Thursday, August 16, 2018 |
Topic: ID —
Lunar Origin Causes "Philosophical Disquiet"
by Hugh Ross
A fixture in the night sky for billions of years, the moon has captivated humanity through the ages with its magical charm. Its mysterious, romantic qualities have inspired prose, song, and reflection. But in recent years, as scientific findings concerning its origin have been advanced, the moon has also generated philosophical disquiet.
Our moon is like no other. The ratio of its mass compared to the mass of its host planet (the earth) is about fifty times greater than the next-closest known ratio of moon mass to host-planet mass. In addition, our moon orbits the earth more closely than any other known large moon orbits its host planet.
Dynamical models dating back to my graduate school days all predicted that the moon's existence was impossible. The moon was too large, it was too close to the earth, and the earth was too close to the sun for the moon to have formed out of the sun's protoplanetary disk. All collision scenarios either resulted in the destruction of the earth, the failure to form the moon, or the formation of an earth-moon system with orbital features radically different from what astronomers actually observe. At the time, some astronomers commented that the moon's presence had to be some kind of miracle.
Today, astronomers understand that the existence of the moon does not violate any physical laws. Nevertheless, the earth had to have sustained a just-right impactor at the just-right time under the just-right conditions and circumstances for the moon to have formed as it did. Astronomers have assigned the name Theia to this impactor.
Developing the Moon's Origin Scenario
Over the past fifteen years, astronomer Robin Canup has developed progressively more sophisticated and detailed models demonstrating that the moon formed as the result of a collision between a planet with about twice the mass of Mars (Mars's mass = 0.107 of the earth's mass) and the newly formed earth. She also shows that the angle of impact had to be about 45 degrees, and the velocity at impact very low—less than 12 kilometers per second.1
In order for an impact to generate a debris disk from which a lunar-sized satellite can form, vapor gases cannot dominate the debris disk.2 Such gases will generate spiral shocks that would lead to the destruction of the circumterrestrial disk (the debris disk surrounding the earth) within just a few days. Fortunately, the volatile-poor nature of the sun's newly born planets (volatiles include nitrogen, water, carbon dioxide, ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and sulfur dioxide) helped limit the quantity of available vapor gases. However, even without significant quantities of volatiles, a gas-dominated circumterrestrial disk could still arise if the impact energy were high. High impact energy would vaporize the rocky material in the earth, the impactor, or both.
It is challenging, to say the least, to develop a solar-system scenario that produces such a low—impact-energy collision by such a massive collider that simultaneously produces the moon, rids the earth of so much of its primordial atmosphere and liquid water, and enriches the earth's core with all the iron, uranium, and thorium needed to both sustain a long history of aggressive plate tectonics and establish a strong, stable magnetic field. (Advanced life requires both the plate tectonics and the magnetic field). Consequently, some researchers have suggested that the collider actually shared the earth's orbit around the sun. Newtonian mechanics allows for this possibility if the collider was small enough and if it was situated 60 degrees backward or forward along the earth's orbit.
This stability condition assumes, however, that only three massive bodies were involved: the sun, Theia, and the earth. The presence of other planets in the solar system, particularly the presence of Jupiter and/or nearby planetesimals (bodies as large or larger than the biggest asteroids), means that—given sufficient time—the smaller planet sharing the earth's orbit would have been jiggled away slightly from its 60 degrees backward or forward position. When this happened, there was a substantial possibility that the smaller planet would have crept toward the earth and eventually collided with it at a low velocity and a low impact angle.
Hidenori Genda and Yutaka Abe, two Japanese astronomers, have demonstrated that the existence of a deep liquid-water ocean on the surface of the primordial earth was crucial for ensuring that the moon-forming impact event would blast away enough of the earth's initial atmosphere and ocean.3 Deep liquid water at the impact site would have lowered the shock impedance compared to bare ground (think of dropping a bowling ball 100 feet into a water-filled swimming pool versus an empty pool). A low shock impedance and plentiful liquid water means that the impact would have generated a huge amount of superheated steam. It is this steam that ejected almost all of the earth's primordial water and atmosphere into interplanetary space. To guarantee that neither too much nor too little of the earth's primordial atmosphere and ocean was removed, the earth's primordial ocean depth must have been highly fine-tuned.
Such fine-tuning was not lost on Canup, who remarked in a recent Nature review article, "Current theories on the formation of the Moon owe too much to cosmic coincidences."4 Indeed, the required "coincidences" continue to pile up. New research has revealed that the moon has a similar chemical composition to the outer portions of the earth, a result that Canup's models cannot explain, unless: (1) the total mass of the collider and the primordial earth was four percent larger than the mass of the present-day earth; (2) the ratio of the collider's mass to the total mass lay between 0.40 and 0.45; and (3) a fine-tuned orbital resonance with the sun removed the just-right amount of angular momentum from the resultant earth-moon system.5
Cosmic Coincidences Pile Up
Astronomers Matija Ćuk and Sarah Stewart found another way to explain the similar composition. In their model, an impactor about the mass of Mars collided with a fast-spinning (rotation rate = 2.3-2.7 hours) primordial earth.6 The fast spin of the primordial earth generated a moon-forming disk of debris made up primarily of its own mantle material, thus explaining the similar chemical composition of the present-day moon and the earth's present-day outer layers. But as with Canup's most recent model, a fine-tuned orbital resonance between the moon and the sun is needed.
In an article published in the same issue of Nature as Canup's review, Stewart concludes, "In the new giant-impact models, lunar material is derived either from a range of depths in the proto-Earth's mantle or equally from the entire mantles of two colliding half-Earths."7 But either way, while "each stage of lunar evolution is possible," she can't help but wonder, "with the nested levels of dependency in a multi-stage model, is the probability of the required sequence of events vanishingly small?"8
Canup suggests that perhaps a small (Mars-sized) collider model that didn't need so much of the added fine-tuning of the Ćuk-Stewart model could be retained if the collider's initial chemical composition were more earth-like than Mars-like. However, extra fine-tuning may be needed to explain this required initial composition.
In yet another article in the same issue as Canup's review, earth scientist Tim Elliott observes that the degree and kinds of complexity and fine-tuning required by lunar origin models appear to be increasing at an exponential rate. Among lunar origin researchers, he notes, "the sequence of conditions that currently seems necessary in these revised versions of lunar formation have led to philosophical disquiet."9
Implications beyond Science
What is this philosophical disquiet? The moon-forming impact event presents astronomers and all humanity with one of the most dramatic sets of evidence for supernatural, super-intelligent design for the specific benefit of humanity. Thanks to the exquisitely fine-tuned nature of this impact event, the collision:
Such ingeniously fine-tuned features may beget philosophical uneasiness for some, but further—and honest—philosophical inquiry may lead to rewarding discoveries of supernatural activity for the benefit of all humanity. •
Notes 1. Robin M. Canup, "Dynamics of Lunar Formation," Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 42 (September 2004), 441-475; Robin M. Canup, "Lunar-Forming Collisions with Pre-Impact Rotation," Icarus 196 (August 2008), 518-538. 2. Keiichi Wada, Eiichiro Kokubo, and Junichiro Makino, "High-Resolution Simulations of a Moon-Forming Impact and Postimpact Evolution," Astrophysical Journal 638 (Feb. 20, 2006), 1180-1186. 3. Hidenori Genda and Yutaka Abe, "Enhanced Atmospheric Loss of Protoplanets at the Giant Impact Phase in the Presence of Oceans," Nature 433 (Feb. 24, 2005), 842-844; Kevin Zahnle, "Planetary Science: Being There," Nature 433 (Feb. 24, 2005), 814-815. 4. Robin M. Canup, "Lunar Conspiracies," Nature 504 (Dec. 5, 2013), 27. 5. Robin M. Canup, "Forming a Moon with an Earth-Like Composition Via a Giant Impact," Science 338 (Nov. 23, 2012), 1052-1055. 6. Matija Ćuk and Sarah T. Stewart, "Making the Moon from a Fast-Spinning Earth: A Giant Impact Followed by Resonant Despinning," Science 338 (Nov. 23, 2012), 1047-1052. 7. Sarah T. Stewart, "Weak Links Mar Lunar Model," Nature 504 (Dec. 5, 2013), 91. 8. Ibid. 9. Tim Elliott, "A Chip Off the Old Block," Nature 504 (Dec. 5, 2013), 90. 10. Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny (The Free Press, 1998), 127-131, 252. 11. Hugh Ross, More Than a Theory (Baker, 2009), 156-171. 12. Louis A. Codispoti, "The Limits to Growth," Nature 387 (May 15, 1997), 237; Kenneth H. Coale et al., "A Massive Phytoplankton Bloom Induced by an Ecosystem-Scale Iron Fertilization Experiment in the Equatorial Pacific Ocean," Nature 383 (Oct. 10, 1996), 495-499. 13. Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth (Copernicus, 2000), 191-234. 14. Dave Waltham, "Anthropic Selection for the Moon's Mass," Astrobiology 4 (Winter 2004), 460-468. 15. William R. Ward, "Comments on the Long-Term Stability of the Earth's Obliquity," Icarus 50 (May-June 1982), 444-448; Carl D. Murray, "Seasoned Travellers," Nature 361 (Feb. 18, 1993), 586-587; Jacques Laskar and P. Robutel, "The Chaotic Obliquity of the Planets," Nature 361 (Feb. 18, 1993), 608-612; Jacques Laskar, F. Joutel, and P. Robutel, "Stabilization of the Earth's Obliquity by the Moon," Nature 361 (Feb. 18, 1993), 615-617. 16. Hugh Ross, More Than a Theory, 137.
Hugh Ross is an astrophysicist and the founder and president of the science-faith think tank Reasons to Believe (RTB).
More on ID from the Salvo online archives.
Column: Operation ID — Salvo 43
Evolutionists Don't Know a Good Eye When They See One by Jonathan Wells
Department: Parting Shot — Salvo 36
Our Quantum Leap
There Is a Huge Chasm Between Humans & Nonhuman Animals by Michael Egnor
Department: Opening Salvo — Salvo 41
Ignoring Evidence Leads to Endless Improbabilities by James M. Kushiner
YOU SHOULD SUBSCRIBE!
Salvo subscribers have full access to the online archives!
Salvo magazine unblushingly offers an honest, rational, and respectful perspective to hard questions about SCIENCE, SEX, and SOCIETY.
Full access to the Salvo online archives. Only $15.99.
Get 4 issues + full access to the online archives. Only $29.99.
Consider ordering a bulk subscription for a reading group or a small group!
The Current Issue—Summer 2018
A Salvo Fake Ad
Visit the blog of Salvo author Robin Phillips
Salvo 44—Spring 2018
Grounded Faith: Sinking Roots for Youth Ministry in an Age of Advanced Skepticism by Terrell Clemmons
Spit Marks: The Afterlife of Those Popular DNA Tests May Surprise You by Paige Comstock Cunningham
The Unthinkable Universe: It Strangely Points Where Materialists Dare Not Boldly Go by Regis Nicoll
Silicon Debauchery: More Evidence the Hookup Culture Is Human Malware by Nancy R. Pearcey
Salvo 43—Winter 2017
A Boy's Life: 5 Recommendations for Shielding Our Sons from the Anti-Culture—And Setting Them Towards Manhood by Anthony Esolen
Optimal Optics: Evolutionists Don't Know a Good Eye When They See One by Jonathan Wells
Up for Grabs: In Science, When 'Anything Goes,' Everything Goes by Denyse O'Leary
Revolution 101: How the 'New Civics' Is Fomenting Civil Unrest by Terrell Clemmons
Salvo 42—Fall 2017
Engendered Confusion: The Chaos of Postmodern Sexuality by Laurie Higgins
Zombie Killer: The "Icons of Evolution" Have Joined the Ranks of the Undead by Denyse O'Leary
Mutant Destruction: Does Cancer Really Innovate? by Jonathan Wells
The Darwin Tales: It's Time to Remit Darwinian Storytelling to the Annals of History by Terrell Clemmons
Eye Openers: Eight Common Factors for Atheists Changing Their Minds About God by Matt Nelson
Tuning Out the Universe: How Naturalism & Post-Fact Science Ignore the Evidence We See by Denyse O'Leary
Improbably So: Fine-Tuning Is Unlikely, but Unlikely Things Happen All the Time by Tim Barnett
Deep-Seated Rights: What They Are & Why You Have Them by Steve Jones
4 issues of Salvo PLUS full access to the online archives!
• Give a Gift Sub
• Manage Sub Account
• About Salvo
• The Fake Ads
• Login for Full Access
• Touchstone Magazine
• The Fellowship of St. James
All material Ⓒ 2017. Salvo is published by The Fellowship of St. James.