Science
in Christian Perspective
Letter to the Editor
THE
ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM, GALAXY, AND THE UNIVERSE
David J. Krause
2264 KenmoreQkemos, Michigan
From: JASA
18 (June 1966): 64.
(In
the paper by Jack T. Kent, December, 1965, page 106,) we read "It turns out
that when we have classified stars by temperature, we likewise have separated
them according to their brightness, their chemical content,
their mass . . .". This is not true. Rather, for any given temperature,
stars of widely differing brightness and mass are found, and it is just these
differences that form the observational basis for much in modern theories of
stellar evolution. In the same paragraph we find, "One says the following
apothegm: 'Why, Oh scientific, but not go into too many details. Be A Fine Girl,
Kiss Me, Nay, Romeo, Scram.' The first
letters of these words form the stellar classification known as the Spectrum
Luminosity Diagram, or the Henry Draper Classification, or the Hertzsprung-Russell
Diagram." As Mr. Kent must be aware, this again
is not true. The letters he refers to represent a classification of stars by
spectrum only, and it is not until these spectral classes are graphed using
absolute magnitude as the second variable that a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram is
obtained. Further along (page 107) we read, "The open clusters are called
Galactic clusters, since we see them only close at hand because of their smaller
brightness." Not so. These clusters are called galactic because they occur.
most frequently near the galactic plane (the plane of the Milky Way). A bit
farther we are told, "Certainly you can see that if sufficient material is
present in some region of space, this same Rotational flattening effect will
form a galaxy. The only thing left to do is to ask why the material collected
together and rotated in the first place." I believe that in reality the
problem of the origin of galaxies is far more complex than Mr. Kent would seem
to imply in these remarks. There are also minor errors. On page 106, we find
that "Pluto, at 39 AU, is so far away from the Sun, that the Sun appears
only as a dim star in its sky." This is a common misconception, but a
simple calculation will show that, as seen from Pluto, the sun would have a
magnitude of about minus 19, which means that it would appear about
5 million times brighter than Sirius, the next brightest star visible.
Finally, a point
which to my mind raises the question of the purpose of the Journal. In the
introduction (page 104) to Mr. Kent's article we are told that "A
correlation will be made between the various theories presented and the
Bible." and, "This will involve the question of time, the stumbling
block over which so many people fall when trying to separate science and the
Bible. It will be shown in clear detail that there is no conflict here."
Yet, in the article itself, I found no attempt whatever to establish any
connection between the subject under discussion and the Bible or
Christianity. Another article in the same issue, William F. Tanner's
"Chronology of the Ice Ages", while interesting, again made no direct
references to the relationship between science and scripture. Is the
purpose of the Journal to discuss the relationship between science and
Christianity? If so, why do these articles say nothing on these matters? On the
other hand, is the
purpose of the Journal simply to serve
as a vehicle which might (or might not) be published elsewhere?
If so, in what sense is the Journal a "Christian" publication?