THE MOON: EVIDENCE FOR SPECIAL CREATION

Picture of the Moon

adapted from an article by

Paul Garner

B.Sc.

Used with the kind permission of the Creation Science Movement, 50 Brecon Avenue, Cosham, Portsmouth, England, P06 2AW.

The moon has been a familiar sight in the night sky since the dawn of creation. The Genesis account in the Bible tells us that the earth's nearest neighbour in space was created as a fully functioning body by God on the fourth day of the Creation Week, along with the sun, the planets, and the stars. If we accept that Biblical genealogies are accurate records of the history of man, and the days of creation were literal 24-hour solar days, then we may conclude that the moon is about 6,000 years old. This is, of course, in stark contrast to the figures given by modern evolutionary theories, which suppose that both the earth and the moon had naturalistic origins dating back some 4.6 billion years.

In this pamphlet, we shall examine some of the scientific evidence relating to the origin and geological history of the moon to see which of the two basic models - creation or evolution - best fits the facts.

The Lunar Landscape

The surface of the moon can be divided into two types of landscapes: the maria, or “seas” (dark, plain-like regions of low relief) and the terrae, or “lands” (brighter, more rugged, mountainous areas). The marria and terrae are easily recognizable when viewed with the naked eye from the earth. It is the contrast between these two types of landscapes that forms the imaginary features of the “Man in the Moon.” The moon is devoid of water. The “seas” are in fact vast, smooth plains formed by lava flows. The low lying maria are characterized by a general lack of craters, whereas the highlands are intensely pock-marked. This suggests that the maria were formed after the main period of crater formation. A good summary of theories relating to the origin of craters is given by Fielder (1989). There are many other interesting lunar features such as crater chains, crater rays, domes, rilles, wrinkle ridges, and faults (Adams, 1977), but there is insufficient room to examine them all here.

The Formation of the Moon

There are three main evolutionary models for the origin of the moon: the fission theory, the capture theory, and the condensation theory. As Taylor (1987, pp.473-74) has pointed out, these theories are not mutually exclusive. Elements of one hypothesis may appear in another.

The Fission Theory: The fission theory proposes that the moon was originally part of the earth, but the rapid spin of the earth caused a mass that would become the moon to break away from the earth early in the life of the solar system. However, there are so many mechanical problems with this theory that few today consider it to be a serious contender.

To become so unstable as to “throw off” the moon, the earth would have had to have a period of rotation of less than three hours, far more rapid than the twenty-four hours of today. For this to have happened, the law of Conservation of Momentum indicates that the earth-moon system should have twice as much angular momentum as it in fact does.

The fission theory would also predict that the moon would orbit in the earth's equatorial plane. But the actual lunar orbit is inclined to the equator by anywhere from 18.5 degrees to 28.5 degrees.

Lastly, the earth and the moon would be fortunate to survive the cataclysmic disruptive tidal effects of the fission process. The tidal friction on earth caused by the pull of the moon would tend to vaporize the earth's crust, and the moon would likely disintegrate because of the instability induced by the intense gravitational pull of the earth.

The Capture Theory: Another proposal is that the moon initially travelled in its own orbit around the sun and was “captured” by the gravitational pull of the earth. This theory has been defended by Cadogan (1983). However, Gold (1975, p.26) argues against the capture theory on the grounds that even if the capture process were physically possible, it is extremely unlikely to have occurred. Taylor (1987, p.474) says: “Hypotheses in which the earth captures an already-formed moon have generally been abandoned. They encounter severe dynamical problems and provide no obvious explanation for the exotic lunar geochemistry.” It is difficult to envisage a feasible scenario in which the spread of the “uncaptured” moon would slow down enough to allow capture to occur. Even if a mechanism could be found, it would still leave the real question unanswered: How was the moon formed before it was captured? This leads to a third theory.

The Condensation Theory: The condensation theory holds that the earth and the moon each grew from accreting dust particles in a condensing nebula. There are many insurmountable problems with this idea. For example, Steidl (1979, p.104) refers to experimental evidence showing that even at low speeds colliding salicate particles always tend to erode into smaller fragments, not stick together. One analysis concludes that the process would have to begin with an object the size of the moon before it would be large enough to attract significant amounts of other material in order to grow. Obviously, a process that must begin with a moon-sized body cannot explain the origin of the moon.

Cadogan (1983, p.38) has summarized the present state of affairs: “It cannot be pretended that any one theory for lunar origin has much more support than any other. The problem with the question of the origin of the Moon is that we only have a few of the required facts and there are many suppositions for which independent support is sadly lacking. It all happened so long ago that none of the assumptions which go into our theories can easily be tested.”

The Age of the Moon

There are different lines of evidence indicating a young age for the moon. Such evidence, of course, is very damaging to evolutionary theories.

Transient Lunar Phenomena: Evolutionists have traditionally assumed the moon to be a cold, “dead” body, looking much the same today as it would have some three billion years ago. However, there is mounting evidence that this view of the moon is not accurate. The growing list of transient lunar phenomena (T.L.P.) such as moonquakes, lava flows, gas emissions, and so on, demonstrate the moon is still geologically active. Since the moon is still adjusting to tidal stresses, these observations suggest it is not yet in thermal equilibrium. Unfortunately, the only photographic evidence until somewhat recently was a spectrogram of a T.L.P. in the lunar crater Alphonsus, produced by the Russian astronomer N.A. Kozyrev in 1958. Exciting new evidence was obtained on the 23rd of May, 1985, when George Kolovos (University of Thessaloniki, Greece) recorded a bright spot in the area of the crater Proclus. After years of analysis, photographic defects and atmospheric phenomena have been ruled out. Kolovos' photograph appears to show a genuine gaseous emission from the lunar crust, accompanied by an electrical discharge that made it fluoresce. T.L.P. observers have been vindicated. If the moon was truly billions of years old, it should now be cold and inactive. But it is not inert (Moore, et al., 1989; Moore, 1990 p.10). Mulfinger (in Whitcomb and DeYoung, 1978, pp.105-27) documents many other observations of T.L.P. These intriguing data support the creationist model of young moon.

Extent of Mixing of Lunar Soil: The moon's surface is constantly reworked by the impact of micrometeorites. This process, over the course of many millions of years, should mix up the layers of lunar soil. However, an item in Science News (Anon., 1971, p.62) notes the following result of lunar soil analysis: “Another study revealed that the top layer of bismuth and cadmium remained at the surface for 15 million years. If the lunar soil is constantly being dug up by many small impacts [of metiorites], more mixing should have occurred.”

Rheology of Craters: Evolutionists believe the majority of the craters on the moon were formed early life of the solar system, some three to four billion years ago, as the solar system was swept clean of material not already part of one of the planetary bodies or one of their moons. Creationists generally believe most of the craters were formed shortly after the moon came into existence, probably only a few thousand years ago. Glenn Morton, a geophysicist, and astronomer Dr. Harold Slusher, along with Richard Mandock (1983), have investigated the flow rates for the basaltic rocks in which the craters were made. Over extremely long periods of time, solids, such as rocks, flow like thick liquids. The higher the viscosity value of a material, the slower the flow rate (see Table 1).

Table 1: Viscosities

The viscosity value of lunar rocks is in the order of a hundred million times too low for the craters to have lasted anywhere near as long as three or four billion years. Even if the lunar surface was made of granite, the viscosity value would still be some ten million times too low to be consistent with the evolutionary time scale! Danes (1966, p.A127) notes: “If viscosities of lunar rocks were around 1021 to 1022 poises, the ages of large craters would have to be only 104 to 107 years.” Since it is unreasonable to assign a viscosity of more than about 1023 poise to the moon's rocks, it is abundantly clear that studies in lunar rock rheology preclude the moon being billions of years old.

Refutation of Radiometric Data: Radiometric dating of lunar rocks has been used to support the long evolutionary chronology. But test results are ambiguous at best; for example, two tests gave ages of seven billion years and twenty billion years respectively - both greatly exceed conventional estimates of the age of the moon. These findings were facilely explained away (see Mackinnon, 1977, p.11). Other anomalous results have also been recorded (see Table II).

Driscoll (1972, p.12) writes: “If all of the age-dating methods (rubidium-strontium, uranium-lead and potassium-argon) had yielded the same ages, the picture would be neat. But they haven't. The lead ages, for example, have been consistently older.” Cadogan (1983, p.35) refers to cumulate rocks on the moon that are thought to be extremely primitive - as old as the moon itself. However, he acknowledges those uncertainties in the age measurements of these rocks may be as large as 100 million years!

Table 2: Age Variations for Apollo Sample Material

The variations and uncertainties in these data are not surprising in light of the contingencies of radiometric dating - the migration of radioactive elements into, or out of, the rock in situ, for example. Wright (1972, p.20) comments: “Some estimates of the age of moon-rock specimens have been based on the ratio between rubidium and strontium. It should be pointed out that under the conditions of temperature and pressure known to exist at the surface of the moon, unequal migration of these two elements must result.... Vapour migration is a mechanism that may cast doubt on the elemental radio dating, at least when pairs with widely different volatility are employed.” Driscoll (1972, p.13) says: “The findings are telling scientists as much about lunar processes and the behaviour of volatiles in a vacuum as about the ages [sic] of the moon.”

The assumptions inherent in radiometric dating have been extensively criticized by Slusher (1981), Arndts et al. (1983), and Woodmorappe (1979).

Lunar Recession: Observational data show that the moon is receding from the earth by about five centimetres per year. Hence, the moon was once much closer to the earth than it is today. It can be demonstrated from known physical laws that the earth and the moon could not survive being within 11,500 miles of each other (the so-called Roche Limit) because the resulting internal stresses would be so massive as to cause the moon to break apart. If we invoke the uniformitarian principle of evolution theory, which in this instance says the recession has always proceeded at the same ratio as we see today, then only two billion years ago the earth and the moon would have been “very near.” This is, of course, an unacceptably short period of time for evolutionists, who necessarily postulate that the recession must have been much slower in the distant past (Cadogan, 1983, p.36). Here we see the same “pick and choose” uniformitarianism that we observe in evolutionary dealings with radiometric data. A more straight-forward solution would be to revise the age of the earth-moon system to something much less than that currently espoused as fact by evolutionists (Barnes, 1982).

Supernatural Creation of the Moon

In contradistinction to these naturalistic theories, the Bible tells us the moon was created instantly by God, out of nothing, as a fully functioning satellite (Genesis 1:16; Psalms 33:6; Hebrews 11:3). The orderly and stable orbit of the moon around the earth, the nighttime illumination it provides, and the moon's cycle of phases - all of which have given mankind an accurate means for measuring time throughout the ages - serve to demonstrate the unique design of the moon and confirm the Biblical account (DeYoung, 1979).

Creationist theories of the moon have been shown to have great predictive and explanatory power (see Humphreys, 1984, pp.144-45, for a creationist discussion of the magnetism of the moon). Even so, more research is needed before a number of outstanding questions can be satisfactorily answered. For instance, creationists need to address the problem of accounting for extensive lunar erosion within a short time scale (see Awbrey, 1983, pp.24-28; Brown, 1981, p.24).

All of the naturalistic moon origin theories to date fail to account for the scientific data. And as uniformitarian scientists search for new theories (e.g. Taylor, 1987), creationists can confidently predict these too will be found wanting. Remember always the wisdom of Proverbs 1:7: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.”


References

Adams, P., Moon, Mars, and Meteorites, H.M.S.O., 1977.

Anon, “At the Moon Conference: Consensus and Conflict,” Science News Vol. 99, No. 4 (1971) p. 62.

Amdts, R., W. Overn, P.A. Bartz and M. Kramer, “Radiometric Dating, Isochrons and the Mixing Model,” Bible-Science Association Reprint Series (1983).

Awbrey, F.T., “Space Dust, the Moon's Surface, and the Age of the Cosmos,” Creation/Evolution, Vol. 4, No. 3 (1983) pp. 21-29

Barnes, T.G., “Young Age for the Moon and Earth,” ICR Impact, No. 110 (1982).

Brown, R.H., “Geo and Cosmic Chronology,” Origins, Vol. 8, No. 1 (1981) pp. 20-45.

Cadogan,P, “The Moon's Origin,” Mercury, Mar-Apr(1983) pp. 34-39.

Danes, Z.F., Geological Survey Research, US Government Printing Office, Washington, 1966

DeYoung, D.B., “The Moon: A Faithful Witness in the Sky,” ICR Impact, No. 68 (1979).

Driscoll, E., “Dating of Moon Samples: Pitfalls and Paradoxes,” Science News, Vol. 101 (1972) pp. 12-14.

Fielder, G., “The Formation of Lunar Craters,” Astronomy Now, Vol. 3, No. 5 (1989) pp. 21-26.

Gold, T., “Moon,” New Science in the Solar System, a New Scientist Special Review, IPC Magazines (1975) pp. 25-34.

Humphreys, D.R., “The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 21 (1984) pp. 140-49.

Mackinnon, R.D., “The Inexact Science of Radiometric Dating,” Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS) Review, Vol. 1, No. 5 (1977) pp. 8-15.

Moore, P., et al., “Transient Lunar Phenomena: A New Observation,” Astronomy Now, Vol. 3, No. 3 (1989) p. 5.

---------, “Transient Lunar Flash Questioned,” Astronomy Now, Vol. 4, No. 1 (1990) p. 10.

Morton, G.R., H.S. Slusher and R.E. Mandock, “The Age of the Lunar Craters,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20 (1983) pp. 105-08.

Slusher, H.S., Critique of Radiometric Dating, Institute for Creation Research Technical Monograph No. 2, 2nd ed., 1981.

Steidl, P.M., The Earth, the Stars, And the Bible, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., New Jersey, 1979.

Taylor, S.R., “The Origin of the Moon,” American Scientist, No. 75 (1987) pp. 468-77.

Whitcomb, J. C., and D.B. DeYoung, The Moon: Its Creation, Form, and Significance, BMH Books, Indiana, 1978.

Woodmorappe, J., “Radiometric Geochronology Re-appraised,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 16 (1979) 102-29, 147.

Wright, R.C., “Effects of Volatility on Rubidium-Strontium Dating,” Pensee, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1972) p. 20.

Credits