Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 1 


Supplementary Material




We have examined specific aspects of the Big Bang theory. Now we should let the scientists speak for themselves. What do they have to say about the explosion theory of universal origin? Here are the statements of a number of prominent astronomers:

*Sagan defends the Big Bang as originating from a "cosmic egg."

"Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened the Big Bang, the event that began our universe . . That it happened is reasonably clear. All the matter and energy now in the universe was concentrated at extremely high density, a kind of cosmic egg . . The entire universe, matter and energy they fill, occupied a very small volume. *Carl Sagan, Cosmos (1980), p. 246.

*Jastrow informs us that all the evidence which would prove that the Big Bang had ever occurred was destroyed in the initial explosion! (Fortunately, we have enough other information that we can clearly disprove the theory anyway.)

"All the evidence needed for a scientific study of the cause of the great explosion was melted down and destroyed . . [in] the searing heat of that first moment." *Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1978), p. 12.

*Krauskopf questions the possibility of how matter could magically appear out of such a primeval explosion:

"A number of scientists are unhappy with the big bang theory . . For one thing, it leaves unanswered the questions that always arise when a precise date is given for the creation of the universe. Where did the matter come from in the first place?" *A. Krauskopf and *A. Beiser, The Physical Universe (1973), p. 645.

*Narlikar wrote an entire article in a scientific journal questioning this strange theory. Here are some of his opening words:

"Some cosmologists, albeit a minority, do sometimes wonder whether the confidence so often claimed in the big bang picture is justified by our observational knowledge. In this article I will air a few of these misgivings. ""Jayant Narlikar, "Was There a Big Bang?" in New Scientist, July 2, 1981, p. 19.

"Burbidge concludes his article against the Big Bang in this way:

"The evidence in favor of a big bang cosmology is much less definite than is widely realized . . This concludes my discussion of direct observational evidence bearing on whether or not the universe is evolving and began in a dense state. I believe that if one attempts to evaluate this evidence objectively there is still no really conclusive evidence in favor of such a universe." *G. Burbidge, "Was There Really a Big Bang?" in Nature 233 (1971), pp. 36, 39.

*Trefil summarizes what he sees as four of the most basic problems with the Big Bang theory:

"There are four fundamental problems associated with our picture of the Big Bang. Three of these are problems of the first kind [basic disagreements], and a failure to resolve them would have to be taken as evidence of a major weakness in our understanding. These problems are (1 ) why there is so little antimatter in the universe, (2) how the galaxies could have formed in the time allotted for this process, and (3) why the universe is isotropic [a universe the same physically in all directions]. In addition, there is one problem of the second kind that is traditionally associated with the three problems of the first kind: why the mass of the universe is so close to the critical value required to close the universe." *J. Trefil, The Moment of Creation: Big Bang Physics (1983), p. 48.

*Alfven considers the success of the theory in capturing the minds of so many scientists as the result of a cover-up operation:

"There has been remarkably little discussion of whether the basic big bang hypothesis is correct or not . . The large body of observations which are not in agreement with it are either accounted for by numerous ad hoc hypotheses [hypotheses especially selected to prove a predetermined viewpoint] or simply neglected." *H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma (1981), p. 125.

*Narlikar ascribes the acceptance the theory has enjoyed as being due to minds closed to other possibilities:

"These arguments should indicate to the uncommitted that the big-bang picture is not as soundly established, either theoretically or observationally, as it is usually claimed to be. . The cosmological problem is still wide open and alternatives to the standard big-bang picture should be seriously investigated.

"The reason that alternatives like these are not so well known or not well enough investigated is partly because of the prevalent view that the big bang picture correctly describes the Universe. Personally, I think that closing one's options at this stage is harmful to the development of the subject as a branch of science. Astrophysicists of today who hold the view that 'the ultimate cosmological problem" [the origin of matter] has been more or less solved, may well be in for a few surprises before this century runs out." *Jayant Narlikar, "Was There a Big Bang?" in New Scientist, July 2, 1981, pp. 19, 21.

*Alfven views the present situation as little better than desperate attempts to save a rapidly crumbling theory:

"On the other hand, there are an increasing number of observational facts which are difficult to reconcile in the Big-Bang hypothesis. The Big Bang establishment very seldom mentions these, and when non-believers try to draw attention to them, the powerful establishment refuses to discuss them in a fair way . .

"The present situation is characterized by rather desperate attempts to reconcile observations with the hypothesis to 'save the phenomena.' One cannot avoid thinking of the state under the Ptolemaean epoch [when everyone had to accept the teaching that the sun, planets, and stars orbited the earth]. An increasing number of ad hoc assumptions are made, which in a way correspond to the Ptolemaean introduction of more and more epicycles and eccentrics. Without caring very much for logical stringency, the agreement between these ad hoc assumptions with the Big-Bang hypothesis is often claimed to support the theory.

"In reality, with the possible exception of the microwave background condition, there is not a single prediction which has been confirmed." *H. Alfven, "Cosmology: Myth or Science?" in Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy 5 (1970), p. 1203. [Alfven was a Nobel Prize recipient.]

*Brillouin sees the theory as not much more than wishful thinking and science fiction:

"Some . . sciences are a curious mixture of observation, coupled with interpretations. . with an extrapolation so far from actual experiment that one may feel shivering and wondering: how much wishful thinking, how much science fiction. It is splendid to discuss the creation of our world, but never forget that you are dreaming, and do not expect the reader to believe in any model, whether with a sudden atomic explosion or with a story expanding back and forth . . All this is too wonderful to be true, too incredible to be believable . . We are still very far from understanding cosmogony." *L Brillouin, Relativity Reexamined (1970), pp. 2-3.

*Oldershaw charges that a deliberate refusal to consider alternative facts is involved:

"The standard 'Big Bang' model has come into increasing conflict with improving observational data and may require substantial modification . . [There is] a deliberate refusal on the part of some theorists to accept such results when they appear to be in conflict with some of the present oversimplified . . theories." *R. Oldershaw, "The Continuing Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology" in Astrophysics and Space Science 92 (1983), p. 357.

* Hoyle says that the oppressive fear to speak out and consider facts has resulted in a sickly pall over the entire theory:

"A number of serious difficulties have to be ignored, swept under the rug, difficulties which indeed it may never be possible to resolve from within this particular theory . .

"I have little hesitation in saying that as a result a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory. As I have mentioned earlier, when a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that it rarely recovers." *Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution (1983), pp. 179, 186.

Even *Shapely, an evolutionist of the evolutionists, admits that the origin of matter and the universe is probably beyond the realm of theory and science to penetrate:

"In the very beginning, we say, were hydrogen atoms; of course there must have been something antecedent, but we are not wise enough to know what. Whence came these atoms of hydrogen, these atoms, 20,000,000,000,000 (and 66 additional zeros) in number atoms that we now believe have been forged into the material make-up of the universe. What preceded their appearance, if anything? That is perhaps a question for metaphysics.

"The origin of origins is beyond astronomy. It is perhaps beyond philosophy in the realm of the to-us-unknowable." *Harlow Shapely, "On the Evolution of Atoms, Stars and Galaxies, " in Adventures in Earth History (1970), p. 77.

*de Vaucouleurs sees the theory as a shambles of too much theory and too little solid evidence; something that the next century of scientists will consider quite foolish:

"Nevertheless, the few facts and figures which in the past 40 years have been given prominence as particularly relevant to cosmology are still too little understood and often too poorly established or too recently discovered to form a solid basis for a 'final' solution . . Is it not possible, indeed probable, that our present cosmological ideas on the structure and evolution of the universe as whole (whatever that may mean) will appear hopelessly premature and primitive to astronomers of the 21st century?" *G. de Vaucouleurs, "The Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology, " in Science 167 (1970), p. 1203.

*O'Rahilly questions whether scientists really know what they are talking about when they write their theories about those origins:

"Can we really be sure of the standard [the Big Bang] model? Will new discoveries overthrow it and replace the present standard model with some other cosmogony, or even revive the steady-state model? Perhaps. I cannot deny a feeling of unreality in writing about the first three minutes [of the Big Bang explosion] as if we really know what we are talking about." *A. O'Rahilly, Electromagnetic Theory (1965), pp. 335-336.

*de Vaucouleurs throws up his hands in despair at the situation:

"Less than 50 years after the birth of what we are pleased to call 'modern cosmology,' when so few empirical facts are passably well established, when so many different oversimplified models of the universe are still competing for attention, is it, may we ask, really credible to claim, or even reasonable to hope, that we are presently close to a definite solution of the cosmological problem." *G. de Vaucouleurs, "The Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology, " in Science 167 (1970), p. 1203.

*Gribben fears it may end up being a wrong turn into a blind alley for science:

"Perhaps cosmologists have been charging up a blind alley for the past quarter of a century, and there never was a big-bang at all. It would not be the first time that science took a wrong turning." *J. Gribben, "Cosmologists Move Beyond the Big Bang" in New Scientist 110(1511):30 (1986).

*Gribben confides that many scientists think it is time to bury the theory:

"Many cosmologists now feel that the shortcomings of the standard [Big Bang] theory outweigh its usefulness." *J. Gribben, "Cosmologists Move Beyond the Big Bang" in New Scientist 110(1511):30 (1986).

Lammerts, the only creation scientist quoted in this section, summarizes the problem bluntly:

"In conclusion, it is suggested that it is totally useless to speculate about what the universe used to be, when we don't even understand what it is today) The challenge to those who reject the Word of God on the subject still stands:

"Let him who scoffs at the Genesis record state specifically which hypothesis he would put in its place. Then let him attempt to resolve the insuperable difficulties inherent in that hypothesis and defend it against the onslaughts of future experimental findings.

"If this can be done successfully, it will be a 'first' in the history of astronomy." Walter Lammerts, book review, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1973, p. 171.


The Second Law of Thermodynamics has been considered by such men as *Albert Einstein to be the most enduring and solid of the physical laws. Yet that law renders totally unworkable the possibility of a Big Bang, stellar or planetary evolution, or the chance origin and evolution of life forms.

We will discuss this subject in much greater detail in chapter 25, Laws of Nature, but let us for a moment consider a succinct summary of the problem as given in the well-known radio broadcast, Stardate:

"You may know the word 'entropy.' It's a word that physicists use when talking about the amount of disorder in a system. It appears to be a basic physical law that, in our universe, entropy always appears to increase as a system evolves.

"In other words, once you scramble an egg, it stays scrambled; it doesn't turn spontaneously back into a whole egg again. Likewise, tidy rooms get messy; you have to keep cleaning your house over and over again. Or consider a sugar cube dropped into a cup of coffee; it dissolves and disappears. It never turns back into a cube again.

"The list goes on. But the idea is, in our universe, when things are left to themselves, they tend toward disorder. That's entropy.

"Yet, for the last several decades, the most widely believed theory about the birth of the universe says that it began in a Big Bang; [which would be] a state of unimaginable chaos.

"Later that chaos had to evolve into the extremely orderly structures we know today: majestically rotating galaxies made of billions of stars; stars that cycle through various predictable [theoretical] stages of evolution; and, last but not least, those most complex of all known organisms: human beings, who contemplate it all.

"So how can a universe that tends toward disorder, have evolved such orderly structures? That's one kind of question being asked today in cosmology, the study of the whole universe." *Star Date radio broadcast, October 9, 1990.

Just as the species barrier wall, encoded within the genetic DNA, forbids the origin or evolution of new species (see chapter 10), so the stern requirements of the Second Law forbids the "accidentally progressive" nature of the entire evolutionary concept (see chapter 25), whether it concerns matter, stars, planets, or living things.

Picture from page 43


There are an astounding number of elements and they are all extremely complex! How did they originate? How COULD they originate by themselves? Only a Master Craftsman could design and produce such things. Then there are the complicated molecular orbits within them! How can all this be?

When we think of the "origin of matter," we think of gas clouds, stars, galaxies, and planets. And we think of dirt, water, and rock. But consider the matter itself! Wondrously designed elements which form such complex chemical compounds. Evolutionists have theorized that, just as microbes changed themselves into insects, and those, in turn, into fish, then animals, etc.; so hydrogen invented helium out of itself, and that into yet another more complex nuclear structure until all the elements had invented themselves! It was all done by "natural selection."

"In this strange paper, I have ventured to suggest that natural selection of a sort has extended even beyond the elements, to determine the properties of protons and electrons.

"Curious as that seems, it is is a possibility worth weighing against the only alternative I can imagine: Eddington's suggestion that God is a mathematical physicist." *George Wald, "Fitness in the Universe, " Origins of Life, Vol. 5 (1974), p. 26.

Enoch recognizes that it would be impossible for the simplest to form the most complicated, when the truth of the matter is just the opposite: the most complicated elements are continually changing themselves into less complicated ones.

"According to the theory of evolution, there should be a progressive building up from the simplest, hydrogen, to the most complex, uranium. [But, in reality] The exact opposite is found. Uranium is known to disintegrate into a series of elements of diminishing weights, the most sensational of which is radium, and the final one is lead. During this process, atoms of the gas helium, the next lightest to hydrogen, are thrown off. The heaviest elements are therefore the origin of the lightest." *H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1967), p. 142.

Morris explains that far too much is involved for matter to have possibly produced itself by random accidents.

"The basic building blocks of matter, the atoms, are of course nicely arranged in an ascending series of elements from hydrogen up to uranium and even to the trans-uranium elements. It is natural for evolutionists to think of this also as an evolutionary series, and various attempts have been made to calculate how such a process of element synthesis could occur. To be complete, such a theory also has to include the evolution of hydrogen itself, as well as the various sub-atomic and sub-nuclear particles . .

"A more natural process is one of nuclear fission, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. Matter is also converted to energy in processes of radioactive decay. But the conversion of primeval energy into matter in all its complex forms and structures in the beginning is strictly a theoretical mathematical exercise. Even if it happened, the question is still unanswered as to where all the necessary energy [within the atom] came from to start with. An omnipotent Creator seems necessary to empower such a process of cosmic nucleo-synthesis, for no other source is available."*H.M. Morris, et. al., Science and Creation (1971), p. 23. It is said that the Periodic Table of Elements was successfully arranged by the Russian chemist, Dmitri Ivanovich Mendelev, in 1869. Yet two other scientists (Alexandre Chancourtois, a French geologist, and John Newlands, a British chemist) had essentially arranged the elements in 1862.

On the chart on a nearby page, elements 57 through 71 are the rare-earth lanthanide series, and elements 89 through 103 is another rare-earth series: the actinides.

We generally speak of 92 elements as being "natural." That would be hydrogen (element 1) on up to uranium (92). Yet there are actually only 90 which are really "natural," for technetium (43) and promethium (61) were synthetically made from the breakdown of other elements. They do not exist in nature.

The trans-uranium elements are those above uranium. Eleven of them are shown on the chart (elements 93-103). But two others have been found since that chart was prepared. These are rutherfordium (Rf, 104) with an atomic weight of 259, and hahnium (Ha, 105) with an atomic weight of 260.

The radioactive elements are not clearly indicated on the accompanying periodic table of the elements chart. Here are the radioactive elements: technetium (43), promethium (61), polonium (84), and all elements above polonium (85-103).




Twentieth-century astronomy has made many discoveries, a number of which provide evidence opposed to Big Bang and other origin of matter and origin of universe theories. Because some of the following information is more technical, it is being placed in this appendix section, rather than in the main text. If it appears too deep, just skip over it. There is enough data in the main text to far and away disprove the origin of matter theories.

ANGULAR MOMENTUM Origin of matter and origin of universe theories cannot explain angular momentum. To put it in simpler terms, why do the stars turn? why do the galaxies rotate? why do planets rotate about suns and stars about galactic centers? why do stars rotate in binaries and stellar clusters?

There is no doubt but that circular action is vitally necessary for planetary, stellar, and galactic stability. It has to be that way or everything would fly around and crash into one another. But how could rotation (turning) and revolutions (orbiting) have started? How could angular momentum be put into such perfectly balanced orbits all through space?

ANGULAR MOMENTUM AND MOMENTUM-MASS RELATIONSHIP Throughout the universe a delicate relationship exists between the mass (size and weight) of an object and its angular momentum (the rapidity with which it turns). Why is this? The bigger the object, the slower it tends to rotate. Big Bang theorists cannot explain this. It cannot just be a coincidence.

"Pick any astronomical object. Divide its angular momentum by its total mass and also by its average density raised to the 1/6 power. The resulting number (call it Q) will be equal to the mass itself raised to roughly the 0.7 power.

"Numerological hocus-pocus? No, it seems that this is a universal property of bodies. Whether you pick a lowly asteroid, a star, a galaxy, or even the mighty Virgo cluster of galaxies, it works. The relationship is decisively shown by the straight line on the logarithmic chart. . prepared by L. Carrasco, M. Roth, and A. Serrano at the Mexican Institute of Astronomy.''*"How Things Spin, " Sky and Telescope, 64:228 (1982).

UNIVERSAL ROTATION Evidence is accumulating that, not only do asteroids, planets, and stars rotate but the entire universe does also! Such a fact would, of course, greatly increase the positional stability of the universe. But, again, it does not agree with explosion theories of matter (Big Bang, etc.), nor with continuous hydrogen creation theories (steady state). Evidence for universal rotation includes position angles and polarizations of radio sources, and vorticity as seen in microwave background radiation, and other statistical asymmetries.

For more on this, see P. Birch, "Is the Universe Rotating?" Nature, 298:451 (1982); "Universal Rotation: Round 3," Sky and Telescope, 70:305 (1985); M. F. Bietenholz, et. al., "Is There Really Evidence for Universal Rotation?" Astrophysical Journal, 28711 (1984).

LOW MEAN DENSITY OF THE UNIVERSE Detectable matter in the universe is low in density. To put it another way, there is not enough matter in the universe. There is only about one third the amount that would be required to close the universe (that is, eventually halt its theoretical expansion), as noted in observations of galaxies and clusters, especially clusters.

Because of this, it is not possible for "gravitational condensation" of gas into stars to occur. Also the "expanding universe" theory is therefore incorrect.

"Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology." *Fred Hoyle and *T. Gold, quoted in *D. B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984). p. 8.

THE "PERFECT" EXPLOSION Here are simply too many factors which render totally impossible the fulfillment of the evolutionary explosion theory of matter origin. We have abundantly observed that in this chapter.

Yet, in an effort to shoehorn the explosion into a successful venture, *Stephen W. Hawking, in his book A Brief History of Time (1988), calculates that if that initial Big Bang had expanded a millionth-millionth faster, then the particles would have drifted out into space without producing stars, etc., and if that explosion had expanded a millionth-millionth slower, the matter would have collapsed back down upon itself. This would be a narrow tolerance of one part in minus 10 to the 54 thl (1 x 10= x). That would be a point, zero, zero, 53 zeros and a 1.

On one hand, such tolerances are simply too impossibly small for success. On the other, we have clearly observed that gas in outer space would never, never form itself into chunks, stars, or anything else, all aside from *Hawking's "tolerances."

MORE EVIDENCE ALL THE TIME Every new book on science provides more evidence strengthening the case against evolutionary theory. One of the latest, summarizing the discoveries and conjectures of over a hundred books and science articles, contained the following comments:

Supernovas are supposed to have produced both the heavier elements (all those above hydrogen and helium), as well as the stars. Yet supernovas are quite rare. Our own galaxy has 100 to 200 million stars, yet it is estimated that, at the most, less than one a year occurs. But, as far as we know, there have only been two in the previous 387 years.

"The explosion named Supernova 1987 A in February 1987 was the first reasonably close one since the invention of the telescope. [The telescope was invented in 1609; that super-nova occurred in 1604.] . . [Astronomers] estimate that one goes off somewhere in the Milky Way every 50 to 100 years." *Roberta Conlan, Frontiers of Time (1991), p. 34.

Even if they blow up more often, they could not possibly make enough new stars, and they surely will not be able to produce enough additional ones in the future.

"Although supernovae may provide enough matter to form some new stars, whether there are enough of them to significantly forestall the [eventual] extinction of the galaxies seems doubtful. In the Milky Way, for instance, stars massive enough to go supernova make up a scant 4 percent of the galaxy's stars and contain only 11 percent of its total stellar mass. Many galaxies may be similarly proportioned. Ellipticals, for example, much like the globular clusters at the Milky Way's outer edges, tend to consist of less massive, slower-burning, and hence, older bodies. . Galaxies are basically dependent on their original supply of gas." *Op. cit., 71.

Then there is the question of those earliest galaxies. The Big Bang is theorized to have occurred about 15 billion years ago. Yet now there are immense, entire galaxies, each containing millions of stars, which have been found 10 billion years away! This makes some of them nearly as old as the Big Bang!

"In 1983, astronomer J. Anthony Tyson of AT&T Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey, and his colleague Pat Seitzer began a survey of twelve tiny patches of the night sky that previous studies had shown to be almost entirely empty . . By 1987, they had discovered about 25,000 faint, fuzzy light sources, some of which are almost certainly among the most distant objects ever observed, lying as much as 10 billion light years away!" *Op. cit., p. 60.

Please understand, those extremely distant objects were not quasars, but just normal, huge galaxies.

"The most surprising aspect of Tyson's discovery, though, is how quickly after the Big Bang stars seem to have started forming. From what scientists currently understand about the mechanisms of gravitational collapse, nebulous gases should have taken much longer than a few billion years to clump together into stellar bodies. As Tyson puts it, 'I think these observations are beginning to constrain the theories.' "*Op. cit., 61.

But the situation is even worse than that. The most distant objects in the universe, including quasars and distant galaxies, were there when the Big Bang began, or earlier (according to whether you want to date that explosion at 15 or 20 billion years in the past). And these figures come, even after "readjusting" the Hubble Constant (the speed of light) to its limits, in an attempt to make those most distant objects more youthful.

"Astronomers are quite willing to choose their own preferred values for the Hubble constant, within the accepted range, and they can handily justify their choices as well. But the bottom line is that nobody really knows; the best astronomers can do is agree that the light from the most distant objects we see has been traveling for some 10 to 20 billion years."*Op. cit., p. 102.

On pages 92-93, a universe-wide composite color photograph of the background radiation is shown. The specifications are so exacting and the scope is so massive that this photograph even shows the circular motion of the Milky Way Galaxy! But it also reveals that the background radiation is "remarkably even" too even to have formed stars and galaxies.

"Cool radiation pervades all of space in this full sky map of microwave emissions recorded by the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite [COBY] early in 1990. The swath of purple indicates the radiation's remarkable evenness; pink and blue areas are distortions caused by the motion of the Milky Way against the cosmic background.. [This radiation has] a uniform temperature of 2.7 degrees Kelvin.""Op. cit., p. 93. Brown nicely summarizes some of the major problems in the Big Bang theory:

"The cosmic background radiation is considered by many to be the major evidence supporting the Big Bang theory. However, the extreme uniformity of this radiation and the huge voids and uneven distribution of matter [stars and galaxies] in large regions of the universe are inconsistent with the Big Bang. While it is true that the Big Bang theory can be juggled to fit the total amount of helium in the universe, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars) contradicts the theory. If the Big Bang occurred, the universe should not contain rotating or highly concentrated bodies. Galaxies are examples of both. Furthermore, a big bang would, for all practical purposes, only produce hydrogen and helium. Therefore, the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big bang would have basically only hydrogen and helium. Many of those stars [Population III stars] should still exist. However, none can be found." Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 12.

You may wish to skip past the following analysis, since it does not deal with stellar evolution.


Evolution portrays mankind as arising from mire and wormlike ancestors and gradually, through evolutionary strife for supremacy, becoming gods.

The next great goal for these earth gods is to journey to distant stars, form colonies and, perhaps, eventually become masters of the universe. Scientific articles and entire books are being written on the subject, and careful planning for these future voyages is already underway.

Here are 12 reasons why man, unaided by his Creator, will never succeed in his plans for successful interstellar and trans-galactic flights.

1 - When astronauts go up in rockets, they immediately begin weakening physically. The body loses calcium, muscles begin deteriorating, and an entire set of physiological problems gradually, inexorably increase. A key factor is the lack of gravity. It would be extremely difficult to provide passengers on lengthy space flights with a gravity environment equivalent to what they had back on earth. Immense, tubular revolving wheels are said to be the answer. But such contraptions would only compound some other problems listed below.

The subtle degenerative effect of prolonged weightlessness on the human body would, over a period of years, be devastating. The constant resistance of the body to earth's gravity strengthens the body. Without it, muscles shrink, blood vessels constrict, fluid levels decrease, and bone wastes away. For example, in one month the heel bone can lose 5 percent of its mass. Rigorous exercise in outer space can, at best, only slow the deterioration somewhat.

2 - The immense periods of time required to journey to planets outside our solar system would bring inevitable wear and tear on the spaceship and its equipment. After only 15 years of operation, the space shuttles are showing a variety of problems. Yet NASA has a small army of service technicians to keep them in working order. What assurance is there that essential components of, or within, an interstellar spaceship would not break down in flight far from the technicians and repair depots that could care for it?

3 - There are high-speed particles in outer space which would constantly bombard the spaceship with deadly radiation. These are cosmic rays from deep space, as well as X-rays and other emissions from solar flares. The short-term effects of radiation were clearly pointed out to the first astronauts, who reported seeing random flashes of light while in orbit, that were in fact caused by nuclear particles bombarding their retinas. Earth's powerful magnetic field and dense atmosphere protect us from most of that. But in outer space it is different.

Plans to put a manned station on the moon include cylindrical modules buried under at least six feet of lunar topsoil to protect people from dangerous ultra-violet light, solar radiation, high-speed particles, and X-rays. How thick and heavy will the walls of the space ship be?

4 - Mankind has already filled the orbital heights with so much space junk, that there is already one chance in a hundred that within 10 years a space shuttle orbiting the earth will be damaged by space junk. At the speeds with which the junk travels, it has been said that even a paint particle could cause serious damage to a manned rocket.

Yet in outer space there are sizeable amounts of meteoroids. Relatively little is known about conditions in space outside our solar system. It could be even worse there. Yet the spaceship would have to travel at extremely high speeds in order to reach another solar system within any useful time frame. At such speeds and with such a lengthy trip, there could be little possibility of avoiding a collision with such objects.

5 - Any serious repair work would be out of the question. The spaceship could not possibly carry all the machine shop tools and spare parts needed. We are speaking here of a trip at highest speed which requires not weeks or months, but probably centuries.

Plans for interstellar flights always assume no serious repair problems in critical electrical or life-support systems inside the ship, or the immense outer part of its giant rotating wheel. But such problems would occur; some of which would doom the ship's occupants to speedy death.

6 - The spaceship would have to have a gigantic gravity wheel for the passengers to live in. But the Coriolis effect would cause serious problems. A spin rate of more than one revolution per minute would cause motion sickness. Even a wheel 600 feet in diameter would have to rotate three times a minute to simulate normal earth gravity! The resulting nausea would be terrible. An IMMENSE rotating wheel, called a Standford Torus, would be required in order to lower the Coriolis effect. Yet how could such a massive, speeding structure avoid colliding with asteroid particles in outer space? Wernher von Braun recognized that even slight shifts of weight within the torus would subtly affect the rate of rotation, with disorienting effects on the occupants. Even rotation rates as low as one revolution per minute would still cause them low-level physical turmoil.

7 -The air pollution in the living quarters of the wheel could become terrific. There would have to be room for plants, animals, large numbers of people, and all their wastes. It has been estimated that 10,000 colonists within a giant wheel would require 60,000 chickens, 30,000 rabbits, and sizeable herds of cattle, to maintain a mixed diet of about 2,400 calories a day. The entire contraption, with all that was going on within it, would be a closed-up little world. Even with plants, gradually the environment could become off-balanced, with disastrous results. Over a period of decades and even centuries, even a large spaceship would have too small an area for environmental mistakes to accumulate.

8 - Life-sustaining electrical gadgets would be needed. These would include such things as humidifiers to control the moisture in the air. Yet the plan is that solar energy would help provide the electrical power. But it would not take long for the spaceship to pass beyond the point where our sun was only a bright star.

9 - One of the greatest challenges faced by the colonists would not be biological or structural but social. No matter how large the wheel they live in, it would seem alien and confining. Close-living quarters could bring problems that would result in serious disputes, mutiny, and even warfare.

10 - The distances to be traversed would be vast. In addition to Voyager I and II, two other unmanned flights (Pioneer 10 launched in 1972, and Pioneer 11 in 1973) have already left the solar system. Traveling at 25,000 mph, it will take 30,000 years for them to pass by Ross 248, the nearest star in their flight path.

Epsilon Eridani, one of the closest stars, would, at the speed of light, take 10.8 years to reach. But no ship built on earth could approach even a significant fraction of such an immense speed.

Astounding speeds would somehow have to be attained. Yet such speeds would render collision with the smallest particle destructive to the mission. It has been theorized that various exotically-fueled engines (such as metallic hydrogen, or matter/antimatter engines), could get it there more quickly. But this is all theory, and the lengthy acceleration and deceleration involved would be a terrible thing to live through. One of the latest theories is called a "pulse engine." This would involve literally setting off nuclear (fission) bombs behind the rocket ship, one after the other, only a few moments apart! Each blast would cause a shock wave that would hit ("pulse") against a metal plate behind the spaceship moving it forward! It is estimated that a pulse rocket would reach Epsilon Eridani in 330 years, or about 10 generations of passengers. During initial loading, the ship would, among other things, have to be loaded with hundreds of thousands of atomic bombs.

It is recognized that present space fuels (liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen) would be too inefficient in terms of pounds of thrust per pound of fuel. In other words, so much fuel would be needed for the journey that the spaceship could not carry it all.

In addition, even more fuel would be required to decelerate upon reaching a star, or the ship would just rapidly fly by.

Solar sails have been suggested, but it is now admitted that these would be useless beyond Jupiter's orbit.

11 - Radio contact with the spaceship would be impractical. Those back on earth could give the space travelers no verbal aid in case of trouble, much less go to their rescue. Even at the speed of light, radio messages would take more than eight years to reach the nearest star, Alpha Centauri. The time-lag problem in radio transmission would be a serious one.

The same factor would also render impossible the sending of an unmanned robot rocket to a nearby star.

12 - The possibility is extremely remote that a useable planet would be found orbiting the destination star. That discovery would shatter the morale of the passengers, and there would not be enough fuel to go on to another star. Stars are separated by vast distances!

The high cost of water, oxygen, and food transport, along with other problems, will ultimately doom man's hopes for long-term earth-orbiting, or lunar, or Martian space stations. In fact, if attention is not given to basic problems on earth, such as inexpensive water desalinization and transport methods, practical substitutes for dwindling fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear reactors, and stopping the wholesale destruction of trees; within a hundred years mankind will congregate near water sources, travel by horse-drawn wagons, and worry about how to get enough food and the firewood to cook it.

Here are a few sources for further study: P.W. Blass, and J. Camp, Society in Orbit, Space World, July 1988. M. Bloomfiel, Sociology of an Interstellar Vehicle, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 1986, Vol. 39. R.W. Bussard, Galactic Matter and Interstellar Flight, Astronautica Acta, 1960, Vol. 6. J. Eberhard, Space 1990: Launching a New Decade of Exploration, Science News, January 13, 1990. R.L. Forward, Negative Matter Propulsion, Journal of Propulsion and Power, January-February 1990. R.L. Forward, Starwisp: An Ultraviolet Interstellar Probe, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 1985, Vol. 22. V. Garshnek, Crucial Factor: Human, Space Policy, August 1989. A.C. Holt, Hydromagnetics and Future Propulsion Systems, AIAA Student Journal, Spring 1980. Magnetic Sailing Across Interstellar Space, Ad Astra, January 1990. J.I. Merritt, Pioneering the Space Frontier, Princeton Alumni Weekly, October 11, 1989. R. Pool, The Chase Continues for Metallic Hydrogen, Science, March 30,1990. I. Wickelgren, Bone Loss: A Circulating Secret of Skeletal Stability, Science News, December 24-31, 1988. R.M. Zubrin, Nuclear Rockets Using Indigenous Propellants, Planetary Report, May-June 1990. R.D Johnson and C. Howbrow, Space Settlements: A Design Study, NASA Scientific and Technical Information Office, 1977. Voyager: Mission Summary, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, no date.



1 - Using a textbook illustration as an example, draw a sketch of the scattered nature of stars throughout the universe, yet clustered as they are into galaxies. On the basis of what you learned in this chapter, draw a sketch of what the universe--and the stars in it, if any, would look like if a Big Bang of outward-flowing radiation had earlier occurred.

 2 - Write a paper disproving one of the following: Big Bang theory, background radiation theory, red-shift theory, expanding universe theory. Explain why you consider each reason against the theory to be valid.

 3 - Various astronomers have made important discoveries for several hundred years. Write a biography of one of these astronomers of past history.

 4 - Explain the difference between the four types of red-shift explanations: (1) first-order Doppler effect (speed theory), (2) gravitational shift, (3) second-order Doppler effect, and (4) energy loss (tired light) shift.

 5 - What do you think a quasar is? Defend your position from the evidence available.

 6 - Draw a sketch of the supposed Big Bang in the center of a sheet of paper. All around it jot down brief sentence reasons why that theory would be impossible.

7 - Research out the meaning of one of the following technical terms, and explain it in a brief statement: laws of nature, angular momentum, helium mass 4 gap, periodic table of elements, super-nova, inverse-square law, Hubble constant, second law of thermodynamics.

 8 - Could outward-flowing gas, and random action of molecules really have produced stars, planets, and life on our world? Tell why you think so.

 9 - Discuss the * Halton C. Arp discoveries. What are they, what do the show, and what do they tend to disprove?

 10 - In what ways are the Big Bang and oscillating universe theories similar? What common facts disprove both of them?

 11 - *Fred Hoyle developed an incorrect theory, known as the steady-state theory. Later he repudiated it publicly. What do you think of Dr. Hoyle for doing that? Do you think it is common for most evolutionists to later reject a theory they have held for many years?

 12 - Explain the difference between "Kelvin," "Celsius," and "absolute zero."

 13 - Do you believe the Periodic Table of Elements (page 42) could have made itself out of nothing? Is it possible for laws to make themselves, any more than for matter to make itself?

  You have just completed 

NEXT Go to the next chapter in this series:

Chapter 2 The Origin of the Stars