Misinterpretations in Danny Faulkner's article: "What About the Origin of the Solar System and the Planets?"

HL TAU Protoplanetary Disc and the Nebular Hypothesis 

Danny Faulkner, an astronomer associated with the young-Earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis, presents arguments in his 2021 article "What About the Origin of the Solar System and the Planets?" that attempt to cast doubt on the widely accepted nebular hypothesis for the formation of the solar system. While raising some interesting questions, Faulkner's arguments often rely on misinterpretations of scientific evidence and a selective presentation of data. This analysis will address some of the key scientific inaccuracies in his article and provide a more accurate representation of the current understanding of solar system formation.

The Nebular Hypothesis and Angular Momentum

Faulkner's primary critique of the nebular hypothesis centers on the distribution of angular momentum within the solar system. He correctly states that the Sun, while containing the vast majority of the solar system's mass, possesses a small fraction of its angular momentum. The planets, particularly the gas giants, hold the majority of the angular momentum. Faulkner argues that this distribution contradicts the nebular hypothesis, which predicts that the Sun should retain most of the angular momentum.

However, this argument overlooks several key factors. Firstly, the nebular hypothesis does not predict a simple, linear relationship between mass and angular momentum. The distribution of angular momentum is influenced by various complex processes during the early stages of solar system formation, including magnetic fields, turbulence, and the transfer of angular momentum from the Sun to the protoplanetary disk.

Secondly, recent observations of young stellar systems have revealed similar distributions of angular momentum, with the central star possessing a small fraction of the total angular momentum. 

This suggests that the distribution observed in our solar system is not unusual and can be explained within the framework of the nebular hypothesis.

Planetary Formation and Differentiation

Faulkner also raises concerns about the process of planetary formation and differentiation, suggesting that the nebular hypothesis cannot adequately explain the layered structures observed in planets. He argues that the accretion of planetesimals would result in a homogenous mixture of materials, not the differentiated layers of core, mantle, and crust seen in Earth and other planets.

However, this argument neglects the role of heat and gravity in planetary differentiation.  As planetesimals accrete, the gravitational energy is converted into heat, leading to the melting of the planet's interior. 

This allows denser materials, such as iron and nickel, to sink towards the center, forming the core, while lighter materials rise to the surface, forming the mantle and crust. This process of differentiation is well-understood and supported by extensive evidence from geophysics and planetary science.

Exoplanetary Systems and the Nebular Hypothesis

Faulkner briefly mentions exoplanetary systems, suggesting that their diversity challenges the nebular hypothesis. However, the opposite is true. The discovery of thousands of exoplanetary systems with a wide range of characteristics has actually strengthened the nebular hypothesis. While these systems exhibit diversity, they also share many common features that can be explained by the nebular hypothesis, such as the presence of protoplanetary disks and the tendency for planets to orbit in the same plane as the star's rotation.

Conclusion

Danny Faulkner's article raises some thought-provoking questions about the origin of the solar system. However, his arguments often rely on incomplete or misleading interpretations of scientific evidence. The nebular hypothesis remains the most widely accepted explanation for the formation of the solar system, and it is supported by a vast body of observational and theoretical evidence. While there are still unanswered questions and ongoing research in this field, the basic tenets of the nebular hypothesis are well-established and consistent with our current understanding of the universe.

It is important to note that scientific inquiry is an ongoing process, and our understanding of the universe is constantly evolving. However, it is crucial to base our understanding on sound scientific principles and evidence, rather than relying on selective interpretations or misinformation.

Snippets by Danny Faulkner changing his view?

“More recently, astronomers have found disks of material around other stars that astronomers think are very young.

All of these sorts of things have been put forth as proof of the prevailing theory of solar system formation.

So these data all amount to sorts of snapshots of various stars and other astronomical bodies supposedly in various stages of the process of stellar and planetary formation

Do stars form today? Biblically, we do not have a clear answer.

Some recent creationists think that since Genesis 1 records that God made the stars on day 4, no more stars are being made.

There is no reason why stars could not form today (e.g., it would not be inconsistent with a biblical worldview)

A creationist could just as easily state that since all things were made by God, then anything that exists was made by Him.

Since so many other planetary systems exist, then God must have made them all, just as He made our solar system.

Planets must be common in the universe, and hence planetary system formation must be common in the universe today.

Since planetary systems are common, planetary formation must be simple and straightforward, which proves that our solar system must have formed through such a process.

While the Bible does not tell us much about how the solar system came into being, it does give us some information about when the earth and the rest of the solar system came into existence.”