I am taking just the first snippet of the article and posting below.
“”God could have started magnetic fields in the solar system in a very simple way: by creating the original atoms of the planets with many of their nuclear spins pointing in the same direction. The small magnetic fields of so many atomic nuclei add up to fields large enough to account for the magnetism of the planets. Within seconds after creation, ordinary physical events would convert the alignment of nuclei into a large electric current circulating within each planet, maintaining the magnetic field. The currents and fields would decay steadily over thousands of years, as Barnes has pointed out. The present magnetic field strengths of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and planets agree very well with the values produced by this theory and a 6000-year age for the solar system. This theory is consistent with all the known data and explains many facts which have puzzled evolutionists.””
First, astronomy and evolution are two different fields. I think you have a beef with evolution.
The first sentence “God could have” is not scientific. That is called faith. Secondly, the magnetic fields of the planets do not decay steadily. They decay variably. Thirdly, the mathematics in the article would point to over 42,000 years of decay rate for the larger planets. That kind of directly contradicts the Bible. The article takes assumption after assumption
and inserts scientific facts to support the assumptions. Thats not science.
Like I said, I dont find debating faith and good use of time. It usually just goes in endless circles.
What’s the difference between saying that God could have created the Universe, as opposed to undirected natural causes could have created the same? They are both assumptions, they were both unobserved by humans, they cannot be duplicated, and therefore they both fall under the perview of historical science, which operates on the principle of multiple competing hypothesis and inference to the best explanation.
PS Most Evos that I know of take a much grander view of evolution than just random mutation plus natural selection.
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
Yeah. “Evolution could have” is scientific. So there.