Creation Studies Institute
The Cosmos
 

The Cosmos: Stargazing Evolution Style (Part 8)
By Steven Rowitt, Ph.D.

This episode of the Cosmos: Sisters of the Sun began with our narrator, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, standing at the helm of his one-man spaceship as it moved into orbit around the Earth. He says, “We pulled the stars from the skies (brief pause) and we brought them down to earth.” Now we see nighttime scenes of Paris, France and other nightscapes awash in electric lights with Tyson asking ominously, “At what cost?” He explains, “When we turned on the lights, we lost the stars.” Now, the camera pans upward towards the sky and our TV screen fades to black.

Once again, through the magic of animation, Dr. Tyson takes us back to a cave man sitting by a campfire. Remember, all through this series, the writers have been presenting their atheistic view of history. This means they always present those who lived in antiquity as pagans. Then they can hold themselves up as enlightened men and women of science, who were not as foolish as their ignorant, newly evolved from an apelike common ancestor, predecessors. Tyson begins, “A long time ago, relationships with the stars was far more (pauses as is he is looking for the appropriate word) personal.”

Here comes the brainwashing
Now Dr. Tyson rehashes the evolutionary “just so” story of primitive man. He tells us that back when our lives depended on the stars, “We humans were not the biggest, the strongest, or the fastest of all the animals we competed against.” He continues, “But we did have one thing going for us, our intelligence. Pattern recognition gave rise to a stellar storybook that became our guide to survival.” From these patterns, humanity formed pictures of the gods, heroes, farm animals, etc. Dr. Tyson notes, “There was one particularly important group of stars known to the ancient Greeks as Pleiades, a star cluster that formed about 100 million years ago.” He continues, “Each one of these stars is 40 times brighter than our sun.” “Alcyone, he notes, is the most luminous star in this cluster, shining a 1,000 times brighter than our sun.”

We are then told that the ancients used the seven stars of Pleiades as an eye test. Those who could see all seven would be given certain jobs that required keen sight. Then he tells us that this stellar cluster became the basis for the Celtic celebration of Salwin, when the spirits of the dead were thought to roam the earth. Continuing the atheistic premise of this miniseries, we are told that this pagan holiday became the basis for yet another holiday, Halloween.

Then, in a segment that seemed to be lifted straight from the pages of Wikipedia, animation brings to life the Kiowa people of North America. Now Dr. Tyson retells the legend of the seven Indian women who snuck away from their campsite for an evening of dancing in the woods. Suddenly, they are surrounded by huge ferocious bears. They run and the bears give chase. When they are about to become dinner, they cry out to the rock pleading, “Rock save us!” Evidently, “The rock heard their cry and grew taller.” We see the rock lift the women out of danger, well beyond the bear’s reach. Today, this geologic structure is known as Devil’s Tower. Then he explains, according to the Kiowa legend, that the maidens were formed into the stars that made up Pleiades.

Tyson and other atheists are happy to relate these stories of pagan animism. The writers of this series have been carefully avoiding any mention of the Bible. Except when it suits them, they will borrow biblical phrases. If they properly reference God’s Word, someone might actually realize that the Hebrew Scriptures do not offer some pagan view of the stars, but it speaks clearly concerning the God who created the stars on day 4 of the creation week of Genesis, Gen. 1:16. The Hebrew word for star is kokawb. It indicates a sense of rolling and blazing or burning; round and/or shining; figuratively for a prince.The ancient Hebrews referred to the Milky Way galaxy as a “fiery stream” (see Dan. 7:10). It is of note that in the nighttime sky, the Milky Way does look like a river of light running through the heavens.

Tyson and others are careful to note that these are imaginative examples of primitive storytelling. From an anthropological point of view, they are correct when they tell us that oral tradition was an important part of the history of man. The Word of God encourages the custom of the retelling the history of God’s people to future generations. Parents are instructed to describe God’s great faithfulness to their children, especially when they are recounting the mighty works of God on behalf of His people. 

Here comes more brainwashing
Now Dr. Tyson rehashes the evolutionary “just so” story of primitive man. He tells us that back when our lives depended on the stars, “We humans were not the biggest, the strongest, or the fastest of all the animals we competed against.” He continues, “But we did have one thing going for us, our intelligence. Pattern recognition gave rise to a stellar storybook that became our guide to survival.” From these patterns, humanity formed pictures of the gods, heroes, farm animals, etc. Dr. Tyson notes, “There was one particularly important group of stars known to the ancient Greeks as Pleiades, a star cluster that formed about 100 million years ago.” He continues, “Each one of these stars is 40 times brighter than our sun.” “Alcyone, he notes, is the most luminous star in this cluster, shining a 1,000 times brighter than our sun.”

We are then told that the ancients used the seven stars of Pleiades as an eye test. Those who could see all seven would be given certain jobs that required keen sight. Then he tells us that this stellar cluster became the basis for the Celtic celebration of Salwin, when the spirits of the dead were thought to roam the earth. Continuing the atheistic premise of this miniseries, we are told that this pagan holiday became the basis for yet another holiday, Halloween.

Then, in a segment that seemed to be lifted straight from the pages of Wikipedia, animation brings to life the Kiowa people of North America. Now Dr. Tyson retells the legend of the seven Indian women who snuck away from their campsite for an evening of dancing in the woods. Suddenly, they are surrounded by huge ferocious bears. They run and the bears give chase. When they are about to become dinner, they cry out to the rock pleading, “Rock save us!” Evidently, “The rock heard their cry and grew taller.” We see the rock lift the women out of danger, well beyond the bear’s reach. Today, this geologic structure is known as Devil’s Tower. Then he explains, according to the Kiowa legend, that the maidens were formed into the stars that made up Pleiades.

Tyson and other atheists are happy to relate these stories of pagan animism. The writers of this series have been carefully avoiding any mention of the Bible. Except when it suits them, they will borrow biblical phrases. If they properly reference God’s Word, someone might actually realize that the Hebrew Scriptures do not offer some pagan view of the stars, but it speaks clearly concerning the God who created the stars on day 4 of the creation week of Genesis, Gen. 1:16. The Hebrew word for star is kokawb. It indicates a sense of rolling and blazing or burning; round and/or shining; figuratively for a prince.The ancient Hebrews referred to the Milky Way galaxy as a “fiery stream” (see Dan. 7:10). It is of note that in the nighttime sky, the Milky Way does look like a river of light running through the heavens.

Tyson and others are careful to note that these are imaginative examples of primitive storytelling. From an anthropological point of view, they are correct when they tell us that oral tradition was an important part of the history of man. The Word of God encourages the custom of the retelling the history of God’s people to future generations. Parents are instructed to describe God’s great faithfulness to their children, especially when they are recounting the mighty works of God on behalf of His people. 

“And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes, Deut. 8:6-8, 32; Joel 1:2-3.

The above noted verses gave rise to the tradition of the Orthodox Jewish people with regard to laying (putting on) tefillin and the placement of a mezuzah on the doorposts of their homes. The biblical record has been confirmed time and again to be a thoroughly accurate account of the history of God’s people Israel (the Tanakh or Old Testament) as well as a detailed account of the creation, of the life of the Messiah (the Gospels) and the history of the early church (Acts and the Epistles). However, now we must return to episode 7 of The Cosmos.

Pagans create God in their own image
The writers of the Cosmos are misleading their unsuspecting audience. They are willfully leaving out the truth of God’s Word. Dr. Tyson continues his brainwashing by moving from the Kiowa of North America to the ancient Greeks. The Greeks were the educated pagans of their era. This is not the first time this series has referenced the ancient Greeks. They had their own tradition concerning the creation of Pleiades. As we have noted repeatedly, the Greeks created a plethora of gods in their own image. All of the deities, goddesses and demigods, centaurs and other creatures of Greek mythology were infected with all of the frailties, shortcomings and weaknesses that afflict the human condition.

Enter the seven daughters of Atlas. These maidens were sisters who, unlike their Kiowa counterparts, were not pursued by hungry bears. No, their nemesis was Orion the Hunter, who, one fateful day, just happened to be going out for a stroll. Cut to the wonderful world of animation and we see Orion spying on these beautiful maidens. Dr. Tyson tells us that Orion became “mad with desire,” and for the next 7 years, he relentlessly pursues the objects of his affection. Exhausted, these maidens pray to Zeus, the King of the Greek gods, for deliverance. We are told that Zeus felt sorry for these poor girls so he transformed them into the stars of Pleiades. Dr. Tyson explains, “But the gods are, if anything, capricious.” That’s right, true to form; even the King of these manmade gods is fickle. Therefore, after Orion is killed by a scorpion’s bite, Zeus places him right next to our heavenly maidens so he can “pursue these seven gorgeous sisters” for all eternity. How different is the account of the one true Creator of everything seen and unseen, Col. 1:16. His number one attribute is His holiness, Is. 6:1-3; Rev. 4:8. Because He is holy, he is also righteous, compassionate, loving and full of grace (unmerited favor demonstrated in the gospel) and truth.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, John 1:1-3, 14.

Fear not, science will save us
Now Dr. Tyson pays homage to his pagan counterparts by telling us, “Our ancestors wove brilliantly imaginative stories, but they could drive us no closer to the stars but our dreams.” He continues, “It took another 3,000 years and three brilliant scientists to unlock the secrets of the true lives of the stars.” Now, I cannot let this comment stand without noting that, chronologically speaking, the oldest book of the Bible is the book of Job. He was a patriarch of God’s Word, and clues from the Scriptures indicate that Job lived prior to Abraham and sometime shortly after the Flood. The stars did not come into existence through natural processes. As we will explain later, there is no feasible model supporting the Nebular Hypothesis (that space dust coalesced into stars). Thus far, evolutionary scientists have failed demonstrated this process through experimentation. The Creator of the universe placed the stars in the heavens. With regard to the constellations, the Bible notes following:

He made the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades, and the chambers of the south; Job 9:9 

“Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion? Job 38:31. 

He made the Pleiades and Orion; He turns the shadow of death into morning And makes the day dark as night; He calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth; The Lord is His name, Amos 5:8.

The Creator of the universe warned against worshipping the stars, the sun and the moon.

And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the Lord your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage, Deut. 4:19.

This is something, as Dr. Tyson has already confirmed, that the ancient pagans had in common with one another. They worshiped the creation rather than the Creator. Two thousand years ago, the Apostle Paul identified this practice in his letter to the first century AD believers in Rome. He wrote, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Rom. 1:25.

Now, we find ourselves at Harvard University in 1909. It is here that Dr. Tyson introduces us to the Astronomer, Edward Charles Pickering. We are told that in 1909, no women were allowed to study at Harvard, but “Pickering broke that rule.” Via the magic of animation, we see three men approaching Pickering’s office at Harvard. They joke amongst themselves, “This is where Pickering keeps his computers, sarcastically referring to them as ‘Pickering’s harem.’” As they enter the office, we see several women busy at work. We realize that Pickering had hired several women to work with him in his research. Tyson tells us one of these women “assembled them (the stars) to a map and classifying the types of stars, one of them provided the key to our understanding of the stars,” He continues, “And another devised a way for us to calculate the size of the universe.”

It is here that the writers of this series take a swipe at the state of education in America circa 1909. They tell us how these women went unrecognized back then. Enter Annie Jump Cannon. This remarkable woman was rendered almost completely deaf due to a childhood bout with scarlet fever. She became the leader of the team known as Pickering’s women. During her career, she cataloged more than a quarter million stars. We are also introduced to Henrietta Swan Leavitt. Tyson explains that she too is also hearing impaired, but he acknowledges her as the “other great scientist in the room, telling us, “she discovered the law that astronomers still use today to measure the distances to the stars and the size of the cosmos itself.”

Using spectrographic images of the stars through a prism, these female computers began to catalog each star by their spectral signature. Knowing that certain elements will produce the same spectroscopic autograph, they were able to identify substances in the stars that corresponded to the elements found on our own planet. Dr. Tyson tells us, “It took decades to catalog hundreds of thousands of stars according to the scheme she (Annie J. Cannon) devised.” She discovered that the stars could be put into a continuous sequence of 7 broad categories, O, B, A, F, G, K and M. For subtle changes within groups, she devised 10 sub-groups for each lettered category. Then Tyson tells us that the key to deciphering the hidden meaning of this data would fall to another scientist.

Now, we see an animation of an ocean liner headed for Ellis Island, NY. It had embarked from England where, in 1923, women were barred from pursuing graduate degrees in the sciences. Dr. Tyson goes on to tell us that a young woman, Cecilia Payne, had attended a lecture in London by astronomer Arthur Eddington, the first scientist to provide evidence that Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity was correct. Tyson explains, “From that moment on, nothing would deter her from pursuing her dreams.” Emigrating from England to America where, we are told, women had already gained the freedom to study the stars. Payne applied to Harvard. “What she would discover there, Tyson tells us, would challenge one of the central beliefs of astronomy, and the resulting impact would be the dawn of modern astrophysics.”

We are taken back to Annie J. Cannon and her team of female scientists. Cecelia Payne arrives and is welcomed wholeheartedly into this sisterhood of female researchers. Payne began to analyze Cannon’s data showing that the stars contained calcium and iron. Dr. Tyson makes clear that these two elements are found in abundance on the earth. The conclusion that they, and all of the astronomers of that time, came to is that stars must be composed of the same elements found here on earth and in roughly the same proportions.

Now it’s 1924, and we are introduced the dean of American astronomers, Henry Norris Russell. We are told that he has made “major contributions to our understanding of the stars.” Cut to a scene where Miss Payne is explaining to Miss Cannon that her classification chart of the stars was really a temperature scale from the hottest to the coldest. Miss Payne also noted that the stars were made up almost entirely of hydrogen and helium. She concluded that there was a million times more hydrogen and helium than any other metal in the star’s composition. This became the conclusion for her doctoral thesis. Cecilia Payne was the first person to receive a Ph.D. in Astronomy from Radcliff College (now part of Harvard). She ran into trouble when she submitted her thesis for comment to Princeton professor Henry Norris Russell. His thinking, concerning the matter of star composition, was still firmly fixed in the prevailing scientific consensus that the stars were composed of the same elements as the earth. He told her that she was incorrect in her conclusions with regard to the compositions of the stars. Tyson tells us that Payne thought, “How could I be right, if such a distinguished scientist thinks I’m wrong?” She amended her paper to reflect that her findings were probably wrong.

This is a perfect example of how science does should never operate via scientific consensus. At one time, the scientific consensus was to bleed patients who presented to physicians with a certain set of symptoms. In truth, for almost two millennia, this was standard practice for most medical complaints. It was rooted in the ancient system of medicine where, at that time, the medical consensus was that “humors” (bodily fluids) had to remain in proper balance to insure good health. Bloodletting was the most common medical procedure beginning in antiquity and ending in the late 19th century. Today we understand that blood, with all of its cellular components, including the lymphocytes (B cells and T cells) and neutrophils, are essential in both our immune responses and for the elimination of pathogens from our bodies. All are vital to our continued good health. Those who were suffering from anemia would be harmed by any blood loss, no matter how small. For in their blood plasma resides 13 clotting factors, including the platelets that are essential for proper coagulation. In addition to this, it contains erythrocytes (red blood cells) that circulate oxygen and other nutrients to the tissues and organs and remove waste in the form of carbon dioxide.

Tyson really is a religious zealot, preaching the wonders of the Cosmos
Four years later, Russell realized that Payne was indeed correct in her thesis. Dr. Tyson notes that Russell did give her the credit for this discovery in his own scientific paper on the subject. Tyson uses this story to launch into a preaching message concerning the purity of scientific truth. He tells us, “The words of the powerful may prevail in other spheres of human experience, but not in science. The only thing that counts is the evidence and the logic of the argument itself.” If I did not know that Tyson considers himself to be the Apostle of the Cosmos, called to spread the good news of our awesome and wonderful universe, I would not characterize his pontificating as preaching. However, I do know the truth; he really does see himself in this way. [Tyson, Neil DeGrasse (2006). Neil DeGrasse Tyson - Greatest Sermon Ever. Accessed 5.14.14 on YouTube.] Tyson continues, “Cecelia Payne’s presentation of Annie Cannon’s sequence of the stellar spectrum made it possible for us to read the life stories of the stars and to trace the story of life itself back to its beginnings in their fiery deaths (close up of that original campfire).

Back to outer space and more “just do” stories
Now we find Dr. Tyson back on his spaceship and looking through a window at the stars. He begins, “There are many kinds of stars, some are bright like the Sun and some are dim. The greatest stars are 10 million times larger than the smallest ones. Some stars are old beyond imagining, more than 10 billion years of age. Others are being born right now. When atoms fuse in the hearts of stars they make starlight. Stars are born in litters; they form from the gas and dust of stellar clouds.”

Now we are getting the short version of what evolutionary cosmologists call the Nebular Hypothesis. It is the widely accepted model for the formation of stars and solar systems. They tell us that stars and planets form from nebulous material in space. According to this model, stars will form in massive and dense clouds of molecular hydrogen—giant molecular clouds (GMC). They will eventually coalesce into denser clumps within and they will eventually collapse and become stars. The problem with this particular “just so” story of stellar evolution is that it is based on an application of the Accretion Theory of stellar and planetary formation. This hypothetical scenario is filled with assumptions, as is all of evolutionary theory that may not be correct. As you will see, even evolutionary cosmologists admit they have they not been able to simulate the process of stellar accretion in the laboratory.  

Theories of star and planetary formation can be traced to Emanuel Swedenborg, the Swedish scientist, philosopher and alleged theologian and Christian mystic (some would false teacher). In 1734, Swedenborg first proposed this concept. Then in 1755, the German philosopher Emmanuel Kant, who, although being brought up in the Christian faith later rejected the Bible to embrace a more agnostic view of God and spirituality. It was in Kant’s publication of Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens where he first proposed what has come to be known as the Nebular Hypothesis. Kant believed that gaseous clouds—nebulae, would slowly rotate, gradually collapse, flatten due to gravity and eventually form stars and planets.

In an article by Jonathan Henry, Ph.D., in chemical engineering from the University of Kentucky, entitled, Solar system formation by accretion has no observational evidence,  he reports on failures to demonstrate the basic premise of the Nebular Hypothesis [Henry, J. (2010) Solar system formation by accretion has no observational evidence. Journal of Creation 24(2):87–94.]  Dr. Henry wrote the following concerning the lack of evidence for stellar and/or planetary formation by accretion. Like many other valid critiques of evolution’s just so stories, they are censored from those they are brainwashing. Tyson and his evolutionist colleagues will not tell you that lab experiments created to simulate the accretion process failed. Simply put, there was no accretion.

Case #1. Nickel-iron alloy condensate grains were grown to submicron size at 10-4 atmospheres, taken as the pressure in the pre-solar nebula, in an enclosed environment without turbulence. [Arnold, J.R., Condensation and agglomeration of grains; in: Comets, Asteroids, Meteorites, Delsemme, A.H. (Ed.), University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, pp. 519–525, 1971.] What do these conditions have to do with actual accretion? The author’s conclusion was not much: “the direct growth from the gas of large grains or droplets is very difficult, under any conditions familiar to us.” [Arnold, ref. 1, p. 523.] Hope was nevertheless held out that accretion could occur under hypothetical conditions not yet known:

“Undoubtedly there are astrophysical situations, as there are terrestrial ones, where these special conditions are and large masses can grow directly by condensation from the vapor. It is hardly imaginable, however, that they could extend widely through the solar system.” [Arnold, ref. 1, p. 523.] 

Bertram D. Donn, Ph.D. in astrophysics from Harvard and Derek W.G. Sears, Ph.D. in astronomy and geology, University of Leicester,  proposed a number of ad hoc assumptions to make accretion appear plausible, such as hypothetical crystal growth at alleged ‘screw dislocations’ caused by putative radiation damage under less-than-normal supersaturation regimes. [Donn, B. and Sears, G.W., Planets and comets: role of crystal growth in their formation, Science 140:1208–1211, 1963; p. 1208.] But even the assumed supersaturation in the primordial nebula was ad hoc, since this would require a prior high material concentration, which is what the theory sought to produce in the first place.

Case #2. Planetary scientist William K. Hartmann, Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Arizona noted:

“Ordinary evidence suggests that if neighboring, sun-orbiting rock particles hit at low speeds, they would simply bounce apart without sticking; if they hit at high speeds, they would shatter each other instead of combining. … Kerridge and Vedder (1972, pp. 161–162) designed an experiment with silicate particles hitting each other at speeds of 1.5 to 9.5 km/s (typical of collisions in today’s asteroid belt) to test whether any sticking or impact welding occurred. They found none; the particles shattered.” [Hartmann, W.K., Moons and Planets, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 1993, p. 193.]

To avoid shattering during collisions, Kerridge and Vedder proposed much lower hypothetical approach velocities. [Kerridge, J.F., and Vedder, J., Accretionary processes in the early solar system: an experimental approach, Science 177:161–163, 1972; p. 161.] The velocity became an adjustable parameter that might hypothetically allow accretion to occur. Greenberg and colleagues ran computer simulations at the lower velocities and concluded that with these hypothetical conditions, accretion was possible. [Greenberg, R., Wacker, J., Harmann, W. and Chapman, C., Planetesimals to planets: numerical simulation of collisional evolution, Icarus 35:1–26, 1978; p. 1.] But this type of ‘confirmation’ is an example of ad hoc assumption formulation in which the lower velocities required by accretion theory were assumed to justify the theory. This is reasoning in a circle.

Case #3. Comet expert Fred Whipple, Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of California at Berkly [Whipple, F.L. and Green, D.W.E., The Mystery of Comets, Smithsonian, Washington, D.C., pp. 200–203, 1985.] described laboratory tests of Mayo Greenberg (1922–2001) at the Leiden Observatory in the Netherlands attempting to simulate formation and growth of interstellar dust grains in molecular clouds. [Greenberg, J.M., Yencha, A.J., Corbett, J.W. and Frisch, H.L., Ultraviolet effects on the chemical composition and optical properties of interstellar grains, Mémoires de la Société Royale des Sciences de Liege 6e(III):425–436, 1972; Greenberg, J.M. and Li, A., Evolution of interstellar dust and its relevance to life’s origin: laboratory and space experiments, Biological Sciences in Space 12(2):96–101, 1998; p. 96.] 

He exposed the types of gases in such a cloud at about 20K (–253oC) to ultraviolet radiation of an intensity thought to be similar to typical dim starlight. However, no coalescence of gas molecules occurred without imposing two artificial conditions: (1) use of a ‘cold finger’ (a surface super-cooled to cryogenic temperatures) as a nucleation site to initiate coalescence; and (2) use of gas concentrations higher than could actually exist in a molecular cloud. The second condition was especially important, because molecular clouds have too low a gas concentration to allow spontaneous nucleation even at a temperature as low as 20K. Thus Greenberg’s ‘simulation’ of dust grain formation was not really a simulation at all. Two special conditions, which would not be true in nature (emphasis added), were imposed by the ‘human intelligence’ conducting the experiment. Blum likewise emphasized that accretion conditions are assumed, and are not known, to have existed:

“The theoretical considerations and their predictions for the development of the solid bodies in the early solar system strongly depend on a couple of assumptions, the validity of which can only be proven experimentally. Among the processes to be determined empirically [are] the low velocity collision behavior of single dust grains and aggregates including simulation experiments on the long-term dust aggregation [sticking]…” [Blum, J., Laboratory and space experiments to study pre-planetary growth, Advances in Space Research 15(10):39–54, 1995; p. 39.]

However, according to Blum, these required conditions—low velocity and aggregation—have not yet been observed in lab settings. Similarly, Armitage concluded: “For pairwise collisions to work fast enough, meter sized objects need to efficiently stick together upon collision rather than breaking up. This has not been demonstrated in laboratory experiments.” [Armitage, P., Planetary formation and migration, Scholarpedia 3(3):4479, revision #37477, 20 April 2008, par. 4,] Thus, experiments have failed to show that mere collision of particles can make them stick and grow into larger bodies under conditions believed to exist in the early solar system.

Dr. Henry offered numerous examples from prominent evolutionary astrophysicists that the laboratory evidence for the Nebular Hypothesis and the Core Accretion Hypothesis is simply nonexistent. Without hard evidence from the laboratory, evolutionists have resorted to computer models to achieve what experimentation failed to demonstrate. In addition, these models usually required some mathematical tweaking to get them to support the current theories of stellar and planetary formation. There is far more evidence concerning the inability of space debris and dust to coalesce into anything as dynamic as a star. Moreover, the force necessary to form a collapse resulting in the immense pressures needed to create nuclear fusion are also missing in nature.

There is no evidence of stars forming today
In addition to the lack of supporting verification from the laboratory, there is a lack of evidence that stars, as Dr. Tyson put it, “were being born in litters.” If the Nebular Hypothesis were true, astronomers should see stars forming from debris contracting inward, as the Sun supposedly did. Nevertheless, “no one has unambiguously observed material falling onto an embryonic star, which should be happening if the star is truly still forming.” [Peterson, I., The winds of starbirth, Science News 137:409, 1990; p. 409.] Accordingly, theorists have concluded, “Giant molecular clouds (GMCs) are not collapsing dynamically and have, in fact, generally a very low efficiency for stellar genesis.” [Shu, F., Najita, J., Galli, D., Ostriker E. and S. Lizano, The collapse of clouds and the formation and evolution of stars and disks; in: Protostars and Planets III, Levy, E.H. and Lunine, J.I. (Eds.), University of Arizona, Tucson, pp. 3–45, 1993; p. 20.] Thus, GMCs cannot be expected to collapse into stars, despite the widespread belief that they are. Gravitational collapse cannot happen in a diffuse, rarified gas cloud to form a star; it is not dense enough. “The only way for a … cool interstellar cloud to contract from nebular to stellar dimensions is to be dense enough so that the gravitational attraction of its particles for each other is strong enough to start it contracting”.  [Hartmann, ref. 4, p. 93.] Thus, theorists recognize that a GMC cannot begin collapsing on its own. There must be an external force to bring the GMC to a density high enough to trigger collapse.

A star cannot form without another star or something like it
Nebular theory must suppose that another physical body provides this force, such as other clouds already in collapse or unstable stars sending shock waves (density waves) into the surrounding space. Therefore, the theory presumes the pre-existence of a successfully-collapsing cloud or an already-formed star, which is what the theory seeks to explain in the first place. As theorists have said, “Star formation can also be induced [or] triggered by a mechanism external to the clump. … Shocks, which can be due to supernovae [unstable stars] or to cloud-cloud collisions, have been invoked frequently as a mechanism for inducing star formation.” [McKee, C.F., Zweibel, E.G., Goodman, A.A. and Heiles, C., Magnetic fields in star-forming regions: theory; in: Protostars and Planets III, Levy, E.H. and Lunine, J.I. (Eds.), University of Arizona, Tucson, pp. 327–366, 1993; p. 361.]

In other words, “The general model requires some mechanism to trigger a cloud’s collapse: a supernova explosion, a shock wave from the galaxy’s spiral arms, cloud collisions, or stellar winds. Why clouds don’t collapse on their own … is still a ‘great mystery’.” [Edelson, ref. 44, p. 12.] Another theorist wrote, “Since the 1960s, in numerical models of protostellar collapse, thermonuclear ignition temperatures are not attained solely by the in fall of matter; an additional shock wave-induced sudden flare-up is assumed.” [Hernden, J.M., Examining the overlooked implications of natural nuclear reactors, Eos 79(38):451–456, 1998; p. 456.] In the Nebular Hypothesis, it takes a star to make a star (emphasis added). The nebular hypothesis has not explained how stars first formed.

After a brief pause in order to enlighten our readers with information that will not be forthcoming during the presentation of the Cosmos, we return to Dr. Tyson. He is explaining, “Stars in a litter can range from the runts, as small as a planet, to the supergiants, stars that dwarf the Sun.” Then, without one bit of supporting evidence other than the assumption of deep time, Dr. Tyson tells us, “The stars below Orion’s Belt are newborns, about 5 million years old, still swaddled in the dust that gave birth to them.” Now you know why the writers of the Cosmos are unwilling to inform you of the lack of evidence for their “just so” story of star formation. It would not allow them to tell their story as if it were completely supported by the facts. However, that does not stop them from telling us their “just so” stories as if they were true, not the scientists who worship at the altar of atheism.

Dr. Tyson continues, “The stars in Pleiades are already toddlers about 100 million years old. They’ve shed their blankets of gas and dust, but they’re still bound together by their mutual gravity. Another hundred million years and they’ll drift apart and go their separate ways, never to meet again.” What a quaint little story of the growth cycle of stars. There is only one problem with it, it is completely fictional, another fine example of evolution’s best guess using stories that are based on deep time. Not only are the writers continuing to repeat the mantra of millions and billions of years, they are telling a story of what they think has happened. When they tell us “stars are being born in litters,” they are doing so without any evidence. It is simply more deception from the devotees of evolutionary dogma and nothing more.

When anyone dares to call them on their lack of evidence, or simply presents information that is critical their just so stories, their response is to attack the messenger. This has become commonplace, especially where their belief system cannot stand scrutiny. That is why they refuse to consider evidence that is contrary to their belief that molecules can by purely natural means, morph themselves into galaxies, stars, solar systems, planets, moons, and every living thing including men. While they bristle at such statements, they continue to censor criticism of their materialistic scenarios from the public eye. In so doing, they are admitting that they are without the evidence to support their uber- materialistic narratives. When someone like Dr. Jonathan Henry uses their own words against them, they cry foul and insist that creationists are quoting them out of context.

Our narrator continues, “Most of the stars like the Big Dipper are adolescents, roughly one half billion years old. They have already drifted apart from their birth cluster.” Now you understand why Tyson and other evolutionists will not give you all the facts. They know the problems that are inherent in their models of star formation, but they cannot tell you their stories with complete confidence, unless they censor the facts from their audience. We have already noted that the Nebular Hypothesis of star formation has serious problems. That for even one star to form by evolutionary means would require a power source that is not available in the known universe.  

What about our own Sun?
You cannot complete this story of star formation without bringing up the source that sustains life on our planet, the Sun. Dr. Tyson continues, “Our own Sun, from a distance of a few light years, is hard to find among the other stars. Our Sun is middle-aged and a long way from where it was born.” Then we are told that our Sun’s sister stars hatched from the same group and now they are dispersed through the galaxy. This enables our narrator to note, “Many have their own planets. Perhaps some of them nurture the evolution of life and intelligence. Most of the stars in our night sky actually orbit around one or more stellar companions.”

Now Dr. Tyson does what all the proponents of evolution always do. They tell you a nice story about our own sun, and then they continue to fantasize about the possibility or, in some cases, the probability of life somewhere out there in the vast universe. You need to understand that evolutionists have great faith that someday they will find alien life, elsewhere in the universe. When you believe something to be true, you will continue to promote it as a fact. There is only one problem with this nice little “just so” story of possible ET’s. Like Darwin’s theory, the facts do not support it. NASA has been diligently looking for life for decades. Others have been listening intently hoping to overhear a return call to ET. There have been billions of dollars expended to find evidence that we are not alone in the universe. After all, of the dollars spent as well as man hours listening for life and scouring the universe for goldilocks planets (that might support life), there is no evidence that there is life anywhere in the known universe, except on planet Earth.

If you doubt that hope of extraterrestrial life springs eternal in the minds of evolutionary cosmologists, I offer the following excerpt from an article I wrote for the Creation Studies Institute in 2010, entitled, NASA’s Big Announcement: Much ado about, nothing much:

Sometimes it appears that the entire race into space had one goal in mind, to discover extraterrestrial life. It all began very innocently, or so we thought. Search for water, because life (as we know it) requires water and, as every evolutionist knows, the formula for life is just add water and mix for a very long, long time, perhaps for a couple of hundred million years. Well, I guess that was just another oversimplification, or was it. As recently as this past November (2010), Science magazine published an article concerning liquid water found on the surface of Mars. True to form, Sushil Atreya of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor said, “Liquid water seems plausible, quite reasonable. If so, life might – just might – be holding out a bit beneath the surface of the martian artic.” [Kerr, Richard A. (2010). Growing Prospects for Life on Mars Divide Astrobiologists Science 1 October 2010: 26-27.] I rest my case.  

Now Dr. Tyson goes through the evolutionary version of the birth, life and death of our sun. Before we get nervous about this, Dr. Tyson explains, “Nothing lasts forever, even the stars die.” He lets us know that our own sun will become a red giant, it will bloat and become so large that it will engulf Mercury, Venus and possibly the Earth.” However, Dr. Tyson tells us that we have nothing to fear, “By that time, if life is still here, we will have found a new home among the stars.”

Is our Sun really middle-aged?
Evolutionary cosmologists tell us that our Sun is 4.6 billion years old, give or take. This is based upon the timeline of a 15.8 billion-year-old universe and the belief that our solar system formed at the same time as our own sun. The problem with these numbers has to do with evolutionary dogma than reality. What Tyson and other evolutionists will reveal is that there are unanswered questions concerning this timeline. The “Faint Sun Paradox,” like the Horizon problem and the Homogeneity problem of the Big Bang model, causes problems for their 4.6 billion year timeline. While they often claim that these problems are already, or will soon be, solved, the evolutionary timeline concerning our faint Sun remains problematic.     

Consider this excerpt from a paper by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Deputy Chairperson, Georg Feulner, entitled, The faint young Sun problem:

For more than four decades, scientists have been trying to find an answer to one of the most fundamental questions in paleoclimatology, the `faint young Sun problem.’ For the early Earth, models of stellar evolution predict a solar energy input to the climate system which is about 25% lower than today. This would result in a completely frozen world over the first two billion years in the history of our planet, if all other parameters controlling Earth's climate had been the same. Yet there is ample evidence for the presence of liquid surface water and even life in the Archean (3.8 to 2.5 billion years before present), so some effect (or effects) must have been compensating for the faint young Sun. A wide range of possible solutions have been suggested and explored during the last four decades, with most studies focusing on higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane or ammonia. All of these solutions present considerable difficulties, however, so the faint young Sun problem cannot be regarded as solved. [Feulner, Georg (2012). The faint young Sun problem. Reviews of Geophysics, pp. 1-32. American Geophysical Union.]  

This is an honest assessment of a serious problem concerning the evolutionary timeline assigned to our solar system. There are several assumptions that are in play with dating our Sun and solar system within the evolutionary timeline. Creation Ministry International’s Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. in chemistry from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, with regard to the Faint Young Sun Paradox wrote:

Any age calculations must make an assumption about the initial composition of the sun, assuming very little helium to begin with. Yet as shown above, this would make the sun colder. This is actually a severe problem for evolutionists. They believe that life appeared on the earth about 3.8 billion years ago. But if that were true, the sun would be 25% brighter today than it was back then. This implies that the earth would have been frozen at an average temperature of -3ºC. However, most paleontologists believe that, if anything, the earth was warmer in the past. This is called the young faint sun paradox.

In summary, this problem shows that the key unspoken assumption of the long-ager—low initial quantity of helium—is not only not supported, but is contradicted by the evidence. [Sarfati, Jonathan (2011). The Age of the Sun. Creation Ministries International. Accessed 5.12.14.]

While the faint young sun paradox may be a problem for those who ascribe to the billions of years of evolutionary time, it poses no difficulty whatsoever if our Sun not old at all, but of recent origin. 

Once again, through the magic of animation, we see our sun collapse until only a super hot core is left. Dr. Tyson explains, “It will collapse like a soufflé shrinking a hundred-fold to the size of the Earth. At that point, it will be so dense that its electrons will push back, stopping any further contraction. What is left is a white dwarf star, that Dr. Tyson tells us, “will go on shining dimly for another 100 billions years.”

Our narrator ventures into the realm of science fiction asking, “Will the beings of a distant future, sailing past this wreck of a star, have any idea of the life and worlds it once warmed?” Now we see some more of the spectacular images of stars in their death-throes. Tyson tells us, “lasting only tens of thousands of years before dissipating into the dust from which the new stars will be born.”

Because evolutionists are convinced only they know the truth, they are able to tell us these scenarios as if all the facts really support it. Like their “just so” story of star formation, their supreme confidence in their evolutionary timeline is clearly underscored by their belief that our sun, as Dr. Tyson put it, “is middle-aged and a long way from where it was born.” Did I fail to mention that there is zero evidence that stars form from cosmic dust clouds? Well I did, but that does not conform to evolution’s version and they won’t ever willingly let you know that.

Now we are introduced to binary stars. Dr. Tyson tells us, “They can have a very different fate.” We see Sirius, “the brightest star in the night sky.” We are told that Sirius has a very faint stellar companion, a white dwarf. It was once a Sun like star. One day when Sirius becomes a red giant, it will shed its substance onto the white dwarf. The intense gravity of the companion will trap that gas, attracting the gas and pulling it into a spiraling disk. When the gas of the large star falls onto the surface of the white dwarf, it will trigger nuclear explosions. Now with a flare for the dramatic, our narrator tells us, “The greatest burst will be called a nova, from the Latin for new, a star about 15 times as massive as the Sun. One like Rigel, the blue hypergiant that forms the right foot of Orion has a different fate in store. Its collapse will not be stropped by the pressure of electrons. The star will keep falling in on itself until; its nuclei become over crowded so that they push back.” “Rigel, Dr. Tyson continues, “will shrink down about 100 thousand times until there’s no space left between its nuclei and it can shrink no more.”

Dr. Tyson quickly moves back into the driver’s seat of his spaceship and tells us, “At that point, it ignites a supernova.” He continues, “Most stellar evolution takes millions or billions of years, but the interior collapse that triggers a supernova takes only seconds. What remains will be an atomic nucleus the size of a small city, a rapidly rotating neutron star called a pulsar.”

Through the magic of special effects, Dr. Tyson now pilots his spaceship into a star he says is “thirty times as massive as the Sun, like Alnilam in Orion’s Belt. There will be no stopping its collapse. In a few million years, when Alnilam runs out of fuel, it too will go supernova.” Our narrator tells us, “The imploding core of Alnilam will be so massive that not even nuclear forces will be able to hold off its collapse. Nothing can withstand such gravity! And such a star has an astounding destiny. It will continue to collapse crossing the boundary in spacetime called the event horizon, beyond which we cannot see.” Tyson continues, “When it transverses that frontier, the star will vanish completely from sight. It will be inside a black hole, a place where gravity is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape.”

Now Dr. Tyson leans forward in his seat and says, “But there’s even a more dramatic fate that awaits a rare kind of star, one of them is in our galaxy. It’s so unstable that when it goes, it won’t become a mere nova or supernova, it will become something even more catastrophic.” Now at this point, I am wondering what could be more catastrophic than being sucked beyond the boundaries of spacetime, but I am waiting for the payoff when Dr. Tyson leans forward again and says, “A hypernova.” He seems genuinely excited when he tells us, “It could happen in our lifetime.”

Cut to the night sky of the Australian Outback with our narrator saying, “No buildings, no cars, no streetlights – nothing out here but lots and lots of starlight, and the occasional kangaroo.” He continues, “You get a particularly good view of the Milky Way from down here. We live in a spiral galaxy. When we see the Milky Way, we’re seeing light from billions of stars in its spiral disk. And under this beautiful dark sky, I can see that the Milky Way isn’t a uniform band of light. There are dark patches, breaks in the starlight. Those dark patches are caused by interstellar dust. The dust blocks the starlight and there’s plenty of it.”

Those primitive pagans are at it again
Once more time, Dr. Tyson decides to remind everyone about how less evolved and  intelligent the men and women used to be. He notes that the people, “of most cultures looked up at the stars and connected the dots to form familiar images in the sky.” He continues, “But the aboriginal people of Australia saw a pattern in the darkness running through the Milky Way, they saw an emu, a large bird native to the continent, not in the stars, but in the absence of stars.”

Then Dr. Tyson said something that, among other things, did not sound quite right. He said, “There’s so many ways to look at the night sky. For millions of years or more, we’ve been watching the sky and lots happened in that time.” By the evolutionary timeline, humans have only been around for the past two hundred thousand years.  Perhaps he was referring to our primate predecessors, I simply do not know. Maybe he was speaking of the miniseries he is narrating, it was not clear. What I do know is that evolutionists have been pushing back the timeline for the appearance of humans over the past 150 years. The same adjustments are true of the cosmic timeline that in the 18th century blossomed, from the biblical timeline of 5 or 6 thousand years, to 75 thousand years. By the 19th century, the age of the earth was thought to be in the millions of years. In the early 20th century, geologists thought the earth to be 2 billion years old.

Once again, through the magic of animation and the suggestion that our eyes can be turned into telescopes, we get to see a close up of the Milky Way. We are told, “About 75 light years away, in another part of our galaxy, there’s an upheaval on an inconceivable scale.” From the helm of his spaceship, Tyson continues telling us, “This is the Carinae Nebula star-making machine. It takes a ray of light 50 years to cross it. The titanic stars born here sear the surrounding gas and dust with their fierce ultraviolet radiation. When a massive star dies, it blows itself to smithereens. Its substance is propelled across the vastness to be stirred by starlight and gathered up by gravity. Stars to dust and dust to stars. In the cosmos, our narrator tells us, nothing is wasted, but there is an upper limit to how massive a star can be.”

We have already documented the lack of evidence for the Nebular Hypothesis. In fact, it is well known within evolutionary circles that a star cannot form without another star that can trigger the ignition of a nuclear furnace. Rather than being honest and say, “We think that this might be the way stars are formed, but thus far the actual mechanism has eluded us,” evolutionists never do that. This series is a testament to how evolutionists use deception to convince people that what they are saying is irrefutably true. The way they speak, you would think that they not only had observed stars being born in litters or they had experimentally demonstrated this process. Neither of these aspects of empirical science is in play here. Therefore, when you do not have any real evidence, the next best thing is to say what you believe happened with an air of total certainty. This is not science; it is a commitment to naturalism and materialism that would make a religious zealot green with envy.

Now we hear about another star, Eta Carinae that exploded in 1843 becoming the 2nd brightest star in the sky. Dr. Tyson tells us, “It is outshined only by Sirius and its been flipping out ever since.” Cut to another excellent portrayal of what Eta Carinae looked like before it went supernova. Tyson remarks, “At its center is one crazy star. Talk about unstable; Eta Carinae is at least 100 times more massive than the Sun and it’s pouring out 500 million times more light.” Tyson continues, “It’s pushing the upper limit of what a star can be. What’s more, there’s evidence that Eta Carinae is being tormented by an evil twin. Another massive star in orbit around it, as close as Saturn is to the Sun.” Now Dr. Tyson explains, “If a star is too massive its radiation pressure overpowers its gravity and blows the star apart. The fate of Eta Carinae was sealed when it was born millions of years ago.”

“When it finally blows up, Dr. Tyson tells us, it will be a cataclysm like nothing we’ve ever seen before, a hypergiant.” Now we watch as this episode of the Cosmos simulates the exploding Eta Carinae telling us, “It will make a supernova look like a firecracker in comparison.” Now our narrator shifts gears from science to science fiction and says, “If there are nearby solar systems with planets harboring life, their days are numbered.” He finishes this segment by answering the question, “Are we safe?” He tells us to “rest assured everything will be just fine, noting we’re 7,500 light years from Eta Carinae.”

Our ancestors worshiped the Sun, but it’s OK because we are its children
It’s time for some wine, so Dr. Tyson returns from space. We find him in a vineyard where he tells us, “Our ancestors worshiped the Sun and they were far from foolish.” This is the same patronizing lingo that Dr. Tyson has used before to describe the pagans of the past. He continues, “It makes good sense to revere the Sun and stars, because we are their children.” Just like Tyson’s hero, Carl Sagan, these modern pagans wax poetic when they speak about our connection to the stars. Rather than worshipping the Creator, they are content to worship the creation. They go further than their aboriginal counterparts do, there’s no Greek mythology in their view. For them, it is animism pure and simple. Just listen to Dr. Tyson make the case for his heavenly father, the Sun. “The silicon in the rocks, the oxygen in the air, the carbon in our DNA, the iron in our skyscrapers, the silver in our jewelry were all made in the stars billions of years ago.” Then, as if on cue, Dr. Tyson sums up his ode to the stars by telling us, “Our planet, our society and we ourselves are stardust.”

Now Dr. Tyson changes direction and ponders, “But what is it that makes the atoms dance, transformed into everything that happens in our world, all that energy – we’re awash in it.” Our narrator gives us a short lesson in chemistry at work in our own Sun. He tells us, “When hydrogen atoms fuse inside the Sun, they make helium atoms. This fusion emits a burst of energy that will wander inside the Sun for 10 million years, before making it to the surface. Once there, it’s free to fly straight from the Sun to the earth as visible light.” If this all sounds familiar, it is because Dr. Tyson shared this verbatim in an earlier episode. He just loves to repeat the mantra of deep time, so he repeatedly does so every chance he gets. He continues, “If it should strike the face of a leaf, it will be stored in the plant as chemical energy.” Then, as we have seen in other parts of this series, Dr. Tyson waxes poetic noting, “Sunshine into moonshine.”

Now the camera cuts to a cluster of grapes. We see Dr. Tyson and an elderly woman sitting at a table with a bottle of vino nearby and a glass of wine in his hand. He toasts to the woman’s health and tells us, “I can feel the chemicals in the wine turning into the electrical energy in my thoughts directing my vocal chords to produce the acoustic energy in my voice. Such transformations of energy, Tyson tells us, are happening all the time. Energy from the stars drives the wind and the waves and the life around us.”

As Tyson has done in prior episodes, he takes biblical phrases and uses them to embellish his pagan worldview. He says, “How lucky we are to have this vast source of clean energy ‘falling like manna from heaven’ on all of us.” He then raises his glass of wine in a toast to Annie Jump Cannon, Henrietta Swan Leavitt and Cecelia Payne, for blazing the trail to modern astrophysics, and to all the sisters of the Sun.

Tyson is really a modern-day pagan
Back into the spaceship and Dr. Tyson is on the move. He tells us, “There’s no refuge from change in the cosmos. Some 10 or 20 million years from now, it will seem like for a cosmic moment, Orion is about to catch the Seven Sisters. But before he can get them in his clutches, the biggest stars in Orion will go supernova. Orion’s pursuit of Pleiades will finally end, and the Seven Sisters will glide serenely into the arms of the Milky Way.” Now Dr. Tyson reminds us, “We on Earth marvel, and rightly so, at the return of our solitary sun. But from a planet orbiting in a distant globular cluster, a still more glorious dawn awaits.” Tyson continues, “Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise. A morning filled with 200 billion suns, the rising of the Milky Way. An enormous spiral form with collapsing gas clouds, condensing with planetary systems with luminous supergiants, stable middle-aged suns, red giants, white dwarfs, planetary nebula, supernovas, neutron stars, pulsars, black holes, and there’s every reason to think exotic objects we have yet to discover.

I must admit that Dr. Tyson was on a role with his non-stop list of the objects that make up the Milky Way. I thought he would stop right there, but he was not done. He could not stop himself from revealing his hardcore animist beliefs. He opined, “For such a world, high above the Milky Way, it would be clear, as it is beginning to be clear on our own world, that we are made by the atoms and the stars, and that our matter and our form are forged by the great ancient cosmos of which we are apart.” Dr. Tyson’s closing statement is an accurate indication of what he really believes. This miniseries has regularly held pagans up as the examples of true religion. In this way, the writers of the Cosmos could use them as straw men. They could show how manmade religion is superstitious and often animistic. When you actually examine what Dr. Tyson and other atheistic evolutionary scientists believe, they really do worship the creation rather than the Creator. They exult in the “great ancient cosmos” and credit it for their very existence.

Part I :The Cosmos: It's déjà vu all over again
Part II
: The Cosmos, a Space Time Odyssey of Evolution Propaganda Par Excellence
Part III: The Cosmos, the secular version of “In the Beginning” continues
Part IV: The Cosmos: the Space Time Odyssey Continues
Part V:
Part VI: The Cosmos: Billions and Billions and Billions

Part VII: The Cosmos: Let the Brainwashing Continue
Part VIII: The Cosmos: Stargazing Evolution Style
Part IX: The Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey
Part X: The Cosmos: The Electric Boy

 

 
Dig Deeper
Alien Abductions DVD
Starlight, Time
Created Cosmos
Taking Back Astronomy