Exposing PseudoAstronomy

August 3, 2011

A Creationist Ramble About Water in Space


Introduction

Ah, back to my bread-and-butter, young-Earth creationism and the ramblings writings of Brian Thomas over at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). I actually have 4 of these posts in the queue to write about from recent stories posted there and at Creation.com, but I will try to intersperse some other stuff as a mental break for you.

This particular story, “Water Near Edge of Universe Bolsters Creation Cosmology” is really more of a rambling from our dear “science writer” over at ICR. As such, this will be a comparatively short blog entry.

The Article

Most of Mr. Thomas’ articles start with a paragraph or two of the science news that initiated his reaction, and then it goes into why an apparently literal, young-Earth interpretation of the Christian Bible is still valid. (I say “apparently literal” not to be flippant, but because there are many old-Earth creationists who also state their interpretation is literal.) This particular article, however, just goes right into it after the first sentence. The first paragraph states:

“A tremendous cloud of water vapor envelops a quasar [a giant actively feeding black hole] in distant space, according to new reports. Where did the water come from? A straightforward understanding of the biblical account of creation provides a possible answer and suggests that this may be the first of more such discoveries.”

His justification comes from Genesis 1:6, stating, “God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters” (I’m taking his word on that, I didn’t actually look it up). Of course, the logical conclusion is that the waters above the firmament means the waters around this quasar. Of course, he didn’t state this quite as succinctly as I:

“But physicist D. Russell Humphreys proposed in his landmark 1994 book Starlight and Time that waters above the firmament instead referred to a tremendously huge sphere of water, the remnants of which exist today outside all the stars in a bounded and expanded universe. … Perhaps the waters spoken of in Genesis 1:6 are these ‘waters that be above the heavens,’ presumably located “above” the stars.Is there any water near the edge of the universe that would illustrate this possibility? Actually, yes[, this quasar]. … This water was not found outside the stars, but associated with a quasar, so it is probably not direct evidence of any Psalm 148:4 “above the heavens” waters. However, it is a billion light-years farther away than the previous distance record for detected water, and less than two billion light-years from the outermost edge.”

As I stated, his is not quite as succinct as mine.

What’s Really Going on Here?

I’m not entirely sure. This is not a case of a creationist twisting the science to fit their biblical view. Rather, it almost seems the opposite – a creationist adapting the Bible to fit the new science discovery. I don’t have any problem with that.

But Wait, There’s More!

I knew it couldn’t be that good. Mr. Thomas had to end with something I was going to have issue with. In this case, it’s with something completely unrelated, the Pioneer anomaly:

“In fact, the Pioneer anomaly, an unexplained slowing of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft on their way out of the solar system, is already well-explained by the overwhelming mass of a proposed sphere of water above the heavens.”

Except it’s not an anomaly anymore. It was figured out months ago, and paper after paper confirms the new interpretation. For quick background, the anomaly was that the twin Pioneer 10 and 11 craft, currently well outside the orbit of Pluto, are not where they should be. This was based on all measurements of effects from gravity, light pressure, heat generation, measurement errors, etc. Many people suggested various (real) scientific possibilities, such as we may not understand gravity as well as we thought (there may be extra terms that come into play at such large scales — a perfectly valid hypothesis), there may be an unknown body tugging them, etc.

The creationists, of course, put forth their own idea, with most saying that it was because the speed of light changes (this is required so as to not make a mean God that would create light in transit to us and make us pesky astronomers think that objects are billions of light-years away — an obvious problem for a 6000-year-old universe).

Except, here we have the article stating, “Pioneer Anomaly Solved By 1970s Computer Graphics Technique.” Basically, the uneven heat radiation from the craft can account for the very tiny difference in what was observed versus predicted. This is follow-up work from 2008 that almost solved it. Case pretty much closed. I’m surprised that Mr. Thomas, a science writer, didn’t know about this or choose to acknowledge it.

Edited to Add: Also, as Phil Plait (the “Bad Astronomer”) pointed out in the Comments section below, the second half of that sentence is sorely mistaken, as well. As I wrote above, the standard creationist model to explain the anomaly was a variable speed of light. It seems as though Mr. Thomas opted for a different one, the “unknown mass” I alluded to. The problem is that the mass tugging on the craft would need to be in a particular position to exert a net pull such as an unseen Kuiper Belt Object. The problem is that Mr. Thomas suggests that it’s a “sphere of water” encircling us, which would exert no net pull on the craft, thus not solving the supposed anomaly.

Final Thoughts

As I said in the third section, I really didn’t have too much of an issue with this article. It pulls in actual new science and shows how it can work fine within their belief system without denying nor modifying the science in question.

Also as I said, the creationists have put out quite a few astronomy/geophysics-related articles lately, and I’ll be posting about them hopefully shortly. And hopefully I’ll find something else short to talk about so it’s not just four articles in a row about the young-Earth creationists.

8 Comments »

  1. Also, a uniform spherical shell of water surrounding us would exert no net gravitational pull, as Newton demonstrated 400 years ago.🙂

    Comment by Phil Plait — August 3, 2011 @ 7:22 pm | Reply

    • Ah yes, thank you Phil. Remind me to re-read my posts before submitting more often.😉 I was so flummoxed by the “unexplained slowing” that I just skipped over the rest of the quote!

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — August 3, 2011 @ 7:24 pm | Reply

  2. What do you make of the article – Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ red shifts show – that is (indirectly) referenced by cite #3?

    Comment by eyeonicr — August 3, 2011 @ 10:21 pm | Reply

    • Now I was sure I fixed that when I copied it… (sorry)

      Comment by eyeonicr — August 3, 2011 @ 10:23 pm | Reply

    • I gave sections 5 and 6 a quick read and then went to find some galaxy catalogues. I found three fairly quickly that had 76, 371, and 117 galaxies with redshifts in them. I made a simple histogram. None showed any quantization. Ergo, his basic working premise is already falsified. No real need to go further.

      I didn’t look at Tifft’s original papers that Humphreys talks about, but I’m reminded of something on Coast to Coast AM that went on for awhile: A guest was saying that earthquakes in some state out west were following specific lines of latitude and longitude, meaning that they must have been manmade and then drawing all this conspiracy stuff from them. He had to retract the claims later (I was quite surprised he did so) when it came out that the data he was using was rounded to something like the closest 0.1°. So of course, when you look at it and plot it out with a resolution higher than 0.1° (or whatever the resolution was), then it’s going to look grid-like.

      A bit more digging on Tifft shows that he may have had his own agenda and did start the whole “redshift quantization” thing, but it has now pretty much been put to rest as an artifact. But, as that same page I just linked to shows, it’s still frequently used by creationists to saw we’re in the center of the universe therefore goddidit.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — August 3, 2011 @ 11:31 pm | Reply

  3. […] It has in fact been so long since then that two other wordpress blogs that I read – Exposing PseudoAstronomy and The Sensuous Curmudgeon – have already covered it. It reads like […]

    Pingback by Quasars, Mitochondria and Archaeopteryx – What I Missed Because I Had Homework « Eye on the ICR — August 5, 2011 @ 3:11 pm | Reply

  4. Yeah, it happens sometimes … Nothing special.

    Comment by Brianna — August 25, 2011 @ 8:40 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: