Microbes to Men or Planetesimals to Planets
By Steve Rowitt, Th.M., Ph.D.
At the Creation Studies Institute, we often get letters that question the evidence presented for the evolution of the cosmos. One such question came to us as follows:
An astronaut by the name of Donald Pettit performed experiments as a mission specialist on ISS Expedition 6 in 2002 and 2003 related to clumping of solid particles in microgravity. The experiments showed that particles of various materials which varied in size between 1 micrometer and 6 mm naturally clumped together in microgravity when confined to a volume of 4 liters that included a few grams of the materials. The cause was theorized to be electrostatic. This presents a plausible mechanism for the initial stages of planetary formation, since particles of this size do not have sufficient gravity to cause this phenomenon (Wikipedia, 2011).
I saw the NASA video footage from these experiments and it is quite remarkable to see these particles quickly clump together. Your statements seem to contradict Pettit's results. Please help me understand your statements in light of this information. Thank you for your time and God bless!
Before I comment on the experiments concerning this model, I would say a word of caution concerning the online free encyclopedia called Wikipedia. While you can get some good general information from this web-based resource, Wikipedia, like Snopes.com, is not without an underlying current of progressive and decidedly anti-biblical rhetoric. It seems to extol the virtues of secular humanism while going out of its way to denigrate and caste doubt on the veracity and trustworthiness of the Bible. This is to be expected from a resource that allows people to add to or challenge the information being uploaded (a very exigent task for those unfamiliar with the process), so the bias we see in the mainstream media is alive and well at Wikipedia.
The “just so” stories of Darwinian theory
That said, many of the mechanisms for uniformitarianism are like the contrivances or “just so” stories that arise when evolutionary proponents talk about how evolution takes place in the real world. Whether it is biological evolution that proposes natural selection as well as the ever- illusive beneficial mutation as the major mechanisms that change molecules into men; or cosmic evolution that turns planetesimals into planets, the mechanisms of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) are insufficient to produce the postulated effects. Just as the Big Bang has numerous theories of inflation associated with it, galaxy and solar system, planetary and moon, formations have numerous hypotheses associated with them. Whether it is microbes becoming men or planetesimals becoming planets, Core Accretion is a seriously flawed model of planet formation.
The NASA experiment cited above does show support for the mechanism proposed for the Core Accretion Model of planetary formation. Core accretion is one of several theories that deal with the formation of solar systems, planets, moons, etc., all allegedly produced from a collapsing spinning nebula. According to this entirely materialistic scenario, energy was gradually converting into matter as the universe continued to expand after the Big Bang. Like all such in-vitro experiments, the NASA experiment takes the observations demonstrated in the laboratory and later formulates them into conclusions. Although these mechanisms are being demonstrated on a superficial level, in a relatively small controlled closed system of the NASA space laboratory, the findings are often extrapolated and applied to massive and more complex events, i.e. galaxy, star, and planetary formation. This NASA experiment is being used to support a much larger “just-so” story of the ToE. Like so many other experiments that propose a purely naturalistic mechanism for the creation of the universe, the devil is in the details.
Like the failed Miller-Urey experiment, the Core Accretion Model fails the test
When we examine the way the Miller-Urey experiment has been used over the years (since 1953), and in many cases is still used (see Wikipedia, 2011), to demonstrate the possibility of the origin of life by purely naturalistic means, we see an example of evolutionary “just so” story telling at its imaginative best. These fanciful explanations are employed whenever and wherever the actual solid scientific evidence for the ToE is lacking. What the Miller-Urey experiment did prove, however, was that intelligent designers could create an environment through which they could produce some molecules from other substances that they, the experiment designers, had already placed into their experiment. Today there are many scientists who will tell you the truth about the Miller-Urey experiment (Bergman, 2004; Peet, 2011; Luskin, 2011; Epologetics.org, 2007), however, you have to search for them diligently because they are truly “voices crying in the wilderness” of evolutionary dogma and pseudoscience.
The interpretation of these findings is usually skewed according to the worldview or core belief system (no pun intended) of those designing, performing, and analyzing the results of the experiment. You may find some honest evolutionary scientists that will admit the inadequacy of the evolutionary mechanisms, i.e. natural selection and beneficial mutation, to produce the postulated effect, e.g. a continuum of life from microbes to every living plant and animal on planet earth.
However, Darwinian evolution remains a fatally-flawed explanation that cannot be observed as happening in the past (the ubiquitous absence of transitional forms with every major category of living organism appearing abruptly, fully formed) and cannot be demonstrated as occurring in the present. We do not see any living organisms changing into completely different living organisms in nature. We do see adaptation or minor changes within the general categories of living organisms, categories that the Bible describes as “kinds.” The old complaint that evolutionary change is happening too slowly to see substantive changes, e.g. gradualism, has been thoroughly debunked and replaced with a new, and even more fanciful explanation. That change is happening too fast to be documented in the fossil record, e.g. Punctuated Equilibrium (Gould & Eldredge, 1977).
This same lack of evidence is apparent in the Core Accretion model of planetary formation. One example of a thesis illustrating the problems associated with the Core Accretion Model is found in “A Comparison of Two Models of Planet Formation: Core Accretion vs. Gravitational Instability” (Moore, 2003). The major difficulty with the Core Accretion Model was the inadequate timeframe for the formation of giant planets. Another set of problems were identified with the gravitation instability model. Moore (2003) concludes, “In the end it is these weaknesses of both models that lead to the conclusion that both are inadequate for providing a complete picture of planetary formation.”
Remember, providing evidence for the formation of planets via uniformitarian processes is the direct result of rejecting God’s Word, the testimony in the book of Genesis. Either the living Word of God, Messiah Jesus, spoke the universe into existence (and everything that is contained therein) in six 24-hour days or He did not. All arguments about the length of a day in the Genesis account or the insertion of the billions of years of deep time into gaps are ill-advised. Either God says what He means and means what He says or He is not omnipotent at all. A Creator who cannot instantaneously create whatever He desires in the timeframe of His choosing fails to meet the criterion for absolute deity. A God who is not omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, cannot be considered the Creator and King of the Universe. Furthermore, to say that this Creator-God is using the billions of years of death and destruction postulated by the ToE to fashion and perfect life as we know it today on planet Earth is completely contrary to the testimony of Scripture.
Just like the fanciful musings of Darwin, i.e. that natural selection and beneficial mutation are sufficient mechanisms to produce the diversity and complexity of life on earth. These naturalistic explanations of planet formation (as well as every other astronomical object) are rooted in pure speculation. Even though the NASA scientists would like you to believe the attraction of particles in a controlled environment, even though it allegedly mimics zero gravity in the closed system of a science experiment is, in reality, only a very small part of a larger process. This is much larger evolutionary process that is today being used to destroy a child’s confidence in his or her Creator, causing them to embrace a hypothesis that cannot be tested, reproduced, or confirmed as fact. To get from the clumping together of very small particles to the creation of galaxies and solar systems, planets and moons, plants and people, requires a huge leap of faith. That is a leap of “blind” faith that many scientists and others not unwilling to make.
God is not a man that He should lie
Do not allow the “just so” stories of evolution dissuade you from telling people the truth. Everyone has a choice. You can believe what other people are telling you or you can check the Word of God out for yourself. One thing is certain, God will always tell you the truth:
“God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? Nu. 23:19
When God promises that His Word, the truth, will set people free, John 8:32. This means that He is going to enlighten you concerning who He is and who you are in His sight, e.g. a sinner in need of the Savior. Until the Lord gives you eyes that see and ears that hear, you will mistake the lie of evolution for the truth. Error inevitably leads to bondage, but the God’s truth liberates. You can experience true freedom and peace today by surrendering yourself to the One who proved His love for us at Calvary He is the Creator of the universe and the Savior of mankind.
Tell and bring forth your case;
Yes, let them take counsel together.
Who has declared this from ancient time?
Who has told it from that time?
Have not I, the LORD?
And there is no other God besides Me,
A just God and a Savior;
There is none besides Me.
“ Look to Me, and be saved,
All you ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other, Is. 45:21-22.
Bergman, J. (2004). Why the Miller-Urey research argues against abiogenesis. Journal of Creation 18(2):28–36. Accessed 5.3.11 at http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis.
Epologetics.org (2007). Scientist Creates Life In Test-tube! Evolution Proven in Laboratory!
Creationism Takes a Fatal Blow! Accessed on 5.3.11 at http://othello. alma.edu/~07tmhopk/millerurey.html.
Gould, Stephen Jay, & Niles, Eldredge, (1977). Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology 3 (2): 115-151.
Luskin, C. (2011). Skeptic Magazine Unskeptical about Miller-Urey Experiment. Evolution and News. Accessed on 5.3.11 at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/02/ skeptic magazine_unskeptical_a044401.html.
Moore, Jr., R. (2003). Comparison of Two Models of Planet Formation: Core Accretion vs. Gravitational Instability. This Ph.D. student is the Physics Laboratory Coordinator for the University of West Georgia. Accessed 5.5.11 at http://www.chara.gsu.edu/~thenry/PLANETS/paper.moore.pdf
Moore, Jr., R. (2003). Ibid.
Peet, J. (2011). The Miller-Urey Experiment. Truth in Science. Accessed on 5.3.11 at
Wikipedia (2011). Miller-Urey experiment. This Wikipedia article is yet another example of this
“free encyclopedia’s” bias. There is absolutely no mention of the serious problems
associated with the experiment. For an example of the ambiguous nature of Wikipedia’s
mission, see the “inactive but retained for historical reference” Wikipedia Self-claims here:
First accessed on 5.3.11 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Wikipedia_thinks_it_is.
Wikipedia (2011). This is based completely on evolutionary speculation. However, Wikipedia
states the following: Scientists have been able to reconstruct detailed information about the
planet's past. The earliest dated Solar System material was formed 4.5672 ± 0.0006 billion
years ago, and by 4.54 billion years ago (within an uncertainty of 1%) the Earth and the
other planets in the Solar System had formed out of the solar nebula—a disk-shaped mass
of dust and gas left over from the formation of the Sun. This assembly of the Earth through
accretion was thus largely completed within 10–20 million years.