Russell Humphreys

Humphreys graduated with a B.S. from Duke University and was awarded his Ph.D in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972.[1] He has worked for General Electric and Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics, where he received a patent and a science award.[1] From 2001 to 2008, he was an associate professor at The Institute for Creation Research.[1] He currently works for Creation Ministries International (USA).[1] Humphreys is a board member of both the Creation Research Society and the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico.[2][3]

In an article published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly in December 1984, Humphreys proposed a creationist model for the origin of planetary magnetic fields.[4] According to the model, the planets were initially created as spheres of water, with the polar magnetic moments of the water molecules largely aligned.[4] Lenz's law predicts that the resulting magnetic field would decay exponentially, and Humphreys fits an exponential decay model to recent observations of the earth's magnetism to conclude that the magnetic field is 6000 years old. As part of his model, he also made predictions about the magnetic fields of Mercury, Mars, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto by using assumed values for their initial magnetic field and decay rates.[4]

In 1990 Humphreys published a follow up to his predictions as Voyager II had now measured Uranus and Neptune's magnetic fields.[5] In an article, Humphreys claimed that his model had an easier time explaining their magnetic fields than the dynamo theory.[6]

According to Humphreys, his model's predictions were again verified when probes in 2008[7] and 2011 flew past Mercury and measured the magnetic field. Humphreys claimed that the observed decay of Mercury's magnetic field was in line with that predicted by his model.

Humphreys' book Starlight and Time presents his alternative to the Big Bang in an attempt to solve what young Earth creationists call the Distant Starlight Problem. Its thesis is that the Earth and universe are about six thousand years old when measured in Earth's reference frame, whereas the outer edge of an expanding and rotating 3-dimensional universe is billions of years old (as measured from its reference frame). It proposes, using the principles of relativity, to postulate that time ticked at different rates during the universe's origin.[8] In other words, according to his theory, clocks on earth registered the six days of creation, while those at the edge of the universe counted the approximately 15 billion years needed for light from the most distant galaxies to reach earth.[8] The model places the Milky Way galaxy relatively near the center of the cosmos.[9]

Humphreys' proposal has been criticized by other scientists and old earth creationists, such as Hugh Ross and Samuel R. Conner.[10] Humphreys has replied to Ross' and Conner's critiques.[11]

In 1998, physicist Dave Thomas wrote that in Humphreys' thousands-of-years-old universe, he "has his astronomy backwards - the Kuiper Belt contains the remains of the 'volatile' (icy) planetesimals that were left over from the formation of the solar system - numbering in the hundreds of millions. If anything, it is the Kuiper Belt that supplies the more remote hypothesized Oort Cloud, as some icy chunks are occasionally flung far away by interactions with large planets."[12]

Thomas also criticised Humphreys' idea that there is "not enough sodium in the sea" for a several billion year old sea, writing, "Humphreys finds estimates of oceanic salt accumulation and deposition that provide him the data to 'set' an upper limit of 62 million years. But modern geologists do not use erratic processes like these for clocks. It's like someone noticing that (A) it's snowing at an inch per hour, (B) the snow outside is four feet deep, and then concluding that (C) the Earth is just 48 hours, or two days, in age. Snowfall is erratic; some snow can melt; and so on. The Earth is older than two days, so there must be a flaw with the 'snow' dating method, just as there is with the 'salt' method."[12]

Other criticisms are by Don Page,[13] C. McIntosh (an expert on exact solutions to Einstein's field equations),[14] and John Hartnett.[15] These sources are cited approvingly by astrophysicists L. Barnes and G. Lewis in their book The cosmic revolutionary's handbook. They also stress analysing the idea, not attacking the person.[16]

• John Hartnett (physicist)

• Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe (Green Forest, AR: Master Books) 1994. ISBN 0-89051-202-7