Reader Mail: YEC

Kenneth Hynek • 7th Nov 2008 • Reader Mail, Religion, The Sciences
Christ, Earth, faith, Holy Scripture, Jesus, radioactive decay, science, Sun, Young Earth Creationism

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

Charles Tysoe writes, in response to this article:

That’s unfortunately the approximate level of dishonesty one has come to expect from young earth creationism these days

Ken, Not very scientific. Arent’t you going to give them a chance to lie first on this one, before you convict them?

As a wag once observed “Do you always know what you know, before you know it?”

Regardless of decay rates, the radioactive dating of the earth is based on several unprovable assumptions.

For myself, I like to think of the earth as about 49.9 billion — give or take a billion or so — and the universe, say, 125 trillion years old.

Sarcasm aside, that’s a very unfair slander against folk, who like you believe in Jesus Christ. Any guild one cares to name has its share of liars and cheats as well as honest men.

You should retract your statement.

cheers,

C. Tysoe

Charles is right: the statement of mine which he has quoted isn’t exactly the most scientific, is it? But then, that is because it was not meant to be.

Just for a refresher, however, let’s quickly re-capture the context of the quote. In remarking on the emergence of a paper which noted that the rate of radioactive decay in elements varies based on distance from the Sun, rather than remaining constant (as was previously thought). This, of course, has a few implications for the accuracy of those geological dating methods which make use of radioactive decay, although the probable variance in the dates that such methods report probably won’t be that much. The distance between Earth and the Sun does indeed vary…but not all that much in the grand scheme.

Radiometric dating will still show, even with the adjusted calculations, that the Earth is billions of years old, in other words.

But, in noting the emergence of this new discovery concerning the precision of radiometric dating, I observed that such a development “will no doubt be touted as proof, in some quarters, of the complete unreliability of radioactive dating, and as proof that the whole science of geology is invalid. That’s unfortunately the approximate level of dishonesty one has come to expect from Young Earth Creationism these days, in which even slight variances in the data or data-collection methods get amplified into comprehensive rejections of the science itself, and the basis for yet more “proofs” that the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old.”

Charles thinks I am being…uncharitable?…for suggesting that such a development might be siezed upon by certain elements in the YEC movement prior to the emergence of evidence that they have actually siezed upon it. Personally, I prefer to let the record of the YEC movement’s most significant apologists stand for itself:link-icon:.

Is it polite to suggest that my fellow Christians, in their misguided zeal to defend the authority of Holy Scripture, might resort to dishonesty? No, it’s not polite. But then, politeness is not always useful or warranted, is it? Are we not supposed to, as Christians, point out when our brothers and sisters have fallen into error?

I’ve said, repeatedly, that I cannot fault the faith of Young Earthers; that remains true. But do I think for one moment that they are not engaged in all manner of dishonesties where evidence and scientific uncertainties are concerned? No, not at all.

And the statement, then, will stand. Because the statement was a comment on an overall trend, not one specific incident.

As to radiometric dating specifically: yes, it is not a wholly proven thing either. But this gets back to what I said before: the slightest uncertainty gets magnified into a comprehensive rejection, which is (I submit) a totally unwarranted action, in addition to being dishonest. Even if one takes the most extreme error ranges possible in radiometric analysis, one still comes to one inevitable conclusion: young earth creationism doesn’t have a leg to stand on where evidence for the age of the Earth is concerned.

Two billion, three billion, or five billion…it’s more than 6,000 any way you slice it.