Changes

[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and they also claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created. <ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space&mdash;Laws of Science]</ref> <ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref> <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>  Also, these scientists assert the [[theory of evolution]] has had considerable influence on fields outside of biology and this includes the field of astronomy. <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836</ref>  For example, it is common for astronomers to refer to the "evolution of the universe".<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html</ref> [[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists believe the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on science of astronomy and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html</ref> <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astromical bodies are inadequate:

[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and they also claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created. <ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space&mdash;Laws of Science]</ref> <ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref> <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>  Also, these scientists assert the [[theory of evolution]] has had considerable influence on fields outside of biology and this includes the field of astronomy. <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836</ref>  For example, it is common for astronomers to refer to the "evolution of the universe".<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html</ref> [[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists believe the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on science of astronomy and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html</ref> <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astromical bodies are inadequate:

:“...most every prediction by theorists about [[planet|planetary]] formation has been wrong.”  Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.<ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5555/605 <blockquote>Full text of passage: Astrophysicist Scott Tremaine of Princeton University sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries. As some monitoring records approach the requisite 12 years, Doppler detection of extrasolar Jupiters may not be far off. And searches are in the works for terrestrial-sized planets by looking for planets passing in front of their stars. But Tremaine remains cautious about what these searches will turn up. Speaking as a theorist, he notes that "most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong."</blockquote></ref>  This quotation refers to a specific model of planet development, though: not the science of planetary development, as a whole.

:“...most every prediction by theorists about [[planet|planetary]] formation has been wrong.”  Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.<ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5555/605 <blockquote>

:“We don’t understand how a single [[star]] forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/303/5665/1750</ref>  This, too, refers only to an innovative and groundbreaking new model of galactic formation, and not to some scientific shortcoming as a whole.

:“We don’t understand how a single [[star]] forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/303/5665/1750</ref>   

:“We cannot even show convincingly how [[Galaxy|galaxies]], stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.   

:“We cannot even show convincingly how [[Galaxy|galaxies]], stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.