New!  Moonfinder Storybook!
We are very pleased to announce that our illustrated family storybook, Moonfinder, has finally been released!  Moonfinder is the story of a little boy who learns about the phases of the moon with his dad.  Moonfinder  is a full-color 32-page picture book, for small kids and for other readers of all ages.  Each illustration in Moonfinder is from an acrylic painting. 

 

 

 

 

Moonfinder was originally written in 1997, and was based on my own experiences with my oldest son David, who was a little boy at the time.  The paintings for Moonfinder were created from 1998 through 2000.  Dave is now a big teenager, nearly grown.  Though Moonfinder  was never successfully published at the time, we are happy to now bring forth Moonfinder as our third publication through Fourth Day Press.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Karen is correct, NASA missions, astrophysics and other such topics from "modern astronomy" are indeed beyond the scope of Classical Astronomy, but the goals of this Kepler mission are so lofty and outrageous that I feel compelled to make an exception from our usual discussion.

 

The website for the Kepler mission identifies the mission as "a search for habitable planets."  Kepler is the latest attempt by mainstream secular science to identify extrasolar planets far out in space that might be capable of evolving extraterrestrial life.  This "search for intelligent life on other planets" has been the Holy Grail of science-minded atheists for over a century, the elusive attempt to prove Universal Darwinism, that "we are not alone in the universe" here on the Earth.  The quest for extraterrestrial life on Mars is discussed in the Update Archive article, A Brief History of Mars. 

 

To this end, the Kepler spacecraft is conducting a sky survey to detect Earth-sized planets in the constellation Cygnus.  This part of the sky is in the Summer Triangle, and lies along the Milky Way.  As such, Kepler is examining a region of the sky with a high density of stars, so that the craft's instruments can look at many stars at once in the hopes of detecting planets.

 

Basically, Kepler is trying to detect transits of planets in front of these stars, very similar to the transits of Venus, where the planet lines up between the Earth and the star, so that a black speck representing the planet can be observed to pass over the surface of the star. 

 

The problem is, we cannot actually see a "disc" of a star like we can see the disc of the Sun.  This is because the stars are so far away that we can only see their light without a disc.  Even through the biggest telescopes, even the closest stars appear as infinitesimal pinpoints of light. 

 

Since the discs of the stars cannot be imaged, the Kepler craft includes light-measuring instruments for detecting miniscule dips in the brightness of these stars from the passage of the planet in front of the star.  These dips are very tiny, of a factor of about 1/10,000 or a 0.01 percent dip in brightness.  Measuring the amount of these dips in brightness, combined with the time interval of the dip, gives an indication of the size of the planet and also its distance from its parent star. 

 

A series of calculations would then result in a determination of whether the detected planet is of a suitable size and distance from the star so as to lie with a "habitable zone" where liquid water could exist.  If such a habitable zone could be identified, scientists would then be free to speculate as to whether such a planet could be capable of harboring "life as we know it."     

 

Interestingly, the light-measuring instruments in the Kepler craft were designed based on measurements of the dip in brightness of the Sun that was measured during the Venus transit of 2004.  In this manner, the amount of solar darkening from an Earth-sized planet was measured, thus giving astronomers a good guess for what to expect from planetary transits at other stars. 

 

Kepler is designed to monitor 100,000 stars at the same time, in the hopes of determining whether any Earth-like planets are detectable, and if so, finding as many as perhaps a couple hundred.  Such planets could only be detected if they have orbits that are lined up directly edge-on as seen from Earth.  This would be a very small percentage of possible orbits, about half of one percent, since planetary orbits could be tilted at any angle at all, as seen from the Earth. 

 

Throughout the history of astronomy, it was considered impossible to ever identify planets orbiting stars outside the solar system.  Then, in 1995, the science establishment was rocked by a clever new technique that presumed to identify extrasolar planets.  This technique was discovered by professional astronomer Geoff Marcy, who noted miniscule variations in the color of stars that repeated at regular intervals, "red shifts" alternating with "blue shifts" that were construed as resulting from an off-center rotation of a star corresponding to the gravity of a planet in orbit around the star.

 

The measured shifts were on the very edge of detectability, about as close to zero as one could expect.  Other scientists at the time proposed other explanations to account for these shifts, but the planet-detection interpretation caught on and became popular among the consensus of mainstream astronomers. 

 

Though the first extrasolar planets were presumed to be discovered by this this technique, the problem was, the measured shifts indicated very exotic planets compared to those known from our solar system, planets many times the size of Jupiter that circled their parent stars in highly elongated orbits much closer than the orbit of Mercury.  Such wild orbital gyrations would result in tremendous gravitational contortions for both star and planet, and such unusual star systems would be very different from our tame, peaceful solar system.

 

I happened to be attending Geoff Marcy's keynote address at the conference of the American Astronomical Society in Toronto, Ontario in 1997.  During the question-and-answer period, someone asked Marcy what his research has revealed as to the evolution of our solar system.  Marcy replied, "We've learned that our solar system should not exist!"  The audience of secular mainstream astronomers laughed heartily at this reply, and I may have been one of the few Christian creationists in the audience to appreciate the irony.  Naturally, this remark was not picked up by the mainstream media, and quietly sailed by. 

 

The Kepler mission utilizes a different principle from that of Geoff Marcy's original technique, in seeking to photometrically detect planetary transits.  Kepler has detected 15 planets at this time, but most of are similar to those already discovered, of a size comparable to Jupiter and in a very close orbit to the parent star.  The smallest thus far has a radius of 1.4 times that of Earth, but still extremely close to the star and far outside the range of a habitable zone. 

 

The objectives of the Kepler mission offer an excellent demonstration of the need for objective critical thinking when presented with pre-packaged scientific conclusions through the media and educational establishment.  In spite of all the harsh rhetoric typically directed at Christians for faith in the Bible, secular scientists have their own religious-type "faith" in ubiquitous universal evolution and the prevalence of intelligent life on other worlds, in the complete absence of any shred of evidence.  Yet their hope springs eternal, and this message is fed to the public through print publications, PBS specials, science fiction entertainment, and mainstream education.

 

Even if a great number of Earth-like planets in a habitable zone could be determined from Kepler, there are a great number of astronomical factors that enable such a celestial body to be considered a habitable planet like the Earth.  In many ways, the Earth is in a "Goldilocks" position in the universe, where the various conditions for supporting life are not too great or too little, but are rather "just right" to support life. 

 

Galaxy -- The Earth lies in a part of the galaxy with a low density of hot, active stars.  In the galactic center, for example, the density of hot stars is so great that any planets would be bombarded by deadly radiation from other nearby stars, thereby precluding the biochemistry needed for life to exist.  Any other Earth-like extrasolar planet would have to be similarly situated in the galaxy.

 

Habitable Zone -- Within the solar system, the orbit of the Earth lies within the habitable zone around the Sun, thereby allowing the existence of liquid water.  The Earth's orbit is slightly off-center, and the Earth is 3 million miles closer to the Sun in January than it is in July.  Nonetheless, the Earth's orbit is still very circular, and not elliptical like the comets, which extend from the frozen reaches of the solar system, and swing very close to the Sun, within the orbit of Mercury.  Other extrasolar planets would have to be similarly situated around their parent stars.

 

Magnetic Field -- Very importantly, the Earth is the only one of the solid, rocky inner planets of our solar system to have a significant magnetic field.  Earth's magnetic field protects us from the hard radiation from the Sun, and also cosmic rays from outer space.  While the gas giants like Jupiter have magnetic fields, Mars does not, which is one of the many reasons why it unlikely that humans could ever successfully colonize Mars.  Any habitable extrasolar planets would also require such a magnetic field, and such would be detectable by scientists on Earth. 

 

Jupiter -- Many mainstream scientists believe that a massive body such as Jupiter is required to sweep the solar system clear of asteroids, comets and other cosmic debris that would otherwise collide with the Earth. Also, Jupiter's gravity helps keep the Earth's orbit stable, so that it remains circular over time.  According to such presumptions by evolutionary scientists, any habitable extrasolar planet would require a massive body like Jupiter to keep the planet safe for supporting life.

 

The Moon -- In addition to being the "lesser light to rule the night," our Moon raises the tides, which has important effects of transfering heat around the Earth, keeping it from being too hot in the tropics and too cold at the poles.  Also, the Moon's gravity maintains the Earth's axis at its inclination of 23.5 degrees, insuring the ongoing regularity of the seasons (Genesis 8:22).  In this way, the Moon insures a stable climate for the annual crop cycle of growing food, necessary for supporting life.  It would seem that any habitable extrasolar planet would also require a similar stabilizing influence.

 

Oceans -- The Earth's surface is 70% water, and the oceans are an important part of renewing the oxygen supply and supporting the food chain.  Any extrasolar planet capable of supporting "life as we know it" would require an abundant water supply such as the oceans.  Even if an Earth-like extrasolar planet could be detected, there would be no way that scientists on Earth could detect the presence of water.

 

One could go on and on listing all the many factors that make our home world, the Earth, a unique body in the vastness of the known universe, having a unique set of conditions specifically tailored to support "life as we know it."  The Earth is the only place we know of in the universe where one could simply "go outside" without a special environmental suit to protect the wearer from deadly conditions.    

 

Any detected extrasolar planets would need to be virtually identical to the Earth in nearly every respect that we could imagine, in order to support even hardy bacteria, let alone complex life such as human beings.  If we apply critical thinking, or use the calculations of secular mainstream science, it quickly becomes apparent that there is a statistically neglible chance of ever finding such a perfectly identical environment.  Even if such a place were discovered, there is no way, based on any foreseeable physics, that we could ever leave the Earth to visit such places.

 

These sorts of arguments are commonly cited by creationists and intelligent design proponents to demonstrate that there is every scientific reason to suppose that the Earth is a unique place in the universe, based on the best scientific data currently available or foreseeable in the future.  There is a stream within mainstream secular science, the "rare earth" hypothesis, that acknowledges these special properties of the Earth as necessary for enabling evolution.  Other secular scientific philosophies such as "the anthropic principle" admit that the universe appears to be remarkably tailored, at a fundamental level, to possess properties needed to support intelligent life, without acknowledging a Creator.

 

Nonetheless, ideological Trekkies and other proponents of Universal Darwinism are undeterred by any lack of data in their hope that the universe is teeming with intelligent life.  Even though the scientific and technical problems are virtually insurmountable, these adherents typically wave aside such difficulties, presenting aesthetic arguments such as "The Waste of Space" theory, which essentially posits that, "there MUST be life on other planets, otherwise there would be no point or meaning or purpose to their existence." 

 

Such non-scientific reasoning presumes, among other things, that the presence of intelligent life is necessary in order for existence to have meaning and purpose.  Indeed, if the universe is in fact mindless, and somehow automatically produces order out of chaos through natural processes, there would be no need for emotional human abstractions such as "meaning and purpose."  Meanwhile, Biblical Christians are not encumbered by such philosophical difficulties, holding rather to the notion that the universe has meaning and purpose to its Creator, who said "it is good."

 

Therefore, though the Kepler mission may succeed in detecting Earth-like planets, neither this mission nor any missions that may follow it in the future will be able to detect evidence of whether life is present on such planets, nor whether such life is capable of intelligence, let alone creating a technology, and certainly not whether such life could have evolved spontaneously, without the intervention of a sovereign LORD.    

 

Hope that answers your question, Karen, and thanks for asking!