Young earth creationism and radioactivity

The current print issue of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith has a review of a study by two of the most prominent young-earth creation organizations, on radioisotope dating. (Articles in Perspectives are placed on-line within two years of publication.) The study, which I have not seen, is published as Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, in two volumes, edited by Larry Vardiman and others.

The review, by Randy Isaac, currently executive director of the American Scientific Affiliation, which publishes Perspectives, appears to be a thorough examination of the results of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) project, carried out by the Institute of Creation Research and the Creation Research Society.*

Isaac says that the study is remarkable in that it concedes plainly that current scientific evidence from radioactive decay is that the earth is much more than a few thousand years old. He explains the findings of the RATE project in some detail. The approach of the RATE project, he says, is to propose that the rates of radioactive decay were much greater during the flood, thus making the decay evidence indicate that the earth is much younger than it seems to be.

Isaac writes that "The authors report that faced with this evidence, a young-earth advocate must address at least two key scientific problems resulting from a one-year period of accelerated decay rates during the Flood." These problems are the heat that would have been produced by so much decay, and the amount of dangerous radioactivity which would have been produced.

For some (perhaps legitimate) reason, Isaac doesn't mention another serious question, namely why should decay rates have accelerated during the Flood?

Isaac commends the study for its admission (seldom made by advocates of young-earth creationism) that the evidence is in favor of an old earth, but criticizes it for its conclusion, which is that the two problems have been nearly solved. He says that they haven't.

The American Scientific Affiliation neither endorses or denies young-earth creationism. It allows members to believe any scheme for origins which is compatible with its statement of beliefs.

Thanks for reading.

* * * * *

On June 7, 2007, I posted again on this topic, this time with a link to part of the original RATE report.

*On July 25, 2007, I discovered than Answers in Genesis, a third important young-earth creationism organization, was also initially involved in this project, and has reported favorably on the results. (See here)

Dialog on Science-Religion issues

My title does not mean to imply that science and Christianity are opposed. I don't believe that they should be. God is the author of truth, whether perceived through experiment, in the Bible, or as revealed to individuals by the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, we are fallen, and don't always perceive such truth as God meant it, through whatever means we are looking for it.

The American Scientific Affiliation is an organization of Christian, most of whom are also scientists. Some of them are quite prominent, like Francis Collins, head of the human genome project. Most aren't. The organization publishes a quarterly journal, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Articles are released to the Internet roughly two years after original publication. The Affiliation takes no position on issues of origins, other than that there is a God who is creator. Perspectives deals with other matters, such as stewardship of nature and medical ethics, as well as issues related to origins.

I recently received the March, 2007, issue of Perspectives. I found it excellent, mostly because of two dialogues. In both cases, the editor had persuaded authors with differing views to react to each other.

One such dialog concerned Intelligent Design (ID). Loren Haarsma ("Is Intelligent Design 'Scientific'?" Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 59:55-62, March 2007) pointed out, I believe correctly, that ID is partly scientific, partly philosophical, and partly theological, and that it is easy to concentrate on only one of these aspects, missing the others. (Unfortunately, in some court cases about teaching science in the public schools, ID advocates have seemed to claim that ID is only scientific.) Haarsma considers all three aspects in some detail, challenging ID to be good science, good philosophy, and good theology. He also says that ID's claims about origins should be restrained to something like "I believe that current knowledge does not fully explain how certain biological phenomena arose, and doubt if there will ever be a naturalistic explanation" rather than claiming that science has ruled out a naturalistic origin for them. On the other hand, he also says that anti-creation advocates should show similar restraint, as the evidence for anything else is scant, or non-existent, and should say something like "I believe that the evidence points to an evolutionary origin of certain biological phenomena, and that eventually, it will be possible to explain its origin naturalistically."

Michael J. Behe, perhaps the most important ID scientist (author of Darwin's Black Box) responded. He agreed with much of what Haarsma wrote. Here is a quote from Behe:
. . . the message "evolution or design, one or the other," is a flawed choice. To the extent that the public has gotten than impression, it is regrettable. There is nothing in the idea of intelligent design that precludes the design being unfolded over time, and I myself judge that scenario to be the most consistent with all of the data we currently have. What's more, I am mostly happy with [Haarsma's] statement, "suppose the laws of nature are fine-tuned not one for the self-assembly of molecules and stars and planets, but also for the self-assembly of biological life and biological complexity." Michael J. Behe, "The Positive Side of Intelligent Design: A Response to Loren Haarsma," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 59:63, March 2007.

I deeply appreciate the thought of both Haarsma and Behe, and Perspectives for publishing both together.

Another dialog was between Hugh Ross, who is, in this dialog, anyway, labeled a Concordist, that is, one who believes that scientific findings, properly understood, should not contradict scripture, properly understood, and a critic, Paul Seely. Seely was quite critical of Ross, but Ross defended his views rather thoroughly. I don't claim enough expertise to judge between them. The issues are clearly spelled out in this dialog. See the Reasons to Believe website for more about Ross's beliefs. See here and here for some available publications, in previous issues of Perspectives, by Seely on these topics.

Thanks for reading.