Lunar Dust

Young Earth creationists, always attempting to disprove any theory that disputes their belief that the Earth & universe were divinely created, often use arguments that (they claim) “prove” the universe and everything within it to be somewhat less than 10,000 years old. Invoking the “Lunar Dust” argument creationists claim that the absence of a deep layer of dust upon the moon is evidence that the universe was formed within the last 10,000 years. If it, the moon (and by implication Earth & the universe), actually were billions of years old there would be a deep layer of dust on the moon's surface (around 30 metres). When Apollo 11 landed there was only a few centimetres ... enough, creationists claim, for a mere 8000 years.

The argument, based on a single measurement of the rate of meteoritic dust influx to the Earth (giving a value in the millions of tons/year), and NASA's revelation that there is only a shallow dust layer leads creationists to claim that the moon (and by implication the Earth and universe) is only a few thousand years old and is corroborative evidence of divine creation.

"The most amazing thing about the cosmic dust argument is that it is still being used" (Matson, 1994).

First published in creation literature by Henry Morris in “Scientific Creationism” (1974) the calculation, based upon a long outdated series of measurements carried out by Hans Pettersson (1960), ignores more recent data collected by highly sensitive space-borne satellites.

Pettersson (1960) published the results of data collections in “Scientific American” where he had measured the fall of cosmic dust collected from the top of Mauna Loa (Hawaii) as 39,150 tons/day. Pettersson's estimates were based on nickel (nickel being of meteoric origin) ... the assumption was wrong and caused his figures to be hugely over-inflated. Morris, nevertheless wrote, "The 'best measurements' have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year" yet failed to mention that the figure was the upper estimate ... Pettersson favoured a figure around a third of that value. The quoted figure (Morris, 1974) actually represented what Pettersson would have considered an absolute upper limit to the cosmic dust accumulation on the Earth i.e. “not more than 15 million tons per year.”

Despite there being several more up-to-date (high precision) measurements at the time, from satellite penetration data with no possibility of earthly contamination, Morris (1974) still published the claim in “Scientific Creationism”. He ignored the fact that the more accurate measurements give values of about 18,000 to 25,000 tons/ year and that such measurements agreed with levels of meteoritic dust levels trapped in sediments on Earth.

Of course if the dust influx were as great as creationists claim then the result would be awesome year round meteor showers, severe pitting of the space shuttle hull and windshield and the likely far more rapid disintegration and dysfunction of space-borne satellites than is actually observed.

As mentioned earlier, since Pettersson's experiments there have been many measurements made in similar areas such as the chemical signature of ocean sediments, satellite penetration detectors, & micro-cratering rate of objects left exposed on the lunar surface all of which are known to be of higher precision. These indicate an influx rate to the Earth of about 20,000 to 40,000 tons per year and, more importantly, all agree on approximately the same value (nearly three orders of magnitude lower than the value which Morris chose to use in 1974).

In fact Dalrymple (1984) gives a value of 22,000 tons per year (nearly 700 times smaller than Morris's figure) that generates a lunar dust level quite consistent with that found by NASA's Apollo 11 crew.

Today, however, we no longer have to rely on estimates but use instead data gained from space-borne satellites. Four years before the creationist publication "Age of the Cosmos" (Slusher, 1980) devoted an entire chapter to the subject (quoting a massive 700,000 tons/day) a paper was published detailing how cosmic dust had been measured from satellites and giving a figure of 48 tons/day. This figure, a factor of 3 less than originally quoted, totally destroyed Petterson's work and Morris's & Slusher's claims. Recent figures (1990) from the LDEF satellite show this figure to be slightly higher at 40,000 metric tons/year (121 tons/day) for the entire surface of the Earth. Morris continued to claim (though without quoted source) figures as high as 200,000 tons/day and they (his claims) have been stated as being "... incorrectly cited, outdated, from a non-referenced symposium publication, based on unreliable data" (Matson, 1994).

Dohnanyi (1972), basing his figures on data from satellite-borne detectors estimated cosmic dust on the moon to be (2 x 10^-9 grams/square centimetre/year or 2.3 tons/day). So in the 4½ billion years since the Earth's formation a layer of about one and a half inches of cosmic dust would accumulate on the moon (approximately the level that was found by NASA's Apollo crews).

Another possible reason why apparent dust fall on the moon may be so low is that, unlike the Earth, the moon has no atmospheric or magnetic breaking cushion and dust does not settle on the surface it slams into it at high impact speed. This causes micro melting at impact sites and prevents the formation of a true dust layer. It is also theorised that the moon's surface, being directly exposed to the solar wind and ultraviolet radiation can build up an electrostatic charge (opposite of that to the dust) resulting in “electrostatic levitation” to as high as 10Km and allow it to be blown away by the solar wind and radiation.

Data from various sources (all vastly more accurate than Pettersson's original data) can be seen to demonstrate that lunar dust levels are exactly as expected within the currently accepted model of the universe.

Despite such data being thoroughly "debunked" creation "scientists" such as Kent Hovind continue to claim cosmic dust should (if the Earth were really 4½ billion years old) be around 182 feet deep (based on an accumulation of 1 inch every 10,000 years). His claims look even more pathetic in light of the fact that Hovind actually quotes rates and depths representing two very different rates of accumulation (Matson, 1994).

It is also surprising that Hovind and others continue to use this argument since, in a recent creationist "technical" paper (Snelling and Rush, 1993) it was admitted that the depth of dust on the moon was in line with mainstream scientific beliefs. "It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year time-scale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."

Those claiming that the accumulation of moon dust demonstrates the moon as young are unaware of or deliberately ignore data that indicates the opposite. Morris, it seems, deliberately chose obsolete data with known problems, and referred to it as the "best" measurement available. With the proper values, the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the Moon is less than one foot.

So, it can be seen that the accumulation rate was, like most creationist data, deliberately chosen to give an age of approximately 6000 years. It was not determined from real data and the claim is completely false.

1. “The General Anti-Creationism FAQ - Age” Jim Merritt
2. “Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism: Revised and Expanded” Mark I. Vuletic, 1999
3. “Not Moon Dust Again” (Posting), SteveS 25/3/99
4. “Young-earth "proof" #2” Dave Matson, 1994
5. “Meteorite Dust and the Age of the Earth.” Tim Thompson, 1996
6. “Talk Origins Archive: Response to Robb S. Wallace” Tim Thompson, 1999-10-13