Can one rely on a theory of the Solar System formation that lacks evidence and violates fundamental laws of physics? The most popular and modern explanation of this process comes from the Nebular Hypothesis. The latter suggests that all heavenly bodies, including planets, form due to the collapse of the nebula and further movement of gas and dust around the Sun (Patterson, 2010). Under the theory, the accretion process eventually ends, forming planets that cool down and evolve over a long period. Although it is the most prominent secular theory, it should be revised or discarded due to various contradictions and theoretical gaps. To my mind, the modern, highly theoretical explanations are not able to refute the history of the Solar System creation presented in Genesis. Nebular Hypothesis fails to address mass and angular momentum conservation, a “chicken-and-egg” problem, and lack of initial material in the disks to form the exoplanets. It also struggles to explain why heavenly bodies in other stellar systems spin in the opposite way to their parent star. Hence, it is not the best explanation for the phenomenon in question.
The theory may explain the formation of the later generations of stars, but it does not explain how the first generation was formed. This problem is referred to as the “chicken-and-egg” problem since the formation of the new star system requires an already formed supernova. The main issue is that gravity is not enough to cause a collapse of the heated gases and stop the nebula expansion due to increased pressure (Patterson, 2010). To address it, secular scientists claim that the explosion of the nearby supernova causes a shock that helps to overcome the gas pressure. It is a circular argument that tells nothing about protostar creation in case of the absence of external influence.
The next issue is the violation of the law of conservation of mass that suggests the mass of the closed system remains stable over time. It is believed that all heavenly bodies in the planetary systems form around the sun from dust and gasses (Gollmer et al., 2016). The particles eventually make massive clumps of matter by colliding and sticking together. Nevertheless, Hebert (2018) reports that dust disks of young star systems do not have enough material to form a system similar to the older ones with exoplanets. It means that it is only an assumption and planets may not be formed from these materials, while the disk itself can be a product of destructive processes.
Nebular Hypothesis proponents also struggle to explain why the Sun has 99% of the Solar System’s mass and spins much slower than it should. In other words, it does not meet the law of conservation of angular momentum. Under the latter, the body with a more significant mass should spin faster and set the rotation direction (clockwise or counterclockwise) for the planets, moons, and other bodies in the planetary system. Both of these ideas remain no more than assumptions since the Nebular Hypothesis cannot account for some exoplanets that orbit backward to the parent star (Hebert, 2018). In other words, it only explains the counterclockwise motion of the bodies of our gravitationally bound system.
Genesis tells the story of the planetary system created by God. It teaches that Lord made the sun, stars, and moon on day four following the creation of the Earth on day one (Faulkner, 2021). It means that Earth was created before the Moon, stars, and Sun. This idea contrasts with the evolutionary perspective that suggests protostar formation surrounded by moving clouds of dust and gas. The Bible’s history of the Solar System creation does not violate mentioned laws and entails possible variations between the planetary systems that contrast with the Hypothesis’s universal view. According to Faulkner (2021), our Solar System is not typical since its large gas giants are not close to the Sun. What is more, the way comets and objects of the Kuiper belt constantly lose mass questions the notion that the Solar System is 4.5 billion years old (Patterson, 2010). On the contrary, comets confirm a young universe and fit more within the Biblical timeframe of 6,000 years.
The proponents of the Nebular Hypothesis try to explain the issue of angular momentum with a debatable magnetic field braking mechanism. They refer to the idea that comets, which are remnants of the star formation process, are added to the Solar System. Evolutionists also believe that the flattened disks may have enough material to form exoplanets at the initial stages of the stars’ existence (Faulkner, 2021). However, the latter argument contradicts the accretion theory since the early-forming planets should be giant. Other assumptions are not based on observations and provide mere presumptions that compliment other facts.
To conclude, the Nebular Hypothesis is not the best explanation for the origin of the Solar System. At the moment, this theory fails to address such issues as the “chicken-and-egg” problem and violation of the laws of conservation of mass/conservation of angular momentum. It also struggles to explain why other planetary system’s bodies have different rotations and why our gas giants are not close to the Sun. The totally different biblical creation narrative presented in Genesis currently seems to be the best option to explain the Solar System’s origin. Evolutionists should put more effort if they want to convince the world to accept and follow the Nebular Hypothesis.
References
Faulkner, D. R. (2021). What about the origin of the Solar System and the planets? Answers in Genesis.
Gollmer, S. M., Faulkner, D. R., Whitmore, J. H., & Ross, M. (2016). The heavens and the Earth: Excursions in Earth and space sciences. Kendall Hunt Publishing.
Hebert, J. (2018). Nebular Hypothesis doesn’t hold together. ICR.
Patterson, R. (2010). Evolution exposed: Earth science. Answers in Genesis.
