and do form catastrophically, such as lime mud layers that form during hurricanes, rapid deposition during floods, and rapid sedimentation of thin laminae (fine layers). There is other evidence within ancient rock units that indicate rapid deposition, such as well-preserved fossils, fossils that cut through multiple beds, etc.

Other objections Nye presented against the young-earth view included ice core dating, tree-ring dating, variation among hominid fossil skulls, the lack of marsupial fossils between the place Noah’s Ark would have landed (in the Middle East) and modern marsupial habitats such as Australia, the assertion that there are no “out-of-order” fossils that contradict the evolutionary timescale (which is incorrect), and the feasiblity of the Noah’s Ark story. As you can see in the links I included, creationists have thoroughly addressed these issues and explained how they work within the creation model.

One rather interesting (and silly) argument Bill Nye presented concerned the rapid speciation that would have occurred after the Flood. He reasoned that the approximately 7,000 “kinds” of animals that came off the Ark would have had to diversify into the approximately 16 million species that exist today. In this scenario, Nye calculates that 11 new species would have had to form every day since the Flood (on average). However, this argument is absurd, because Nye is using the number of species of every living organism on Earth, rather than the number of species of the types of animals that would have been on the Ark (probably only land vertebrates). Living organisms such as insects, fish, and plants would not have been passengers on the Ark. The total number of species of vertebrates described today is only about 58,000. Thus, the 7,000 original kinds of animals that came off the Ark would only have to diversify into less than 58,000 kinds of land vertebrates that are known to exist today. Using these correct figures, only about 16 new species on average would need to form every year since the Flood. In addition, there is observational evidence that rapid speciation certainly does occur under the right conditions.

Nye brought up a supposed successful prediction of evolution: the discovery of Tiktaalik, an alleged transitional fossil documenting the evolution of fish into tetrapods (four-legged creatures). Basically, evolutionists predicted that a “missing link” (transitional form) between fish and tetrapods might reside between the rock layers where fish fossils are found and the rock layers where tetrapod fossils are found. They looked in this section of rock and found Tiktaalik, a creature that initially appeared to have features of both fish and tetrapods. However, Nye fails to give the full story: after Tiktaalik was discovered, tetrapod fossils (the supposed descendants of Tiktaalik) were found in older rocks. This, of course, renders the original “prediction” meaningless. If geologists had discovered the older tetrapod fossils before discovering Tiktaalik, they would not have correctly predicted the placement of Tiktaalik in the geologic column. In addition, later evidence called into question the idea that Tiktaalik could even be a transitional form between fish and tetrapods in the first place.

Near the end of his presentation, Nye shifted gears and started to discuss astronomy and cosmology, arguing that the cosmic microwave background radiation and the galactic redshift (which indicates that the universe is expanding in all directions) provide strong evidence that the Big Bang is the correct model for the origin of the universe. However, creationist physicists have developed cosmological models that also take these effects into account, showing that the Big Bang is not the only possible explanation for these observations.

Bill Nye challenged the young-earth model by pointing out the fact that we can see billions of stars located farther than 6,000 light-years from Earth, implying that light has been travelling from these stars for longer than 6,000 years. However, he does not acknowledge that the Big Bang has a very similar time problem known as the “horizon problem,” which I discussed in another post here on my blog. Ken Ham also brought up the horizon problem in the debate. It is also important to note that there are plausible solutions to distant starlight in the young-earth view.

Bill Nye brought up a few other objections, but the last one I want to focus on is his criticism against the young-earth creation idea that all animals originally had a vegetarian diet (suggested by Genesis 1:30 as well as Genesis 1:31, which many Christians interpret to mean that there was no animal death in the beginning before Adam and Eve sinned). Nye pointed out that lions have sharp teeth that seem to be intended for tearing up meat rather than eating plants. Ken Ham effectively responded to this criticism later in the debate, pointing out that bears, pandas, and fruit bats all have sharp teeth as well, even though they eat a plant-based diet.

Bill Nye the Science Guy vs. Ken Ham the “Creation Science Guy”

Image from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/01/16/free-live-stream-debate

On Tuesday night, popular TV show host Bill Nye the Science Guy and Biblical creationist Ken Ham (President of the creationist organization Answers in Genesis) squared off in a public debate on the topic of creationism vs. evolution. (As of today, you can watch a full video of the debate here.) I say “squared off,” but in reality, the debaters were actually very cordial, and to their credit, focused on attacking the arguments of the other person rather than resorting to personal insults. The debate took place in the Creation Museum in Kentucky. I was thrilled to watch the host of one of my favorite TV shows as a child participate in such an event. As always, Bill Nye’s enthusiasm for explaining concepts in science stood out, and Ken Ham’s usual friendly, easy-to-follow presentation style also contributed to make the debate an overall enjoyable experience.

The debate topic was: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”

Although I am a Christian and a creationist (as you can no doubt tell from my blog), I find there to be weaknesses in the positions of both men, and I will address them later. I also think that good points were brought up by both. First, however, I want to talk about the presentations of each debater.

In his 30-minute opening presentation, Ken Ham focused on the difference between experimental and historical science, the fact that many young-earth creationists are real scientists, the agreement between creationists and evolutionists on observational science, and successful observational predictions of the creation model. He argued that because origins concerns historical science rather than experimental science, the origins debate is not over science but over philosophical foundations. He pointed out that creationists use the Bible as their starting point, and evolutionists use “man-made ideas” (i.e., Darwin’s theory). Ham provided examples of creationists who practice science, such as MRI inventor Raymond Damadian, astronomer Danny Faulkner, and engineer and inventor Stuart Burgess, pointing out that all of them are able to carry out scientific projects without relying on biological evolution.

Ham also discussed how predictions of the Biblical creation model are confirmed by observations, such as the creationist “orchard” view of life, the fact that there is only one race of humans, and the failure of mutations to generate new genetic information. He mentioned a typical evolutionary argument for new genetic information based on the discovery of a new function in bacteria that allowed citrate to grow. However, Ham then played a video by microbiologist Dr. Andrew Fabich, who explained that this function was merely “switched on” and that no new information was generated.

After Ken Ham finished his presentation, Bill Nye stepped up to the microphone. His presentation focused on several specific examples of scientific evidence that he claimed do not fit into the creation model. His objections to the young-earth/Flood model included ice-core dating, the formation of thick rock layers, tree-ring dating (dendrochronology), hominid skull fossils, order in the fossil record, the lack of kangaroo fossils between the Ark landing site in the Middle East and Australia, the need to generate numerous species after the Flood in a very short time period, the alleged implausibility of the Ark story, the discovery of an alleged “missing link” Tiktaalik, evidence for the Big Bang, and light from stars further than 6,000 light-years from Earth. He also rejected Ken Ham’s distinction between experimental and historical science, and asserted that he is simply doing “science,” which uses predictions and observations to draw conclusions about the world.

In my opinion, Bill Nye used the correct approach for arguing against a particular view. He discussed specific lines of evidence that he believed contradicts that view. Also, for someone who is not very familiar with what creation scientists have learned over the years, Nye had some good points. However, nearly every one of his objections have already been addressed by creationists, indicating that he did not come to the debate very well-informed on the creationist position. Thus, although Bill Nye’s approach was correct and scientific, most of the actual details of the arguments he used do not hold water.

During the Question & Answer session, one questioner submitted the following question to Ken Ham: “What, if anything, would ever change your mind?” The answers given by Ham as well as Bill Nye sum up some important aspects of their positions. Ken Ham said:

I’m a Christian, and as a Christian, I can’t prove it to you, but God has definitely shown me very clearly though his Word, and shown Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, the Bible is the Word of God…I can challenge people that you can go and test that, you can make predictions based on that…and I did a little bit of that tonight.

This is an excellent summary of Ken Ham’s position. He admits that he is starting from the Bible when answering questions about origins, and that he would not change his mind on the truth of the Bible. However, he also notes that the Biblical model makes accurate scientific predictions, which confirms its claims. I agree with his approach…partially. It is true that if the Bible is the Word of God, then it is much more reliable than changing hypotheses developed by human scientists. However, I also think that the premise that the Bible is the Word of God needs to be subject to the evidence as well. In other words, if the evidence did not support the idea that the Bible is the Word of God, then it would not be rational to accept that premise. However, Ken Ham notes that the scientific evidence does support statements made in the Bible, so ultimately he is using evidence to support creationism.

Bill Nye also had a chance to answer this same question, and he said:

We would just need one piece of evidence [e.g., a misplaced fossil, evidence that rock layers can form quickly, etc.]…Bring on any of those things, and you would change me immediately.”

I also agree with this approach…partially. It is true that one should be willing to change his/her position if evidence is discovered that contradicts it. However, every position will have some evidence that challenges it. Evidence that does not fit into a given view is called an “anomaly.” The rational approach (in my opinion) is to choose the position that has the least amount of problems or questions.

Interestingly, Bill Nye stated that he would give up his position if he saw evidence that rock layers can form quickly. However, this evidence has been presented by creationists, and even Ken Ham discussed some of it in his presentation. Thus, I think that if Bill Nye decided to take an honest look at the evidence, he would have to admit that the evidence does not completely support his view, and that some of it supports creation.

Overall, the debate was fascinating, the debaters were reasonable, and a lot of interesting points were raised. Ken Ham relied a lot on the Bible to form his position and did not address all of Bill Nye’s scientific arguments, but he did present some specific scientific evidence that supports creation. Bill Nye focused entirely on scientific evidence that he believes does not support creation, but he did not acknowledge some of Ken Ham’s rebuttals or the answers creationists have given over the years. Overall, however, it was definitely a worthwhile debate to watch (or attend, if you were lucky), and it encourages you to think about some very important and interesting issues!

As mentioned previously, both of the debaters brought up a lot of detailed arguments to support their individual positions. In another post on my blog, I give a more in-depth analysis of some of their specific arguments.

God vs. Richard Carrier: Part 1, The Scientific Arguments

Perhaps one of the most important questions in life is whether or not God exists. After all, the answer to this question has huge implications for each individual person and for the human race as a whole. If there is a God, then this God may hold us accountable for our actions. If there is no God, then there is no guarantee of final justice or responsibility for one’s actions (except to your fellow humans).

Image from http://fim-carol.blogspot.com/2011/10/my-god-is-big-enough.html

UCR University Lecture Hall, where the debate took place. (This is not a photo taken during the debate itself.) Image from http://cnc.ucr.edu/avc/images/unlh03.jpg.

The universe came into existence a finite time ago. Either it came from nothing or it was caused to exist by something. Image from http://www.goddiscussion.com

Last week, I attended an interesting debate at the University of California-Riverside (UCR) campus on the existence of God. Lenny Esposito from Come Reason Ministries argued the affirmative case for God’s existence, and philosopher and historian Richard Carrier argued the negative case against God’s existence. Mr. Esposito presented six arguments for the existence of God, and Dr. Carrier attempted to refute those arguments and present one or two of his own for his position of atheism. In this post, I’ll give a brief survey of the arguments presented that night and discuss whether or not those arguments are valid. The arguments that came up during the debate were as follows:

1. The Cosmological Argument (the beginning of the universe requires an outside cause)
2. The Fine-Tuning Argument (the universe is fine-tuned to support life)
3. The Origin of Life (requires an intelligent designer)
4. Objective Moral Values
5. Consciousness
6. The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus

The first three arguments are related to the discoveries of modern science, 4 and 5 are philosophical in nature, and the final argument is historical. In my view, Arguments 1-3 and 6 are pretty strong, 4 is interesting but not conclusive, and 5 is questionable.

1. The Cosmological Argument.

The Cosmological Argument, whose most famous modern-day proponent is Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, can be formulated as follows:

Premise 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2. The universe began to exist.
Conclusion. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Esposito (the one arguing the affirmative case for God’s existence) argued that Premise 1 is intuitive and the basis for all rational thought. In no case has anything been observed to arise out of nothing without a cause, and such a proposition flies in the face of all reason. For Premise 2 (the universe began to exist), Esposito offered both scientific and philosophical evidence. The scientific evidence is the evidence typically cited for the Big Bang (the expansion of the universe and the cosmic microwave background), which indicates that the universe expanded from an infinitely small point and thus had a beginning at some time in the past. He also cited the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, which implies that even in a multi-universe, there must be a beginning point in time.

The philosophical argument for a beginning to the universe concerns the impossibility of an actual infinite. Although infinity exists in the abstract world of mathematics (as defined by the rules of Set Theory), Esposito argued that there could be no actual infinite number of objects in the real world. For example, if you have a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, you will come up with all sorts of contradictory results if you try to perform normal, valid mathematical operations such as addition and subtraction. For this reason, it seems impossible for an actual infinite to exist in the real world, and thus there could not be an actual infinite number of past events. As a result, the universe must have had a beginning in time.

Richard Carrier, Esposito’s atheist opponent, countered that infinity is a perfectly valid mathematical concept, as many operations can be performed on it according to the rules of Set Theory. Of course, this misses the point, as it does not show that rules in the abstract mathematical world can be transferred to the real, physical universe. It also does not address Esposito’s realistic thought experiments that demonstrate that an actual infinity in the real world leads to contradictions.

Carrier also tried to escape the conclusion of Esposito’s argument by quoting famous astrophysicist and atheist Dr. Lawrence Krauss, who said, “Nothing is inherently unstable.” In other words, a state of nothingness “wants” to produce something. Now, this is a very misleading and scientifically incorrect statement. According to quantum physics, particles are constantly created and annihilated in a quantum vacuum. Thus, in a sense, a region with no particles tends to produce particles spontaneously. This process is known as a quantum fluctuation, and some scientists believe this is how our universe started. This is what Krauss meant when he said that “nothing” is unstable; a state of “nothingness” does not stay that way for long. However, the problem with this reasoning is that the quantum vacuum is most certainly not “nothing”! It is very clearly something. Thus, particles do not appear from “nothing,” they appear from a previously existing “something.”

After the debate and during the Question & Answer time, I stood in line to ask Dr. Carrier about this statement. The session ended before I had a chance to ask my question, so I approached him afterward, challenging him on this very point. Rather than defending the idea that a quantum fluctuation is the same as something coming from nothing, Dr. Carrier tried to argue that a true state of nothingness can produce something physical. I must confess that this still seems absurd!

So according to discoveries in cosmology as well as philsophical arguments, the universe (or the multi-universe that our universe is a part of) must have had a beginning. And since everything that has a beginning must have a cause, the universe must have an outside cause as well.

2. The Fine-Tuning Argument

The second argument presented by Esposito concerns the fine balance with which the entire universe was set up. There are certain “settings” on the “machine” of the universe that have been precisely tuned for life to exist. If one or more of these settings had been different by even a tiny amount, life would have been impossible in our universe. The fact that the universe came out just right for life implies that it was intentionally designed for life, which indicates that God exists. For example, the strengths of the four fundamental forces of the universe are just right for life. Also, the proton-electron mass ratio is just right for the existence of life. Other factors such as the expansion rate of the universe and the earth-sun distance have to be exactly how they are today in order for life to exist at all.

There are many possible ways the universe could have turned out, but somehow, it happened to turn out just right for intelligent life to exist. As the late cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle put it, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature” (“The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12).

Richard Carrier countered by saying that only one part of the universe is suitable for life (i.e., earth), so in reality, most of the universe is not “tuned” for the existence of life. He also argued that if there was a God, surely he wouldn’t create a lot of extra “useless” space that isn’t being used for life. These counter-arguments are actually very hollow and very easily refuted. The extra space where life cannot exist certainly does not change the fact that the universe as a whole is delicately balanced for life to exist. In addition, there are certain properties of the entire universe (not just the Solar System and earth) that must be just right for life, such as the expansion rate, proton-electron mass ratio, etc. The fact that all of these factors have lined up precisely for life to exist is incredibly improbable.

The second problem with Carrier’s rebuttal is that it assumes he knows what a God would do if he existed. That is a very presumptuous conclusion, as it depends on Richard Carrier knowing everything about what an omnipotent, omniscient God wants! Lenny Esposito also exposed the baselessness of this argument by using the illustration of a farmer who has many acres of land, but only uses a very small portion of that land (his house) to be inhabitable by humans.

Finally, another objection to the “fine-tuning” argument for God’s existence is that perhaps there are multiple universes, and each of those universes has different properties. With so many universes available, it’s not surprising that at least one of them (ours) is suitable for life. The problem with the this argument, of course, is that there isn’t a shred of scientific evidence for other universes. It is simply a way to explain the incredible fine-tuning of the universe without a Designer. The other problem with this argument is that it is ad hoc, meaning it can be conjured up to explain away any improbable occurrence. Dr. William Lane Craig gives the example of always getting four aces in a game of poker. Using the multiple universe reasoning, you could simply argue that there are an infinite number of universes, so the fact that you continue to get lucky every time is bound to happen in one of the universes!

3. The Origin of Life Argument

The third argument for the existence of God presented by Esposito is the origin of life. Every life form is an incredibly complex, integrated machine that carries out numerous specific functions. Each life form also contains an enormous amount of information encoded in its DNA. Either the first life form came about by purely natural processes, or it was created by an intelligence. Esposito pointed out that all attempts by scientists to date to figure out how life could have arisen through natural processes have failed miserably, even according to origin-of-life researchers themselves. Of course, this doesn’t prove that life definitely cannot form through naturalistic processes, but it does suggest that it may be fruitful to look for other explanations (such as design)!

Life: An information-rich system. Image from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626583

Richard Carrier responded by saying that we know life can form naturally through evolutionary processes over a long time, and we “know” that through evolutionary theory. Without getting into the many scientific problems with the theory of evolution, it is important to note that Richard Carrier did not explain how life originated, he only explained how life supposedly changed over time after it had already started. Esposito pointed this out in his counter-rebuttal, noting that Dr. Carrier did not refute the point. Nevertheless, Carrier maintained his position that life could originate without a designer.

Of course, there were many other issues that the two debaters discussed, and overall, it was an interesting exchange. An astute attendee noticed a logical fallacy in one of Carrier’s arguments during the talk, and approached him after the debate as well to question him on it. She wrote an interesting review about her exchange with Carrier, which can be read in the link.

Valid points were made by both sides, but overall, I think that when it comes to the rationality of the arguments themselves, Esposito had the stronger case. Of course, if you disagree, that is excellent, as it makes the discussion all the more interesting!

“If the Universe is 13 Billion Years Old, why is its Temperature Uniform?”

Often in a discussion about creation and the age of the universe, someone might bring up distant starlight as an objection against the idea that the earth is young. The question goes something like this: “If the universe is only six to ten thousand years old, how can we see light from stars that are billions of light-years away?”

Since light travels at a speed of about 300,000 km/second (~186,000 miles/second), it takes time for light to move from one location in the universe to another. For example, since the sun is about 150 million km (~93 million miles) from the earth, it takes light eight minutes to reach Earth from the sun. Some stars in the universe are so far from Earth that it would take millions and even billions of years for the light from those stars to reach Earth. Thus, the fact that we can see light from stars at those distances is often presented as a problem for the idea that the earth is young (e.g., see this article by astronomer Hugh Ross).

An artist’s conception of the Big Bang. Image from http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/06/defining_the_big_bang.php

Although you will often hear this objection against a young earth, you will hardly every hear about the fact that the most popular model of the origin of the universe based on an old age, the Big Bang, actually has the same type of problem. The Big Bang Theory (not the TV show :)) states that the universe expanded from an infinitely dense state (i.e., an infinitely small point) known as a singularity about 13.7 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. (NASA’s website provides an excellent overview of the Big Bang here as well as here.)

If ice is placed into a cup of coffee, the ice and coffee exchange heat until the ice melts and the temperature becomes uniform throughout. This is a similar process to the way our universe would have exchanged heat since the Big Bang to achieve a uniform temperature. Image from http://ramanujam-sridhar.blogspot.com/.

When the universe started expanding, temperatures would have varied from place to place. Today, however, the temperature is roughly the same throughout the universe. The only way for this to occur is for heat to be exchanged between all regions of the universe until equilibrium is reached (much in the same way that placing an ice cube in a cup of coffee will lower the temperature of the coffee and raise the temperature of the ice cube until the temperature becomes the same throughout). Heat cannot be transferred faster than the speed of light, which is the universal “speed limit,” according to Special Relativity. The problem is, not enough time has elapsed since the beginning of the universe (even in the alleged 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang) for heat to travel far enough to cause all regions of the universe to achieve the same temperature. This is a very well-known problem in mainstream cosmology called the “horizon problem.”

So what did Big Bang theorists do when confronted with this problem? Well, they were forced to propose an explanation that was not based on any observations and cannot be fully explained in our current understanding of physics: inflation. Inflation is the hypothesis that at 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang, the universe expanded in size by a factor of about 10^78 (that’s 10 million billion billion billion…[8 “billions” total]) in only about 10^-33 seconds! Before the inflation occurred (i.e., when the universe was very small and heat had less distance to cover), the temperature of the universe became uniform. Thus, when inflation stopped, all of the regions were already in thermal equilibrium. Alan Guth, a cosmologist from MIT, is perhaps the foremost pioneer of this concept, which he outlines in his book The Inflationary Universe. If this hypothesis is correct, it would solve the “horizon problem.” However, inflation has some problems of its own. Not only do we not understand the physical mechanism that would start the inflation, but we also do not know how inflation would stop (known as the “graceful exit” problem). To solve some of the problems introduced by the horizon problem, cosmologists have even proposed radical ideas such as a drastic change in the speed of light (also see here). The point is, the horizon problem is still a problem for the Big Bang, and its supposed solution, “inflation,” is also poorly understood.

The Big Bang Theory (based on an old age for the universe) has the problem of how to even out the temperature of the universe in the time available. Thus, the Big Bang (which most people accept) has the same problem that most people seem to think the young-earth creation model has! So how can those who accept an old universe/Earth criticize young-earth Biblical creationists for the same problem that their own model has? It is neither scientific nor honest to do so. If someone asks you, “How can we see light from distant stars if the earth is young?”, then ask, “If the Big Bang is true, how did the temperature of the universe become uniform in 13.7 billion years?”

So what about the fact that we can see stars that are billions of light-years away? Is that a valid objection against a young earth and the Bible? That, my friends, is a topic for another post…

Discoveries in Biology Confirm Predictions of Intelligent Design and Creation

As I discussed in a previous post, a good scientific hypothesis is one that has strong predictive power, meaning it has a track record of accurately predicting new observations and data. When a scientist proposes a hypothesis to explain certain observations, he or she must use that hypothesis to predict more observations. If further observations confirm those predictions, the hypothesis becomes stronger. If observations conflict with those predictions, the hypothesis becomes weaker and must be adjusted or discarded. In this way, the scientific method determines which hypotheses are good and which are not.

Image from http://www.desktopclass.com/education/9th-10th/genes-and-inheritance-10th-biology-chapter-17.html

Intelligent Design is the hypothesis that certain aspects of nature are best explained as the result of an intelligent agent. The most prominent think tank for Intelligent Design, known as the Discovery Institute, states on one of its websites:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Creationism is also a hypothesis, but it is more specific than Intelligent Design. Creationism holds that God (not just any designer) created the universe, earth, and life in exactly the way the Bible describes.

Creationism and Intelligent Design have at least one thing in common, however: they both hold that life was designed. Thus, both hypotheses would make similar predictions. On the other hand, Neo-Darwinian Evolution postulates that life evolved through a trial-and-error process without a designer. Thus, evolution would make quite different predictions about biology. For example, evolution would predict that we should find a lot of useless components in biological systems. After all, since life wasn’t designed, much of what is found in living systems should be left-over material from the trial-and-error process that evolution followed. That is why Charles Darwin postulated in his book On the Origin of Species that there are many vestigial structures in living creatures. A vestigial structure is a “left-over” organ or other body part in an animal that is thought to no longer serve a function that was once present in an evolutionary ancestor.

More recently, evolutionary biologists have applied this prediction of “left-overs” to the genomes of living creatures. Susumu Ohno invented the term “junk DNA” in 1972 to refer to parts of DNA in organisms that do not serve a useful function (Ohno, Susumu, “So much ‘junk’ DNA in our genome,” a chapter in Evolution of Genetic Systems, H. H. Smith. ed., Gordon and Breach, New York. pp. 366–370, 1972). In his book Why Evolution is True, evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne also argues that evolution predicts the existence of these useless genes:

…we can make a prediction. We expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or “dead” genes, genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed. In other words, there should be vestigial genes. In contrast, the idea that all genes were created from scratch predicts that no such genes would exist, since there would be no common ancestors from which those genes were active (2009, p. 71).

Richard Dawkins, in his book The Greatest Show on Earth, writes that

pseudogenes [formerly functional genes] are useful for…embarrassing creationists…it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95% in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes (2009, p. 333).

Thus, reasoning from an evolutionary perspective, scientists have expected to find a lot of useless parts in the genomes of organisms. On the other hand, because creationism and Intelligent Design postulate that life was designed, creationists and Intelligent Design theorists have always predicted that there would be little to no useless components, and that most or all of an organism’s genome would be functional. As William Dembski wrote back in 1998:

Consider the term “junk DNA.” Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function.

So what has the last couple of decades showed us in the field of biology that might confirm or falsify these predictions?

One of the first major tests of these predictions came in 2003, when the U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute began an extensive research project on the human genome known as Project ENCODE (ENCyclopedia Of Dna Elements). A report on the study, titled “New Findings Challenge Established Views on Human Genome,” released in 2007, states:

The new data indicate the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network. In this network, genes are just one of many types of DNA sequences that have a functional impact. “Our perspective of transcription and genes may have to evolve,” the researchers state in their Nature paper [Link to the Nature paper]…(emphasis added)

Another report mentioned that Project ENCODE found that “between 74% and 93% of DNA was transcribed into RNA2.” As the researchers state, these new data “challenge established views on the human genome.” Why? Because most evolutionary geneticists assumed that much of the genome was useless. However, the data showed that assumption to be incorrect. On the other hand, these data were directly predicted by the creation/Intelligent Design hypothesis.

The more we study the genomes of various organisms, the more the predictions of creation/Intelligent Design are confirmed and the more the predictions of evolution are falsified. Pseudogenes, for example, were thought to be defunct relatives of once-functional genes. They were considered useless, as Dawkins points out in the quote I included earlier. However, in 2003, a study published in the journal Genetics reported that “pseudogenes that have been suitably investigated often exhibit functional roles, such as gene expression, gene regulation, generation of genetic (antibody, antigenic, and other) diversity.” In 2010, biologists discovered an important function for one class of these pseudogenes. Another study published in the journal RNA found that “recent results are challenging” the idea that pseudogenes are “junk DNA,” because “[f]ar from being silent relics, many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA, some exhibiting a tissue-specific pattern of activation.” Important functions have recently been discovered for other once-thought to be “junk” segments of DNA, such as introns, as one study shows.

The confirmed predictions of Intelligent Design/creationism are not limited to genetics. They also extend to other areas of biology, such as the design of the eye. Richard Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker, tried to argue that the backward wiring of the vertebrate retina was an example of poor design (p. 93, 1996). However, creationists have always said that it is well-designed. In 2010, the journal Physical Review Letters published a study that looked at this backward wiring and concluded that “[t]he retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images” (A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak, “Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104:158102, 2010, abstract), once again confirming a prediction of creationism and Intelligent Design.

In summary, as more and more discoveries are made in biology, the predictions of Intelligent Design and creationism are being confirmed, whereas the predictions of evolution are being falsified. The predictive nature of both Intelligent Design and creationism also opens the door to further hypothesis-driven research and fruitful scientific inquiry in these arenas.

Einstein and Curved Spacetime

In the last post we talked about Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. Now we will turn to his General Theory of Relativity. But first, a little background.

Isaac Newton (1643 – 1727) is without a doubt one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. He is famous for developing the Three Laws of Motion, fundamental equations that are utilized by every physicist today. He also made significant contributions to Calculus and Optics (the nature and behavior of light). (It is also interesting to note that Newton was a Bible-believing Christian and a creationist.)

Isaac Newton. Image from http://charlespaolino.wordpress.com/2010/02/

Most everyone is familiar with the story of the apple hitting Newton in the head as he sat under a tree, which is said to have led to his discovery of gravity. While the story is only partly accurate (Newton did observe falling apples to better understand gravity, but he actually discovered gravity before this), the discovery of gravity remains one of Newton’s most remembered accomplishments. Eventually, Newton formulated the Law of Universal Gravitation, which states that every particle in the universe exerts an attractive force on every other particle, and that the strength of this attraction depends on distance and mass. In short, Newton viewed gravity as a “force.”

Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (published in 1916) revolutionized the way scientists understood gravity. Instead of gravity being an invisible force that pulls objects toward each other, Einstein thought of gravity as an effect of curved spacetime. What in the world does that mean? Well, using a rubber sheet analogy, space (and time) can be thought of as a “material” that can be bent in the presence of mass. If you place an object on a rubber sheet, the sheet will dip inward and distort the path of anything moving across it. This distortion is analogous to gravity.

Gravity as the curvature of space. Image from link in the text

This model of gravity has many implications. First, it predicts that gravity will bend the path that light takes when it passes by an object. And, just as time slows down in Special Relativity as a result of velocity, time will also slow down as a result of the presence of gravity. This effect is known as gravitational time dilation.

How does this work? The closer you are to the center of a body of matter, the stronger the force of gravity will be. This means that a person standing on the Earth’s surface will experience more gravity than a person who is 10 miles above the surface. As a result, according to General Relativity, time will actually tick slower for the person on the ground than for a person in space! Why don’t we notice this effect? Well, we do, but it is very small. For example, an atomic clock in the Royal Observatory of Greenwich, England ticks 5 microseconds per year slower than an atomic clock in the National Bureau of Standards in Boulder, Colorado, just as General Relativity predicts for clocks at different altitudes.

Your GPS navigator is another example of gravitational time dilation. If GPS satellites weren’t calibrated by taking into account the time dilation effects of General Relativity, the entire navigation system would be thrown off kilter in a short amount of time.

One thing that is VERY important to note is that this change in the rate of time due to gravity is locally unnoticeable, meaning that everyone thinks that their “own” time is the “correct” time. Suppose that you are on the ground and I am floating around high up in the sky. Because you are closer to Earth, time will tick slower for you, relative to me. However, in YOUR perspective, time is ticking normally for you but faster for me.

These effects do not become very significant unless you travel near a very strong gravitational field. Under certain circumstances, the curvature of spacetime can become so great that time actually stops relative to a far-away observer! These concepts come into play when we are talking about fascinating objects such as black holes. However, that is a topic for another post…

E = mc^2

In an earlier post, I provided a basic introduction to science. Now, we will explore some of the fascinating discoveries made by science in modern times.

Most people have heard of Albert Einstein’s famous equation e = mc². On this post I want to provide some background on Einstein’s theories of relativity, a milestone that has revolutionized modern science. If you don’t understand everything, don’t worry. I will try to make the most interesting points simple and easy to understand, so just sit back and enjoy! Of course, you can ask me a question at any time by posting in the comments section at the end of this post.

Albert Einstein. Image from http://th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~jr/gif/phys/einst_b.jpg

In 1905, science was changed forever. Albert Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity, which was based on a few fundamental principles:

1. The laws of physics are the same in every frame of reference.

2. All motion is relative (there is no “absolute” reference frame that is “standing still”).

3. The speed of light is the same in every frame of reference.

4. Matter can be converted to energy, and vice versa, according to the equation e = mc², where “c” is the speed of light in a vacuum, 299,792,458 m/s (about 186,000 miles per second).

While the first, second, and fourth principles seem reasonable, the third one is actually very counter-intuitive. Think of it this way: if you are driving 65 MPH east and another car is driving west toward you at 65 MPH, the speed of the car relative to you is 65 + 65 = 130 MPH (you are moving 65 MPH toward the car, and the car is moving 65 MPH toward you). That is why head-on collisions are so deadly. On the other hand, if you are driving 65 MPH west and a car ahead of you is driving 75 MPH west, then it will seem to you that the car is traveling 10 MPH (75 – 65 = 10).

According to Principle 3 above, however, things don’t work that way when you are talking about light. The speed of light will be measured as the SAME SPEED in all reference frames. For example, if I shine a flashlight at you while you are driving TOWARD me at 65 MPH, you will measure the speed of light to be ~300,000 km/s (~186,000 mi/s). If I shine a flashlight while you are driving AWAY from me at 65 MPH, you will still measure the speed of light to be exactly the same!

These principles of Special Relativity have some important consequences, which are even more counter-intuitive. They tell us that length and time depend on how fast you are traveling (velocity ¹)! That is, if I am moving (relative to you), it will look to you as if I am “shrinking” in height. This is known as length (Lorentz) contraction. A Physics textbook defines length contraction as follows:

The length of the object measured in a reference frame in which the object is moving is always less than the proper length [length when the object is not moving]. This effect is known as relativistic length contraction (College Physics, by Raymond A. Serway and Jerry S. Faughn, Fifth Edtion, Harcourt College Publishers, 1999, p. 867, emphasis in the original).

In addition, Special Relativity states that if I am moving relative to you, it will look to you as if I am slowing down in time! This is called velocity time dilation, and the same textbook explains:

According to a stationary observer, a moving clock runs more slowly than an identical stationary clock by a factor of γ ^-1. This effect is known as time dilation (page 864, emphasis in the original).

So if I am moving relative to you, it looks to you as if I am shrinking in height and slowing down in time. However, in MY perspective, it looks like YOU are shrinking in height and slowing down in time! If that isn’t counter-intuitive, I don’t know what is. Although that seems like a contradiction, it is only because the measurements are made in two different reference frames. Both measurements are accurate in their respective reference frames.

Another important concept in Special Relativity is the relativity of simultaneity, which states that two events that are simultaneous (occurring at the same time) in one reference frame may not be simultaneous in another reference frame.

The slowing down of time (time dilation) that is predicted by Special Relativity leads to some interesting effects, which are illustrated in the famous Twin Paradox, a hypothetical experiment. Suppose there are two twins, and one leaves earth on a spaceship traveling almost as fast as light. He (or she) travels to the nearest star and then turns around and comes back to Earth. According to the equations of Special Relativity, the traveling twin will be much younger than the twin who stayed on Earth at the end of the journey.

The “twin paradox.” Image from http://withfriendship.com/user/vaibhav/twin-paradox.php

Is there any evidence that these wild, crazy ideas are actually true? Is the Theory of Special Relativity correct? Remember when I discussed how a hypothesis becomes a theory. Well, Special Relativity has undergone a lot of testing and experimentation, and it has been verified in many ways. Thus, there is a good chance that it is an accurate description of the real world. However, it has its limitations, and cannot be applied in certain conditions, such as in strong gravitational fields. And that brings us to our next post…

———-
1 Velocity actually refers to the speed and direction, since it is a vector quantity. However, for the purposes of discussion, it is simpler to think of it as just the speed.