This one was all over the Internet recently.
According to this idea — which some people are taking quite seriously — the Earth used to have two moons instead of one.
Hmm. Why is there only one today?
Because the second one perished by crashing into the Moon we see today.
Why are these researchers suggesting this? Because some of the mountains on the Moon’s far side are higher than the ones on the near side.
To explain this fact, the researchers made a model. After lots of tweaking, the model said that if there were once two moons of just the right size, with just the right orbits, which collided at just the right angle and velocity, then a high mountain range would have been pushed up on the Moon’s far side.
Thus, there’s “evidence” for the new model.
But is this a scientific hypothesis? No. It’s only a story.
An explanation doesn’t qualify as a hypothesis unless it makes a testable prediction. If it can’t do that, it’s only a just-so story.
And just-so stories are only limited by the inventor’s imagination — which isn’t much of a limitation.
Think about this for a moment. The two-moon story got a ton of publicity.
So why stop there?
I’d guess that a three-moon story would do even better. You’d get fame, fortune, and all that.
And then once that story had run its course, maybe go for four moons. And after that, five, or six, or even seven. Why not?
After all, you can make up an infinite number of stories that can produce a high mountain range on the Moon.
And that’s exactly my point.
In secular astronomy today, the idea of ‘evidence’ has grown extremely blurry. So many of the “discoveries” are just stories or computer simulations.
As long as the story isn’t obviously impossible, you can claim that you’ve discovered how something happened.
You can claim that you’ve discovered something about true history.
But all you’ve really done is make up a story.
And since an infinite number of stories are possible, this tells us nothing definitive about true history.
Too bad this fundamental distinction is lost on most evolutionists today.
See also, Spike’s article entitled: Secular Theory For Moon’s Formation Receives Another Blow
as originally published in CREATION ASTRONOMY NEWS – Volume II, #3 (sign up for the newsletter at his website) reprinted with permission from the author. http://www.creationastronomy.com/