For the first time in over 50 years, human beings are preparing to return to the Moon. Returning to the Moon has many scientific advantages, particularly before attempting manned missions to any of the planets or even asteroids. The Moon has the advantage of being the nearest celestial body, along with having a strong enough gravitational field that you cannot float away. This makes a perfect proving ground for studying the effects of partial gravity on the human body.
Thanks to space stations, such as the International Space Station, we have plenty of experience with long-term exposure to 0G. In this area, we have had astronauts and cosmonauts spend over a year in orbit; as a result, we have learned that long-term exposure to weightlessness has negative side effects. Now we have learned how to reduce some of these side effects, but not all of them.
Now it is possible to produce a form of artificial gravity by way of rotation in a spacecraft, but the details still need to be worked out. One of these details is understanding the effects of partial gravity on the human body, because if we can get away with less gravity, it means either a slower rotation, a smaller radius, or both. Furthermore, a flight to Mars would require a rather lengthy stay at Mars. This means that if we can get along fine in the 1/6G of the moon, Mars’ 1/3G will not be a problem.
When returning to the moon is looked at from a creationist perspective, there are factors to consider that are not often considered. The upcoming Artemis II mission is an important step forward that both creationists and evolutionists can look forward to the results from.
The Problem of the Moon's Origin
The origin of the Earth's moon has long been a problem for naturalistic, atheistic models. Before the Apollo moon landings, they had several theories about the origin of the moon. All of them were demolished by the scientific results of those original missions.
The current model, which is taught as a proven fact, is called the giant impact hypothesis. This model claims that the moon formed as a result of an impact between the Earth and a Mars-sized object, and that the debris formed the Moon. Now, ultimately, this is nothing but a just-so story that probably cannot really be tested. However, the origin of the moon has never been a problem from the creationist perspective, because it is described in Genesis 1:14-19. This indicates that God specifically created the Moon to provide light on the Earth at night and to serve for timekeeping.
An opportunity to further understand God's universe.
Returning to the Moon will ultimately help us to understand it and the rest of God's universe better than we do now. Contrary to the claims of anti-creationists, creationists are very pro-science. Contrary to claims, creationists do not dismiss evidence; they simply sometimes disagree with how that evidence is being interpreted. The simple fact of the matter is that there have been several discoveries that are naturally explained by creationist models, but naturalistic models have needed to be frequently patched with untestable just-so stories to make them fit reality. Two very prominent examples of this in cosmology are cosmic inflation and dark energy. Neither one of these concepts has any other justification for its existence other than the fact that they make Big Bang cosmology fit reality better. Furthermore, neither of them can really be falsified. Another example comes from the nebular hypothesis of planetary formation. Observations frequently give this model problems; however, the most common solution to these problems is to simply throw an untestable big rock at it
The more we learn about the solar system, the more it is a problem for naturalistic models.
The more that we study the solar system, the more problems are created for naturalistic models, such as the nebula hypothesis, for how it came into existence. Among these is the fact that two major planets in one dwarf planet are known to rotate backwards from what is predicted by naturalistic models. The usual solution to these problems is to throw a big rock at it, but asteroid collisions cannot explain the fact that the moons of Uranus and Pluto all orbit in the same direction as their parent bodies’ rotation. Furthermore, Neptune’s largest moon, Titania, orbits in the opposite direction to Neptune's rotation.
The simple fact of the matter is that every time we discover something new about the solar system, it causes more and more problems for models such as the nebula hypothesis. Now they often do not get large-scale reporting or are even acknowledged as being a real problem. What usually happens with such discoveries is that when they are acknowledged, they are usually explained away with an untestable explanation for why it deviates from prediction.
The more we learn about the solar system, the more it supports creation.
This is not just a “this is how we see it” claim, but rather, there are several creationist theories about the solar system and what we should expect to find that keep being confirmed the more we learn about the solar system. Meanwhile, naturalistic models need to be kept afloat by continuously throwing giant rocks at things to protect them from real-world observations.
A perfect example of this is Dr. Russell Humphries’ Dynamic decay theory of planetary magnetic fields. This model accurately predicted the magnetic fields of both Uranus and Neptune before the Voyager 2 flybys. All naturalistic models failed in their predictions of the magnetic field of Uranus. Furthermore, this model accurately predicted the observed change in Mercury's magnetic field between two different missions. It is also consistent with the observed evidence for a possible magnetic field around Pluto. This is based on the discovery of X-ray emissions around the dwarf planet that are best explained by the presence of a planetary magnetic field. However, because the only probe to ever fly by Pluto could not measure planetary magnetic fields, we cannot know for certain. By the way, the reason why there was no magnetometer onboard New Horizons was that naturalistic models predicted that Pluto would not have a magnetic field, and they needed to save the weight. This is a perfect example of naturalistic models of the solar system hampering scientific research.
Contrary to the claims of evolutionists, Creationists support real science.
One of the many pejorative terms used by evolutionists against creationists is the claim that creationists are anti-science. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, opposition to a particular theory made under science is not an anti-science position. In fact, being willing to stand against a popular theory that you think is wrong takes a lot of guts and a dedication to real scientific research.
Several creationist organizations readily fund scientific research. For the record, it is on the naturalistic side, where they summarily reject scientific evidence that does not support their presuppositions, and frequently summarily reject anything from sources that challenge those presuppositions. They usually cover up this rejection of evidence by claiming it is not from a credible source. Naturally, of course, they are defining a credible source in a way that allows them to dismiss any evidence that conflicts with their preconceptions.
The upcoming Artemis II flight is a Step towards further study of the moon.
The Artemis II flight is exciting, not just because we are finally returning to the Moon in person since I was a little kid, but because it is a major step forward in further up close and personal study of the Moon. With a Moon base, which is part of the long-term plan, there will be the ability to gain knowledge not only about the Moon itself, but also about how lower gravity affects the human body. For example, if people who spend a year or more on the Moon can maintain their health, then a Mars mission will be a lot easier.
Conclusion
From a creationist perspective, returning to the Moon is a tremendous opportunity to not only understand the Moon better, but also an opportunity to find more ways it provides problems for naturalistic models of its origin, and possibly provide greater support for creationist models. The simple fact of the matter is, that returning to the Moon is going to produce more knowledge about the Moon than we ever have had before. A long-term presence on the lunar surface will provide opportunities for research that cannot be made simply by bringing back samples.
