One of the key requirements of the scientific theory is how well it predicts future observations this is one area where Dr. Russell Humphreys’ Dynamic Decay Theory is highly successful. Dr. Humphreys first published this theory before Voyager 2 flew by Uranus and Neptune. He saw an opportunity to make a prediction about the magnetic field of both planets, and he subsequently published the results in the Creation Research Society Quarterly.

The very fact that this theory produced experimentally testable predictions puts the lie to the claim that creationists do not do real science because it demonstrates a prime example of a creationist theory making testable predictions. It is not alone in doing so, but it is an excellent example because of how successful that it has been. It also provides terrific evidence of the explanatory power that creationist theories can have.

When Voyager two flew by Uranus and Neptune Humphreys’ Dynamic Decay Theory prediction for both planetary magnetic fields was spot on. Now the first pictures of Uranus were not particularly impressive, but it is an example of the real value being more than just the visual. The successful prediction of Uranus's magnetic field is the more important of the two because Dynamo theory got this one wrong, but it was within the margin of error for Neptune.

Uranus and Neptune get even worse for Dynamo Theory because the magnetic fields are both planets are nearly aligned with the equator rather than the poles. Now Dynamo Theory does allow for the possibility of such a position during a pole flip, but the odds of two planets flipping at the same time are ridiculously small, not that evolutionists have ever let insanely small odds get in their way. Dynamic Decay Theory easily allows for and explains this unusual orientation.

Another feature of the magnetic fields of both Uranus and Neptune that are problematic for Dynamo Theory, is the fact that the magnetic field of both planets is off-center by about a third of the diameter of the planet. Not only is Dynamo Theory incapable of explaining this positioning of both magnetic fields but Dynamic Decay Theory does so with ease. Furthermore, Dynamic Decay Theory continues to have success elsewhere in the solar system besides Uranus and Neptune.

When Dr. Humphreys developed Dynamic Decay Theory, Mariner 10 had already flown by Mercury and recorded its magnetic field. This was a double surprise for Dynamo Theory. Not only is mercury too small to have maintained a liquid core for billions of years, but it also rotates slowly being tidally locked to the Sun. Both of these would go against a planetary magnetic dynamo. However, Dynamic Decay Theory requires neither a molten core nor a significant planetary rotation rate to work. Naturally, those insisting on naturalistic explanations by using unobserved salts to keep Mercury’s core molten and spinning faster than the planet as a whole. However, this is not where the story of Mercury’s magnetic field ends. In 2011 the Messenger spacecraft entered orbit around Mercury. Several years before Dr. Humphreys used Dynamic Decay Theory to calculate the decrease in Mercury's magnetic field since mariner 10, once again the prediction proved correct.

In July 2015, the new horizon spacecraft flew by the dwarf planet Pluto. Not expecting Pluto to have a magnetic field, no magnetometer was included in the spacecraft, but during its flyby, it did detect X-rays from the space around Pluto consistent with a magnetic field interacting with the solar wind. The presence of such a magnetic field is allowed for by Dynamic Decay Theory, but not Dynamo Theory because Pluto should not be active if it is billions of years old. Even it still shows signs of being geologically active.

Dr. Humphreys’ Dynamic Decay Theory has done a very good job of predicting the magnetic fields that we find around the solar system. It does a much better job predicting and explaining magnetic features around our solar system than old Earth Dynamo Theory does. However, this is not the end, because it turns out that Dynamic Decay Theory works well with another highly successful creationist model. This is a model of the Genesis Flood known as Catastrophic Plate Tectonics.


Help support these articles.

Earth's Mysterious Magnetism: and that of other celestial orbs

Starlight & Time by Dr. Russell Humphreys Ph.D.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive