Aurora borealis, or the “Northern lights,” as it is often called, is the result of our Earth’s magnetosphere deflecting harmful particles from the Sun from the Earth. They can best be seen from the Arctic Circle (Canada, Iceland, Finland, etc.). Every aurora in the solar system originates from the Sun. Periodically, the Sun has storms which eject harmful radiation from its surface and hurdle it toward the Earth. Because of the Earth’s composition (solid metal core surrounded by molten metal), the Earth has a magnetosphere. This magnetosphere creates a “shield” that stands between us and the Sun so that the dangerous radiation will not permeate the atmosphere and cause damage to life on Earth. However, some particles from the Sun are drawn to the magnetic poles, where the particles interact with the nitrogen and oxygen atoms by causing the electrons to jump up in energy level. Then the electron releases this energy in the form of a photon–usually green colored, but sometimes deep blue, purple, or light red. This happens all across the sky, creating the beautiful waves that we see and call “aurora.”
The northern lights are not just a coincidence. Instead of simply a byproduct of this Sun-magnetosphere process, I consider aurora to be a statement from God that our Earth is not an accident. In His infinite wisdom, God created the Earth with its complexities, including designing it so that the core and movement of the Earth would create a magnetosphere to protect us from the harmful radiation of the Sun, allowing the helpful rays of the Sun to pass through. And in the meantime, He allowed us to see it in action through the northern lights! Their beauty is a reminder of His protection. He knew what He was doing when He set the Earth in its place. Our planet is perfectly suited for life. And though God could have given us only the basic necessities for life, He didn’t stop there. This Earth is full of majesty, awe, wonder, and beauty that only a majestic, awesome, wonderful, beautiful ARTIST could design. Earth was built in all of its abundance to provide for our needs and allow us to flourish as we enjoy the simple practicality as well as the masterfully crafted complexity of creation.
Have you ever seen aurora borealis? Did you know how it happened, or has it been a mystery to you until now? Let me know in the comments! 🙂
Mykayla's Astroblogs 
So amazing!! Its crazy that a process that protects us from harmful radiation can create something so vast and beautiful! I can’t even begin to wrap my head around how something as complicated as tiny as a change in energy in electrons can arrange itself so perfectly to make such an awesome light show. Not only do we get to be protected from dangerous radiation but we get this amazing byproduct just because!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Right?! So amazing! I love the way you described it as a “light show.” It really is!
LikeLike
Mykayla, thank you for sharing; this is interesting stuff!
As I read your post, I was struck by your comment. I’m going to ask you three questions about one specific aspect of it: how you connect science and religion.
Last year, I first came across the idea that science is the _how_ of the universe, telling us the methods by which things happen, and religion is the _why_, telling us the rationale for these things to happen. In other words, science helps us understand the phenomena set up by religion. That explanation makes the two entities reciprocally altruistic – they seem to have a mutually-beneficial relationship, each feeding directly into the other.
I like that explanation of science, religion, and their interplay, but if I’m quite honest, I’m not entirely satisfied by it. Science, by definition, is _testable_: we can make claims and methodically examine if they’re true. Religion, on the other hand, is _untestable_: we have to accept it for what it is (most of the time, at least). So, when we have debates about the verity of science, each side can bring evidence to bear, but when we have debates about the verity of religion, the best we can do (according to my experiences, at least), is insist something is true _simply because it is_. Here’s QUESTION ONE for you: do you agree with this distinction and my argument about how we debate both entities?
Now that I’ve distinguished between science and religion and outlined out how we debate each of them (again, according to my lived experiences), it’s time to look toward how science and religion intersect. If science gives the how and religion gives the why, we can understand the entities in the context of the other. From here on, I’ll write according to Galileo’s philosophy: science elucidates religion, and religion is not to purport (would-be) truths that conflict with the verified truths of science.
So, for example, science tells us the Big Bang created the universe and – eventually – humankind, but it does not tell us why. We can turn to religion for that rationale: G-d created humankind to “[b]e fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth,” (Genesis 1:28, 1985 JPS Tanakh). Science tells us how we came into existence, and religion tells us why. Satisfying? Maybe. But what about when we go to analyze the claims?
I know how we analyze that scientific claim about the Big Bang and the creation of the universe (thanks, Professor Weintraub!), and I believe it. I am _not_, however, entirely satisfied by that religious claim about why hams exist, and I am not entirely satisfied by that interplay between science and religion. I value substantiated arguments, and it’s really hard to substantiate Biblical narratives. For example, how would one defend the account of Creation in Genesis 1? More generally, it’s near impossible to substantiate any entirely-religious belief. While science has evidence, religion has faith; while evidence can be tested, faith can only be believed. Here’s QUESTION TWO: do you agree with the distinction between how we do/ don’t substantiate science and religion?
So, we’ve defined the two entities (science vs religion), distinguished between them (how vs why), and distinguished between how we build arguments for them (evidence vs faith). Still working under my line of reasoning, we’re left with one other question (… well, one of many, but the last one I’ll ask in this comment): how do we respond to claims of science, how do we respond to claims of religion, and if at all, how do those responses differ?
In your post, you shared that you “consider aurora to be a statement from God that our Earth is not an accident.” Objectively, it’s a nice notion: who wouldn’t want to be created by an intentional, caring Creator? We’re left with a question, though: can we analyze this claim, and if so, how? Your explanation of the aurora as “Earth’s magnetosphere deflecting harmful particles from the Sun” is easy enough to study… but what about the religious belief about the aurora’s deeper meaning? Given that it’s substantiated by faith – not evidence – can we analyze it in the first place, or do we simply have to take it at face value? I.E., can we analyze it the same way we analyze the aurora’s question of science, the question of how it forms?
So, here’s QUESTION THREE: given that claims of science and claims of religion operate in different ballparks (those of evidence vs faith), can we analyze them the same way, or do we have to treat them differently? Are we able to analyze the verity of claims of religion in the first place? Do claims of religion even operate in a different ballpark than claims of science (i.e., do you want to reject the premise of this question)? If we can’t truly analyze questions of religion/ if we have to analyze questions of religion differently than how we analyze questions of science, is it fair to connect science and religion in the first place, or is it like trying to connect apples and oranges?
Well, those are my three (long) questions… I hope they all make sense. Please let me know if they don’t; I’d be happy to clarify! I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for your comment and your questions, Nolan! These are some deep questions, so it may be easier to talk about them in person, but here are my answers stated semi-concisely:
Question 1: I think that the way you describe the distinction between science and religion is valid, but I wouldn’t say I fully agree with the way you said we debate the verity of religion. For one thing, there are a LOT of things in life that we accept as truth without testing it. For example, you cannot scientifically test if the American Revolution happened or not––does that mean it didn’t happen? No, it just means that science isn’t always the only way to determine truth. Now, I think that there is a lot of scientific evidence that supports creation, and there is a lot of scientific evidence that suggests a Grand Designer. My belief in Truth doesn’t rely on the argument that it is true “simply because it is,” as you mentioned. Instead, I see the world and I physically cannot come to believe that there was not Someone who set it into motion. Let me explain. When I see the world, I see creation, design, art, and order. If you saw a brand new car, you would know that someone created it. If you see a nice watch, you know that someone designed that watch. When you see a beautiful painting or sculpture, you know that someone painted or sculpted it. When you walk into a classroom and see rows of desks, you know that someone ordered them. It is the same with the world. Say you sailed up to a deserted island and saw a computer sitting there in the sand. Which would be easier to believe: that over the course of billions of years, each little piece of the computer came together to perfectly fit together and perform its purpose? OR, someone was on the island who put the computer there? Probably the second. Similarly, I cannot look at the Earth in its perfectly situated spot in the Solar System, with all of the necessities to sustain life, with intelligent humans and beautiful nature, and not know that there is a Creator, Designer, Artist, and Orderer of it all. And I think that the more scientific evidence we find, the more it supports Christianity.
Question 2: I agree with you that it is easy to substantiate science using the scientific method: evidence supports hypotheses, and the repetition of tests proves accuracy. When it comes to “substantiating” religion, I have a feeling that my answer will not suffice for you; however, as you asked about my personal experience, I will answer to the best of my ability. When it comes to God, there are many mysteries that I believe––and that the Bible says––humans are not meant to understand. If we understood perfectly all of the complexities of God, we would be trying to fill His shoes. Humans attempt to “play God” in a lot of different ways, do we not? When it comes to the creation account in Genesis, there is no way to prove it: like you said, it takes faith to believe that God created the universe and everything in it in six days. There are no other accounts of creation from that time period that can support the one in Genesis, and there is certainly no way to scientifically test it. However, I believe that technically believing that God did not create the universe––that it all just “happened” on accident––is an equally big leap of faith. In fact, I think that it takes more faith to believe that everything just happened to perfectly make all the pieces fall into place so that we would be here, the only intelligent beings (that we know of) in the universe, perfectly distanced from the Sun, with such a beautiful Earth to call home. I simply cannot bring myself to believe that this is all purposeless. The odds of our Earth being what it is are unbelievably slim when you consider all the other planets that we have found that do not and cannot sustain life. The existence of the Earth, and the people in it (people with emotions and outstanding capabilities and knowledge and passions and interests and skills) are enough evidence for me to believe that there is a wise and powerful and loving God who put us here. (Sorry if you wanted more “cold hard facts.”)
Question(s) 3: I think here, you first have to decide what your baseline of truth is. When it comes to analyzing claims of science, I’d say just refer to the scientific method, do your research, and it is pretty clear what is and isn’t believable. When it comes to religion, it is completely up to you to decide what is and isn’t true. Something isn’t worth believing to be true if there is a sliding scale for truth. (For example, if a kilometer in America is different than a km in Canada, which is different than a km in Australia, which one is truly a kilometer?) If you believe in truth, and you pursue it, you will find it. I believe that with my whole heart––and I don’t accept everything that I have heard or read about without doing a lot of research first. I have searched through a lot of different things in this world and nothing is more real to me than the fact that God is the one true God, and Jesus Christ is His son. There are many different “religions.” I don’t analyze any claim that comes from any religion outside of Christianity, because I have found Christianity to be truth, why would I search somewhere else? Stating that, I am able to answer the last part of your question: I do believe that science and Christianity are connected, because if God did not intend for humans to explore and make discoveries in the universe He created, He would not have given us minds to comprehend the vastness of the universe or the complexities of the world. He would not have allowed us to have minds that were curious about how things work. Science always backs up Christianity. It reinforces it. Anyone who says differently hasn’t looked deeply enough. The Bible has yet to be proven historically inaccurate, even though most people assume that it has.
I understand that my answers to your questions probably are frustrating because I base them more off of faith than the evidence for which you are looking. Quite simply, I think that there is an abundance of evidence pointing to a Creator, so I see little use in waiting for there to be more evidence before I make my decision to believe in God.
There are many really great books out there that I could recommend to you, but one in particular is called The Reason for God by Tim Keller. Again, thank you for your comment and for the insight you brought to my blog! I appreciate it, Nolan!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mykayla, thank you for your thorough response. I ask these questions with an interest in hearing your thoughts, not to be right, so no, I am not frustrated at all about your answers! I struggle with questions like these, and hearing other people’s thoughts can be quite informative for me.
I appreciate your response. I am going to prepare my thoughts for when I see you in-person next. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person