Exposing PseudoAstronomy

August 7, 2011

Mercury’s Uniqueness Revealed by MESSENGER: Does It Mean a Recent Creation?


An interesting thing that happens when you’re defending your thesis and consequently not blogging for a few months is that other blogs can crop up that tend to cover similar material. In this case, there is a blog entitled, “Eye on the ICR” run by a high school student from New Zealand. Ah, if only we had blogs back when I was in high school … though I probably wouldn’t have been writing against creationism as my topic of choice.

Anyway, this New Zealander seems to take great delight in ripping to shreds the news postings by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) writers. Much as I do. Unfortunately, he’s posted his before me! (And I couldn’t find his name on the site, so throughout this post, he’s the “high school student.”)

Whatever … he’s still a high schooler, I’m a Ph.D. astronomer. Hopefully I can add something to the conversation he started. We’ll see.

Mysterious Mercury

This post is yet another about the “science” writer, Mr. Brian Thomas, and in this case his ICR article, “Messenger Spacecraft Confirms: Mercury Is Unique.” First off, the name “MESSENGER” is an acronym that stands for “MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry and Ranging.” In other words, you need to capitalize it, unless you’re writing for the BBC which doesn’t seem to capitalize acronyms. Ah, we’re off to a good start.

After the title, Mr. Thomas does his normal routine of spending a paragraph or two (in this case one) giving some very brief background about the subject. It’s okay, something you’d get in a normal news article but which most third graders know.

Then we get to the line that those who are familiar with young-Earth creationist (YEC) writings know is the kicker: “Mercury possesses unique characteristics … clues point in the opposite direction to what astronomers expected.” Yes, that’s right, because something is not exactly as a model predicts, God did it. That’s basically what the remaining six paragraphs say.

A High Density

The third paragraph presents Mr. Thomas’ first problem-of-choice: Mercury’s high density and large core. The issue is that Mercury does have a high overall density. In fact, it is the second highest of any planet at 5.43 grams per cubic centimeter (water = 1); only Earth is more dense, at 5.52. But, Mr. Thomas quotes Spike Psarris from 2004 claiming, “according to naturalistic origins models, ‘Mercury can’t be anywhere near as dense as it actually is.'”

For my very loyal readers (hi Joe, Susan, Karl), you might remember that I discussed Spike Psarris twice (here and here) in ripping apart a 12-minute video segment he produced on why Jupiter needs God to have created it 6000 years ago.

In skepticism, we often give YECs and Intelligent Design (ID) proponents the proud title of the best examples of quote miners. In this case, a creationist (Brian Thomas) is quote mining another creationist (Spike Psarris). Spike does indeed say that in his 2004 article. But he actually goes on to explain that we have a perfectly reasonable natural model for how Mercury got as dense as it did. Granted, Spike in his own special way then tries to rip it to shreds through an argument from personal incredulity, but that’s somewhat beside the point for this post.

For those wondering, the “evilutionist” way of explaining this is that Mercury was involved in a massive collision early in its history that stripped away all of its crust and a large portion of its outer mantle, leaving behind the core of an originally much larger planet along with some mantle material. We know that these kinds of large collisions happened in the early solar system, there is an enormous amount of evidence for that, so it is perfectly plausible that this is what happened on Mercury. Despite what Spike says.

Too Much Sulfur?

Paragraph four of Mr. Thomas’ article states, “assuming that the planet formed naturally and close to the then-forming sun, lighter-weight elements like sulfur should have been ‘lost in space,’ … and yet Mercury has ‘high levels’ of sulfur.” Hmm. I guess that means evolution can’t be true and God created everything 6000 years ago.

As with pretty much the rest of this article – and I’ll just point it out here for the time-being – Mr. Thomas does not actually make an independent argument for a 6000-year-old universe created by God. He simply tries to cast doubt on his own – highly limited – understanding of planetary astronomy. Anyway, moving forward …

Yes, one of the interesting discoveries of MESSENGER is that it detected high levels of sulfur on Mercury. And yes, Mercury likely formed close to the sun, well inside the temperature line where we would expect lighter elements and molecules to be gaseous and not condense and be incorporated in large quantities into forming planets. Except, well, obviously they did. And there are numerous ways of getting them to these planets — remember I talked in the last section about lots of massive collisions? This is the way we think Earth got most of its water.

Magnetic Fields

Paragraphs five and six talks about the magnetosphere of Mercury:

In the Space.com Q&A, Solomon commented, “I’m now fascinated by the magnetosphere.” And it is small wonder that he is, because for many years the “dynamo theory” (which has since been shown to be false) was the only explanation offered for magnetic fields on rocky planets that are supposed to be billions of years old. However, this theory requires a molten magma core. And Mercury is so small β€” only slightly larger than the moon β€” that its core should have cooled into a solid millions of years ago. Therefore, it should not have a magnetic field at all … . And yet it does.

Messenger’s new magnetic measurements fail to explain why Mercury has a magnetic field. Instead, they add ammunition against a naturalistic origin for the planet. Scientists did not expect to discover that Mercury’s magnetic field is lopsided, but the 2011 Messenger data showed that it is stronger in the north than it is in the south. What natural process would cause that?

I actually want to disassemble the second part first, in that the “magnetic measurements fail to explain why Mercury has a magnetic field.” As a science writer, Mr. Thomas should know that measurements (data) do not explain anything. Data are data (“data” is the plural form of “datum”). They have no explanatory power in and of themselves, the data simply are what they are. It is how the data fit into models that will then support or refute them.

Further, on the lopsidedness of the field. I know I’ve said this before, but for new readers and returning ones who like the reminder: That’s what science is!! We want to find something we can’t immediately explain because that means that we can then go try to figure out why it is the way it is! It’s only YECs that don’t want anything that doesn’t fit with their own Goddidit model because that would mean that, gasp!, maybe goddidn’tdoit. In fact, Mr. Thomas, in what is obviously meant to imply that goddidit, asks the exact question that I’m sure that mission scientists are trying to answer: What process causes a lopsided magnetic field?

Okay, back to the first paragraph quoted above. I’m not even sure I really need to go into this too much. Suffice to say, yes, the fact Mercury has a strong magnetic field was a surprise when it was discovered, and it is actually one of the main questions that drove the MESSENGER instrument suite choices that will try to gather the data that will be used to test and further develop models to explain why it has an active magnetic field. Obviously, ongoing scientific research is just too much for Mr. Thomas to handle, though, because he clearly wants these observations to force us evolutionary astronomers (I still don’t understand what evolution has to do with astronomy) to throw up our hands and admit that his God did it.

Oh yeah, and the whole “dynamo theory which has since been shown to be false” is him blowing out his you-know-what. That’s about the only outright lie I came across in this article.

Final Thoughts

I’m not sure what it takes to be a science writer with ICR. I actually looked over their site for a job description or any information related to jobs, and all I found were bible versus from the Book of Jobs. Go figure. Regardless, I don’t think the requirements can be much, especially any knowledge of science. In the next-to-last paragraph, Mr. Thomas clearly shows his ignorance: “If nature formed the planets from the same cloud of space debris, then why are they not uniform in constitution, orientation, and placement?”

I have explained to 6-year-olds why there are differences in objects in the solar system even though they formed from the same “cloud of space debris.” And they understood it. (One of the big reasons is that, as the sun heated up, it caused a temperature gradient in the cloud that resulted in significant compositional differences in the inner and outer solar system.)

Mr. Thomas, please, do your homework next time. And by that, I mean read something other than the bible or Spike Psarris. But, I suppose when you’re content with a god of the gaps outlook on everything in life, actually learning something new is not important.

Oh, and in all seriousness, check out the Eye on ICR blog if you like reading this kinda thing. A high school student willing to take on the ICR, even if it’s just in a blog, and point out their foolishness is pretty cool. When I was in high school, the only creationists I confronted were classmates (ah, I still remember 7th grade when I made a girl cry just by saying that we didn’t know why the Big Bang happened, but who created God?).


  1. I’d like to add that dynamo theory does not require a “molten magma core”. Unless you consider iron to be “magma”. I don’t. If you’ve got a core of liquid rock, then I can see how it would be difficult to generate a dynamo.

    Also, Mercury’s core isn’t that small; it’s actually larger than Mars’s core. The diffusion timescale across just the relatively thin mantle is something like 10^10 years.

    Comment by James Roberts — August 8, 2011 @ 6:05 am | Reply

    • Thanks for the info, James (for those who don’t know, James models this kinda thing, got his Ph.D. modeling mantle plumes in Mars). And sorry for the late approval of your comment … for some reason, WordPress thought it was spam!

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

  2. Did I forget to put my name anywhere? Wow. It’s ‘Peter’ for future reference πŸ˜€
    I recently learnt that a class at my old Primary School has started a ‘bloggers club’. I could have been doing this for the last six years! If only the teacher that is doing it thought of it when I had her… (I have been arguing with Creationists since the equivalent of 5th grade as it happens, it’s quite fun)

    Comment by eyeonicr — August 9, 2011 @ 1:27 am | Reply

  3. To be honest, it seems reasonable that Mercury today would consist if only the densest materials that were present in its original formation.

    I would be very surprised, and suspicious, if say, methane was present in the Mercurial atmosphere.

    I think ‘solar power’ might be just ‘too much of a good thing’ on Mercury. πŸ™‚

    Comment by himnextdoor — August 9, 2011 @ 5:49 pm | Reply

  4. Obviously, I meant to say ‘of’ rather than ‘if’ when I said ‘consist if only’.


    Comment by himnextdoor — August 9, 2011 @ 5:53 pm | Reply

  5. “ah, I still remember 7th grade when I made a girl cry just by saying that we didn’t know why the Big Bang happened, but who created God?”. So, you’ve proved that you know how to use eristic logical fallacy to dishonestly win a discussion mr Ph.D. Nothing to be proud of – it clearly indicates what kind of ‘science’ you represent and you would surely lose coming across someone who knows how to defend against home-made Sophists πŸ™‚

    Comment by Martin — February 3, 2013 @ 10:09 am | Reply

    • That’s right, because someone’s knowledge and argument style is the same as it was twenty years ago.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — February 3, 2013 @ 10:13 am | Reply

      • So, your understanding of science is to use whatever argument you got to ridicule your opponent no matter how truth really looks like? Nice… But, would it not be more sincere to admit that to prove that God exists or not is, for now, impossible from a scientific point of view?

        Comment by Martin — February 3, 2013 @ 10:53 am

      • Apparently you did not get sarcasm. My position for over the last decades is that I am agnostic because one cannot prove a negative except in mathematics.

        Comment by Stuart Robbins — February 3, 2013 @ 11:13 am

  6. Apparently I’ve ignored sarcasm since, even though it has certain entertaining as well as distracting role, it didn’t add anything essential to the discussion πŸ™‚

    Comment by Martin — February 3, 2013 @ 11:51 am | Reply

  7. So what’s your issue with Spike Psarris?

    Comment by Marcus — March 12, 2015 @ 8:20 pm | Reply

    • I have no personal issue with Spike Psarris. His arguments, however, are vacuous, as I have explained in previous posts.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — March 12, 2015 @ 8:23 pm | Reply

  8. “We want to find something we can’t immediately explain because that means that we can then go try to figure out why it is the way it is!”

    I agree wholeheartedly. We look foolish when we refuse to admit new knowledge. We also look foolish when we stubbornly (and dishonestly) cling to our favorite models when the new facts indicate a need for revision.

    Science will never prove creation happened 6000 years ago. But we are bordering on arrogance when we insist that creation COULDN’T have happened then. YECs make use of a lot unproven possibilities to avoid losing their worldview, but then so do secular scientists (examples include dark matter and dark energy). It really comes down to whatever sounds more reasonable to you–a god who was capable of creating or basically ANY explanation (however implausible) to avoid having to allow for such a god.

    Comment by Martin K — May 8, 2016 @ 10:37 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 )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: