The Reliability of Radiometric Dating with Dr. Roger Wiens

I was challenged last week as to why I reject Young Earth Creationism and firmly believe that the earth is old. Well, if you're looking for scientific evidence, this is the post for you. If you're looking for biblical evidence, wait your turn. I'll write about that for tomorrow.

Again, I'll preface this by saying that I'm not a scientist. Like anyone, I rely on the research of others. If you think the earth is young based on what you've been taught or what you read in your Bible you are also dependent on the research of others unless you have discovered an older Hebrew manuscript or translation than was previously uncovered and have the capability of translating it yourself in light of it's time, culture, etc. Whenever I talk about science, I admit that I"m under qualified, but that doesn't mean I can't look at and understand what researchers have uncovered and come to a consensus on.

One such item is radiometric dating. While I've learned about it before, I was recently pointed to a helpful article written by Dr. Roger C. Wiens called "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective." As you may have guessed from the title, he is a Christian. His doctoral thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He prefaces his paper with the following:

     "Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from thecomplete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware thatBible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

     This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community." (bold emphasis mine)

I will write another post at some point about the human genome project, but it is interesting to note that, as with the genome project, Christians are also actively involved with this area of science. It is not 'those naturalistic atheist scientists' trying to disprove anyone's faith or religious text. It is a variety of scientists doing their best to discover the truth about the age of the universe and specifically this planet. A suspicion of conspiracy is simply one type of rhetorical move that is easily set aside. A more subtle one is that YEC peeps will often use dismissive language of carbon dating (specific example) not radiometric dating (broad method). Carbon dating is only one of the over 40 methods of radiometric dating and, according to Dr. Wiens in his introduction, is seldom used in dating the age of rocks. Carbon dating is used primarily for dating organic materials whereas the age of rocks is determined by potassium-argon and uranium-lead dating. Wiens explains the key to how these radiometric clocks work:

Wiens goes on to describe various example of these dating methods and how they work before touching on the age of the earth. By dating the oldest rocks, moon rocks, and asteroids a common pattern emerges in that the 'bodies' in our solar system came to exist about the same time: 4.5-4.6 billion years ago. He then touches on a number of other dating methods that go back 60,000+ years such as tree rings and ice cores. These ice core samples can be counted in multiple ways: visually, by the dust layers, and other annual chemical deposits.

Wiens finishes his article on a more pastoral or apologetic note appealing to Christians to take the data seriously and not be so easily dismissive:

"...some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past. My answer is that it is similar to believing in other things of the past. It only differs in degree. Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Because it would take an extremely elaborate scheme to make up his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, and many other things, and besides, there is no good reason to simply have made him up. Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records. Consider the following:

• There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
• All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
• Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
• Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
• Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
• The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple."

Lastly, Wiens addresses a common YEC claim made when the data is just so obvious that it can't be denied that things really do appear to look old such as rocks, starlight, etc. They often claim that God created the universe with the appearance of age. They often appeal to Adam as being created a grown man and not an infant. Wiens points out that this is not a scientific claim, but a philosophical or theological one. I agree with him when he follows up by saying that those taking this stance are therefore insisting that God intentionally created in a way that would deceive us. I have a big problem with this, but apparently YEC adherents have no problem with it at all.

Wiens closes his paper with the following:

"As scientists, we deal daily with what God has revealed about Himself through the created universe. The psalmist marveled at how God, Creator of the universe, could care about humans: "When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have set in place, what is man that You are mindful of him, the son of man that You care for him?" (Psalm 8:3-4). Near the beginning of the twenty-first century we can marvel all the more, knowing how vast the universe is, how ancient are the rocks and hills, and how carefully our environment has been designed. Truly God is more awesome than we can imagine"

To that I say, Amen!

Bill Nye's opening argument

After Ken Ham delivered his non-evidence based 30 minutes that he somehow thinks justifies his claim that " "Creationism is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era," (which then puts the burden of proof on himself which is a horrible debate move) Bill Nye stepped up. This is a summary of Nye's points

• Back to the question at hand, does Ham's model actually hold up?
• Sea shell fossils created the rocks that the very building is built on. Millions of years of layers of ancient life.
• There is snow ice with 680,000 layers of annual cycles.
• A tree in sweden is over 9,000 years old. Even in California some are over 6,000 years old. Trees cannot survive under water.
• You never find a 'lower' water animal mixed with a 'higher' water animal in the fossil record.
• Points to the multiple types of skulls globally
• How did all of the animals from Australia come from the ark in the Middle East with no evidence of them anywhere except Australia?
• The math for Ham's model is preposterous based on a modest assessment of 16 million species today.

• Several examples of why the ark is problematic: not enough space for 14,008 creatures, wood twisting in water would cause massive leaking, healthy living conditions unattainable, not enough  food, etc.
• The Amphibious lung fish was predicted to be found in a particular place and it was: Tiktaalik
• The Ken Ham cannot make predictions and get results.
• Sexual reproduction in minnow fish combats infection and bacteria better than a-sexual reproduction
• Prediction of the Big bang 'ecco'. Built a cosmic observatory to hear it and found it as predicted.
• Elements of rubidium and strontium. Occurs in lava freezing allowing for the dating of fossils.
• Billions of stars further than 6,000 light years away.

Instead of reaching for red herrings like differing opinions on dog species, bacteria on ecoli, or points not held by the opposition, Nye goes straight for the evidence. He not only gives clearly laid out reasons why he rejects a young earth and support for an old earth, he also goes out of his way to give reasons why there could not have been a global flood. This was not even necessary and yet because he knows it is actually held by Ham he went for it. Ham would have been wise to use this tactic and directed his attention to any evidence he thinks actually supports his view or can hold a candle to Nye's view.

There were a few points that I am well acquainted with which were brought up by Nye such as the distance of the stars, the age of rocks by various dating methods, fossil layers, snow ice layers, tree rings, and the layering of species. For other parts he expanded my per-existing knowledge. I knew most of the arguments against the ark and a global flood, but had not heard about how problematic a wooden ship that large would be for leaking. I knew there were problems with species going global post flood,  but hadn't thought through that there ought to be evidence of their travel not to mention the exponential species growth in such a short amount of time. There were also a lot more types of skulls on his diagram than I recall seeing gathered on a page.

What was most devastating to Ham, however, was the way Nye was able to point out Young Earth Creationism's lack of predictive power. Nye could point to the prediction of the Big Bang echo and that amazing amphibious lung fish fossil swamp in Canada. Perhaps Ham will have some sort of retort that could save some face in the later portion of this debate, but his position of a young earth is currently crushed. However, does Nye think he has done more than he actually has? He ended the debate saying, "Is Ken Ham's creation model viable? I say no! Absolutely not!" Then he pleaded for the listener not to raise scientifically illiterate children who don't understand their place int he cosmos, who don't understand natural law.

My question is whether Bill Nye thinks this is the normative Creation model for Christians or if he is narrowing the debate question as simply Creation according to Ham/AnswersInGenesis. It appears as though it is the latter. Let's hope so. It is clear that Ken Ham is deluded enough to equate his position as the foundation of all Christian faith and seems to think Nye is part of an evil empire of Naturalists. Perhaps Bill Nye will turn out to display more patience and grace out of the two because there was a mere hint of Naturalism in his entire presentation. From what I saw it was all science and no naturalistic attack against faith. In fact, I don't recall him ever denying the possibility that God created through evolution. There was no mention of God, Jesus, etc. There was no need to because Ham took the burden of proof. All Nye had to do was show that the earth was old and that Ham's claim was untenable.

Opening statements of Nye vs Ham

In my opinion this debate stalled before it even began. 

I've been trying to figure out what the question the debate was addressing is actually getting at: 

"Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?"

I was wondering if it was trying to address the question of "why" or the question of "how". A friend of mine says it is asking "if". The confusion of this vague phrasing probably won't even get addressed well based on the opening statements of the two men.

Ham started by quoting the many scientists who protested the very occasion if this debate. (I don't recall him explaining that it was because it gives the appearance of validating Ham and the museum). Be then gives examples if creationists who are scientists. And says that it is important to define the terms "creation" "evolution" and "science". He brushed past the creation and evolution terms as basically meaning "God's special creation" and "existence due to naturalistic causes". Nye never disputed these in his opening statement. Ham then defines science broadly and attempts to separate "observational science"(what is repeatable" from "historical science" (events that happened in the past). Finally he pushes his view that this debate is really about 2 philosophical worldviews; 2 accounts of origins; 2 beliefs. He asserts that creationism is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era. 

Nye opened by saying what we have are 2 stories to which we must ask: "is it viable?" "Does it hold up?" He sees no distinction between observational science and historical science claiming that this distinction is unique to Ham and others in North America. He points to the multitude of religious communities worldwide (which includes Christians) who do not embrace a young earth view of origins. His concern is that creationism stunts America's scientific innovation, discovery, and progress. 

I had commented previously on an aquaintence's Facebook post that if we say the debate was about anything other than the answer to the debate question then we are missing the point of the debate. I stand corrected in a sense because so far neither seem to be focused on addressing the question. Nye seems to at least be closer than Ham because he is asking modern scientific questions, but seems to be ignorant of what faith communities are and what they actually believe about evolution, which is different than both Ham and himself. We'll see how the debate progresses from here, but to me this debate is a sham. It is not specific enough in its question or definitions from the outset which could have brought clarity and direction to the interactions rather than quibbling over basic terms of the question. In fact, there should have been a statement for one or the other to defend.  I suppose this was set up I become a spectacle from teh beginning. Publicity and some level of credibility for Ham and answers in genesis and a chance for Nye to make them look silly to everyone else. Based on the aftermath both were accomplished.