New Problems for Solar System Evolution

Rather than continuing to force the evidence
into a purely naturalistic framework, scientists
should follow the evidence wherever it leads

 

Study Deepens Problems with Solar System Story:
Scientists Hold Fast to Naturalism

by Ronald D. Fritz, PhD

In a vast stretch of the Milky Way Galaxy, long, long ago…

A giant molecular cloud, vast and ancient, drifted silently through space. Filled with swirling hydrogen gas and glittering cosmic dust. Gentle turbulence, magnetic fields, and internal pressure held the cloud together, quietly resisting the pull of gravity.

Then, in a cataclysmic moment, a nearby star reached the end of its life. With a blinding flash, the star went supernova — its iron core collapsing before exploding with unimaginable fury. A powerful shockwave raced across the darkness, slamming into the giant cloud.

The compression was sudden and violent. In the densest regions, gravity won. Great streams of gas and dust rushed inward, collapsing into a glowing protostar. As more and more material fell to the center, the pressure and heat grew until nuclear fusion ignited — and a star was born.

Yet not all the material fell inward. The cloud carried a slight, ancient spin. As it collapsed, this rotation grew stronger, flinging some of the gas and dust outward into a vast, flat, spinning disk around the young star — the protoplanetary disk.

Within this swirling disk, tiny grains of dust began to meet and cling together. They grew into pebbles… then into boulders… then into massive planetesimals. In the hot inner regions, rocky worlds took shape: Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. In the cold outer regions, giant planets of gas and ice formed: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

And so, in the darkness of space, a new solar system was born – ours.

That’s the mainstream story of our solar system’s origin — a dramatic tale worthy of the silver screen.

But did it actually happen that way?

A newly published study in Nature Astronomy raises serious doubts about this account, exposing major weaknesses in the standard model.

Homogeneous accretion of the Earth in the inner Solar System. (Sossi, P. A., & Bower, D. J. Nature Astronomy (Advance online publication), 27 March 2026).¹ This study concludes that Earth formed almost entirely from dry inner Solar System material — raising a major question: Where did Earth’s water come from?

The researchers conclude that Earth formed almost entirely from inner Solar System material, with very little to no contribution from outer Solar System material. This challenges earlier models that relied on significant mixing to deliver Earth’s vast water and volatiles.

This creates a major difficulty: The inner Solar System was much hotter, and water ice should not have survived in large quantities. If Earth was built mostly from this dry inner-disk material, where did Earth’s abundant oceans come from? The authors themselves acknowledge this significant challenge, stating that they “intend to follow up.”

The bottom line — this new study has created yet another major problem for the already beleaguered ‘nebular hypothesis’. The researchers must now explain where Earth’s water came from — adding yet another serious difficulty to a theory that is already struggling on multiple fronts:

• The Angular Momentum Problem: The Sun contains 99.8% of the Solar System’s total mass, yet it has only about 2% of the total angular momentum (spin). The planets carry most of the spin. This is a massive violation of the laws of physics that has never been explained by naturalistic models.²
• Missing Mass in Protoplanetary Disks: When astronomers look at the dusty disks around young stars — the very places where planets are supposedly forming — they consistently find they only contain 1/10th to 1/100th of the material needed to form planets we see in our own Solar System. So, how could our massive planets possibly have formed from such deficient disks?³
• Backward Planets and Moons: Several planets and moons in our Solar System rotate or orbit backwards (retrograde) compared to the rest of the system. These “wrong-way” motions are super difficult — some would say impossible — to explain in a smooth, orderly collapsing disk model.⁴
• The Faint Young Sun Paradox: According to the standard model, the Sun was 30% dimmer billions of years ago. Yet as per the same mainstream model, geological evidence shows Earth had liquid oceans and life very early in its history. This remains one of the most stubborn unsolved problems in naturalistic planetary science.⁵
• Missing Star Formation Evidence: Despite decades of searching, astronomers have not observed stars actually forming from collapsing molecular clouds in the clear, step-by-step way that this nebular hypothesis requires. So, where is the direct evidence that the entire process even works?⁶

Additionally, our Solar System also appears remarkably unique. As the BBC recently stated:

“Despite our knowledge of thousands of planets beyond the Solar System, we still have not found systems truly resembling the Solar System, nor planets truly resembling Earth.”⁷

Mainstream secularists Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, in their influential book Rare Earth, similarly concluded:

Arriving at our current configuration of planets… was itself a rarity… Such real estate in our galaxy — perhaps in any galaxy — is prime for life. And rare as well.⁸

When one considers the many finely-tuned characteristics required for a habitable planet like Earth, the odds of such a system forming by random chance become vanishingly small. Hugh Ross has calculated the combined probability for a planet capable of supporting advanced life as low as 1 in 10¹⁰¹³ or even smaller.⁹

Yet none of this seems to shake the confidence of many secular scientists. Despite the growing list of difficulties, they continue to present and teach the origin of our solar system and Earth as a straightforward naturalistic process — as if it were a well-written movie script with no major plot holes.

Perhaps it is time for a different approach. Rather than continuing to force the evidence into a purely naturalistic framework, scientists should follow the evidence wherever it leads — even if that means reconsidering the foundational assumption of methodological naturalism.

As Oxford philosopher Miles K. Donahue recently wrote¹⁰, we should:

“look for natural explanations first… but we don’t rule out supernatural explanations forever as a matter of principle. We just set the bar extremely high for them.”

The evidence increasingly suggests the bar has been set too high. What secular scientists present as a grand, naturalistic epic — worthy of the silver screen — is looking more and more like a flawed script full of plot holes, missing scenes, and scientific impossibilities.

Rather than a cosmic accident produced by blind chance and natural processes, the intricate order, remarkable stability, and life-supporting habitability of our solar system point strongly toward intentional design by a wise and powerful Creator.

Indeed, the heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1)!

 

References:

1. Sossi, P. A., & Bower, D. J. (2026). Homogeneous accretion of the Earth in the inner Solar System. Nature Astronomy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-026-02824-7
2. Mestel, L. (1965) and subsequent reviews, e.g., Ray, T. (2012) in Astronomy & Geophysics
3. Manara, C. F., Morbidelli, A., & Guillot, T. (2018). Why do protoplanetary disks appear not massive enough to form the known exoplanet population? Astronomy & Astrophysics, 618, L3. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201834076
4. Lissauer, J. J., & de Pater, I. (2019). Fundamental Planetary Science. Cambridge University Press
5. Goldblatt, C., & Zahnle, K. J. (2011). Faint young Sun paradox remains. Nature, 474(7349), E1–E2. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09961
6. Chevance, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Inutsuka, S., et al. (2020). The molecular cloud lifecycle. Space Science Reviews, 216(4), 50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-020-00674-x
7. BBC Future. (2025, October 5). The epic hunt for a planet just like Earth. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20251003-the-epic-hunt-for-a-planet-just-like-earth
8. Ward, P. D., & Brownlee, D. (2000). Rare Earth: Why complex life is uncommon in the universe. Copernicus (Springer-Verlag).
9. Ross, H. (2022). Designed to the Core: How the universe and Earth were perfectly made for human life. RTB Press.
10. Donahue, M. K. (2025). Methodological Naturalism, Analyzed. Erkenntnis, 90, 1981–2002.

---

Ronald D. Fritz, PhD, is a retired research statistician whose career spanned 27 years. Before entering the field of statistics, he worked as an engineer and engineering manager in the defense industry. He earned his doctorate in Industrial Engineering, with a minor in Mathematical Statistics, from Clemson University, where he was honored as a Dean’s Scholar. Dr. Fritz served as a consulting statistician across a broad range of industries, culminating in a 12-year role as a global statistical resource at PepsiCo. During his time at PepsiCo, he led significant research on gluten contamination in oats and its relationship to celiac disease, publishing several articles on the subject.

In retirement, Dr. Fritz developed a deep interest in creation science, sparked by a visit to the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. As he delved into the topic, he shared his findings with his pastor, which led to an invitation to speak at their church. This initial presentation opened the door to further speaking engagements at churches throughout the region. Dr. Fritz has been married for 35 years to his wife, Mitzie. They live in the mountain community of Bee Log, North Carolina, within sight of the church where they were married and now worship. In his free time, Dr. Fritz tends a small chestnut orchard on their property, working to revive what was once a cherished local delicacy. The couple has two adult children.