Planet, Planet, Number 9!
- By Jim Steel. Note, this is a slightly longer article.
Readers may wish to scan the main points (in bold) before beginning.
“Mystery of Planet Nine: Hubble
Data Shows Exoplanet Possible”
See the full NewsMax article.
…What scientists are observing:
Thanks again to the Hubble Space Telescope and
NASSA, evidence is mounting that there is an eccentric, Jupiter-like exoplanet
(HD 106906 b) orbiting in a debris field far away from its “host stars.” In the
words of Meiji Nguyen from U.C. Berkley as quoted in the Astronomical
Journal: "It's very
widely separated from its host stars on an eccentric and highly misaligned
orbit, just like the prediction for Planet Nine. This begs the question of how
these planets formed and evolved to end up in their current
configuration."
The existence of this elusive Planet Nine
(theorized in 2016), existing 100 billion miles away, and ten times the size of
earth is said to be “tilting the solar system.” The article quotes another
space team expert, Paul Kalas, "It's as if we have a time
machine for our own planetary system going back 4.6 billion years to see what
may have happened when our young solar system was dynamically active and
everything was being jostled around and rearranged,"
...What the scientists are trying to
do:
1.) The theory that there is an elusive Planet
Nine has been theorized for four or five years now, and it is based on
anomalous behavior within our solar system which includes orbits behaving in a non-predictable
way. 2.) Hubble has just gathered evidence that there is a Jupiter-like
exoplanet orbiting in an anomalous eccentric pattern 4.6 billion light years
away. 3.) This observation provides a logical precedent for concluding that
there could be such a thing as Planet Nine, because we may now be observing behavior
like the eccentric pattern which seems to be associated with Planet Nine
elsewhere in the universe. The logic (if it is observable elsewhere it is
possible here) makes sense, but the assumptions infused into the argument are
lethal.
…Why this
matters:
Almost all new discoveries present themselves
first, as anomalies. The would-be empirical scientist seeks to make sense out
of a particular phenomenon by integrating it with the data that has already
been verified, and, using tools that have already been certified, develops new
explanations. That is the stuff of science.
Now, for what should not be the stuff of
science. Much of what we hear pronounced in the name of science is anything
but. We are going to use this news clipping as an exercise in how to separate
fact from assumption. We posit the challenge to evaluate the above listed quotations
from our highly qualified and respected luminaries, Nguyen and Kalas while
offering three simple guidelines for testing what a scientist declares to be
fact.
Key #1. Is the scientific claim based
upon facts or mere consensus? We need to ask
this because virtually every scientific (not technological) advance in history
has been opposed by scientific consensus. We can begin with a backward look at
the hilarious protests of the British Royal Society and move all the way
forward to the persistent censorship currently being pressed upon free thinkers
within the scientific community. Gold standards are in place for a reason and
they are helpful. However, those very standards which are meant to protect us
and keep us on course, can be the very standards that forbid open-minded
thinking. While no one is presently challenging the Hubble data regarding HD
106906 b in our planetary discussion, notice as Nguyen begins his comparative
logic:
"It's very widely separated from its host
stars on an eccentric and highly misaligned orbit, just like the prediction for
Planet Nine…”
Nguyen is drawing a parallel between an assumed 4
billion-year-old phenomenon and a relatively contemporary one. Theoretical
physicists are prone to describe “early creation” as being much like our early
wild west. In this manner, they do not have to be accountable to the same
universal laws which are now in place. Evolution has given them a pass. They
can pick and choose. When data does not correspond to their hypothesis they can
discount it on the basis that the primal universe was all but chaotic. When data
fits, even roughly, they use it to argue their point (as in using microwaves to
allege the big bang). Now, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You cannot
be a uniformitarian and an evolutionist. Either the universe is governed
through an explicit set of laws that are always predictable, or we must look
for an alternate explanation to explain planetary behavior. While evolution has
been credited with many startling intelligences and abilities, no one has
endowed it with the ability to evolve laws as needed – at least at this point.
Nguyen assumes that all the so-called laws of
the universe are in perfect synchronization with each other, functioning in a
manner consistent with clockwork. That is why he can build his argument for
Planet Nine from HD 106906 b. This planetary behavior is certainly atypical,
but it is only atypical relative to Nguyen’s uniformitarian assumption of
synchronicity. Bible believers have an alternate perspective from
uniformitarianism. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is interactively
carrying His creation forward. This is not to suggest that the laws of Christ
which govern our universe are not synchronous and generally predictable. It is,
however, to suggest that Jesus Christ carries the creation forward at His own
behest and can and does make whatever adjustments He pleases. The laws of the
universe (principles of consistency found in Christ) are subject to His
providential machinations (Colossians 1:16-18). If there is a Ninth Planet
skewing the entire solar system, it is part of a divinely purposed mechanic.
For those who are in bondage to consensus and
who are aghast at the incredulity that the universe does not always function according
to its so-called inherent laws, we offer a counter challenge. Will such a
reader please explain why we have multiple schools of theoretical physics,
borrowing our assumptions from Newton, Einstein, astrophysics, nanomechanics,
and String Theory – none of which agree with each other, even at their basic
premises? Modern speculative scientists are far more guilty of proof texting
from their own church fathers than they are consistent in offering us a unified
world view. Like some church leaders, they must establish a dominant consensus (rule
of faith) in order to obscure a failed interpretive hermeneutic.
Key #2. Is the scientific claim empirical
or religious?
The second part of Nguyen’s statement amplifies our
point: “…This begs the question of how these planets formed and
evolved to end up in their current configuration." Notice the religious license which Nguyen takes without
blinking. He assumes the universe evolved. He assumes it evolved consistently.
He assumes that the same laws which were in motion billions of years ago are in
effect. These are all religious assumptions which have never been verified
empirically. Nguyen assumed these planets self-formed and self-evolved. This
requires immutable, self-existing, vitalistic, forward moving laws. So, the
question which he is “begging” is not the question on the floor, or at least,
not the first question he should be pondering.
This issue of religious presumption inside so-called
science runs deep. Basic assumptions that seem ever so innocent compound and,
by nature, tempt the scientist to be dishonest, especially when his peers share
his same vision. Imagine a pond of water with a path of paved bricks leading
into it. Imagine a path of paved bricks leading out of the pond directly across
the water. The assumption is that there is a path leading through the water. The
scientist who takes one piece of data from one side of the pond and correlates
it with what is on the other side has had to use his imagination, but he has
not yet discovered fact. We see scientists doing this in every field to make
their hypotheses work. For example, we draw images of mankind evolving from
animal to homo sapiens going through various states which have never been
empirically observed or verified except in the imagination of the artist. Once
one has assumed the earth is flat, he will go to any length to fit the facts
into his theory. Worse, he will construe his protagonists as being closed-minded.
We are not suggesting that scientists should not
be imaginative. We are suggesting that modern science has created a
non-existent virtual reality by compounding so many assumptions that we have,
in effect, moved from empiricism to religion.
Key #3. Does the scientific claim
consider all the alternate explanations?
Paul Kalas notes: "It's
as if we have a time machine for our own planetary system going back 4.6
billion years to see what may have happened when our young solar system was
dynamically active and everything was being jostled around and
rearranged," We have already conceded the need
for imagination in scientific discovery. Perhaps we will be able to verify the
existence of Planet Nine. That is not the issue. The issue is this: When
imagination turns to declaration, we are no longer scientific. Kalas would have
us looking 4.6 billion years back into time to substantiate our interpretive
model. He has assumed the immutable relationship between the speed of light and
time. He has assumed that time as we know it is constant. He has assumed none
of the laws of the universe have ever been interrupted or altered in any way. Therefore,
what he has stated as fact is nonscientific.
Having addressed the problem of religious
assumptions among scientists, we need to be clear on one additional matter. Our
problem is when we treat a given set of assumptions as factual we no longer look
elsewhere for solutions. We become closed-minded. There may or may not be a Planet
Nine, but a smoking gun reveals our prejudice: In this case, both Nguyen and
Kalas are entertaining the notion that Planet Nine may truly exist, based on secondhand
evidence. They have observed that something may be there on the bases of skewed
elliptical orbits. However, when a Bible believer comes along and mounts the
same kind of logical argument, evidence gathered from thousands of empirically
verifiable sources, he will be laughed out of the court of scientific consensus
as being religious.
Recently I placed some money in someone’s bank
account. Because he had no money in the account, he assumed there was no reason
to look at it. He did not benefit because he did not look. By accepting the
fundamental, empirically unverifiable premise of science, (namely, that the
creation is self-creating, self-organizing and self-perpetuating) we have
closed our minds to the existence of a God who will one day hold us accountable
for refusing the knowledge of God (Romans 1:19-21, 2 Peter 3:1-9).
The scientific world has opened many wonderful
doors for the advance of technology. However, the scope of science is limited
to a restricted segment in the spectrum of human knowledge. Not only can Bible
believers mount a more comprehensive and cohesive world view, but their
explanations also go beyond the empirical. They have compiled tomes of evidence
from both within and outside of the creation arguing for a holistic and
balanced world view. So long as we refuse to consider the intelligent and
rational arguments of scripture in preference to adopting the truisms of the
hour, we will remain, sadly, in the grips of whatever myths are presently in
vogue.
…What God is really doing:
Not only does the Bible speak articulately about
the creation, adamantly arguing that it came into being by one instantaneous
fiat, the Bible argues that this creation points to His existence, His
phenomenal intelligence and wisdom, and His power. This evidence is replete and
undeniable. The deeper one peers into nanomechanics or the further one peers toward
the end of the universe; he sees a system that shows the same hand at work. He
sees consistency.
Further, God can and does reveal Himself to
those who seek Him. He has offered a path back to Himself. Ironically, that
path does not begin with either scientific or philosophical investigation. It
begins with a Person, the Lord Jesus Christ, the One who created and carries
forth the whole creation. Don’t be fooled by the consensus. Don’t be closed-minded. Open your mind and open your Bible. Learn what it is really saying for
yourself.
Featured Scriptures
The Origin of the Universe
For by him were all things created,
that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they
be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created
by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things
consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the
firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. - Colossians
1:16-18
Our Closed Mindedness
Because that which may be known of
God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible
things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they
are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as
God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their
foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became
fools, - Romans
1:19-21
Our Willing Ignorance
Knowing this first, that there shall
come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying,
Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all
things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they
willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and
the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that
then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth,
which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against
the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant
of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a
thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as
some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any
should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord
will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away
with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth
also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. – 2 Peter 3:3-9
Insurmountable Evidence
The heavens declare the glory of
God; and the firmament shows his handywork. Day unto day utters speech, and
night unto night shows knowledge. here is no speech nor language, where their
voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their
words to the end of the world... – Psalm 19:1-4
An Inescapable Command
God that made the world and all
things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in
temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he
needed anything, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And
hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the
earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their
habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him,
and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live,
and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For
we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we
ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone,
graven by art and man’s device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at;
but now commands all men everywhere to repent: Because he hath appointed a day,
in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath
ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised
him from the dead. -Acts 17:24-30
Planetary image before modification: Image by <a href="https://pixabay.com/users/comfreak-51581/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=439046">Comfreak</a> from <a href="https://pixabay.com/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_
