 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
Paul Gosselin (10/2/2026)
Here is a note I sent one of my sons who is finishing up a degree in aerospace engineering.
-----------------------
Hi there,
While you may never have to take a university (propaganda) course dedicated solely to the theory of Evolution[1] (as I did), you cannot go through university anywhere without this issue coming up. Perhaps you are aware that I participate on a Young Earth Creationist (YEC for short) forum that has geologists, physicists, programmers and engineers. Many lively discussions...
Since these guys are YECs and believe the Earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old, the issue of radiometric dating comes up often enough as this is the basis for evolutionary claims such as “the Earth is 4-5 billion years old and that dinosaurs are millions of years old”. Clearly radiometric dating does not fit in the Biblical timeline. So what do you do with these claims? One response some Creationists have come up with is accelerated decay theory, basically claiming that in the past a cosmological event caused accelerated radiometric decay, despite the Earth being actually 6 to 10 thousand years old.
One participant in a discussion about radiometric dating responded that this method is built on assumptions and has been proven wrong many times when actual dates of rock formation are known (such when a recently formed volcanic rock is dated, typically the date is wildly wrong if the test lab is NOT informed where the rock was obtained...). All of which raises the question: Why must Young Earth Creationists try to fit a dating method that has be proven inaccurate into the Biblical time line?
Below is a note I sent to the forum regarding a largely ignored issue in this debate.
-----------------------------
There is an underlying issue here regarding radiometric dating that needs to be addressed. In a typical lab experiment one can control and observe initial conditions. And the more we know about those initial conditions (and processes occurring during the experiment), the better our conclusions. Yet the radiometric dating system relies on what philosophers of science call a “metaphysical presupposition” that is idea that we can KNOW the initial conditions (millions of years ago...) in the rocks being dated by radiometric dating despite the fact that no human observer observed these conditions. Here’s the thing, if you strip away all the philosophical jargon, one can exchange the expression “metaphysical presupposition” for the simpler term “belief...
And if one REJECTS the belief that we KNOW the initial conditions in a rock being dated by radiometric dating systems, then you cannot even begin to date any rocks and all dates derived from said dating systems then become meaningless. All you have left is the actual empirical data about observable isotopes of certain minerals in rocks that we can see with our eyes and touch with our fingers. Of course there is HUGE pressure in geology to accept the belief that we can KNOW the initial conditions (millions of years ago...) in the rocks being dated by radiometric dating systems. It is true that the belief we can KNOW the initial conditions has seen methodological refinements over the years (lots of refined technical hand-waving about “calibration” and "isochrons"), but the basic fact remains that the initial conditions in the rock being dated were observed by NO HUMAN. The claim that we can KNOW the initial conditions in these rocks remains a BELIEF, nothing more.
And the significant issue is that a belief is something you can accept or reject.
This reminds me of an exchange I had in the early 80s with a Christian friend studying for an engineering degree in geology. I began discussing evidence for the Flood and issues that would reinterpret orthodox geological stratigraphy as evidence for the Flood. He became VERY agitated and emotional, perhaps having visions of being branded a “heretic” and his career in geology being flushed down the toilet should he begin to seriously look into such issues. This got to the point were he was threatening to cut me off should I pursue such discussions. So to avoid losing a friend, I avoided any further YEC discussions with him. This friend went on to get a comfortable government job and at this point is collecting a nice pension from this government job and all is well...
The point being of course that the pressure to bow to consensus in geology is REAL and should be taken in consideration, as well as the real threat to lose publication opportunities, a paycheck (or grants in geological research) should be weighed in considering the value of the consensus/dogma in geology about the claim we can KNOW the initial conditions in rocks. Very few geologists have the guts to stand up to the peer pressure of geological consensus and accept being labelled as a “crank” as did the American geologist Harlen Bretz who first proposed in the 1920s a theory that the Channelled Scablands in the US Northwest were formed by the Missoula Floods. Many years later, Bretz’ theory was accepted...
Regarding the belief in geology about the claim we can KNOW the initial conditions in rocks I am tempted to yell (as did William Wallace in BraveHeart) FREEDOM!! But I won’t do that...
A further note.
While one must keep in mind that REJECTING the "we know" presupposition regarding radiometric dating’s initial conditions would sow chaos in geology's contribution to the materialistic origins myth (also known as the Theory of Evolution), this would have NO influence on commercial geology.
Commercial geologists would not even notice a blip on the radar and would go on analysing cores for mineral content and still be able to determine if a mine could be opened or not and would still be able to analyse liquids retrieved from a petroleum exploratory drilling site to determine if there was enough oil to justify tapping an oil field. Ore samples from a mine would go on being analysed, providing facts with which to make decisions to keep a mine open or not.
All of these endeavours would proceed unaffected, even if the "we know" presupposition regarding radiometric dating were totally rejected. Real geology would not die. On the other hand, Evolutionary theory would be shaken to the core as neo-evolutionism (mutations and Natural Selection) is a stupid mechanism that is NOT driven by any Intelligent Agent, and thus DEMANDS millions of years to produce any results. Take away the millions of years then mutations and natural selection will produce NOTHING... The time needed would not be available... According to Evolutionary dogma, time is the pixy dust that makes the evolutionary miracle happen... Evolutionists have no choice but to believe in the we KNOW the initial conditions in rocks being dated dogma.
Years ago, the co-founder of Creationism, Henry M. Morris had given some thought to such issues in his Scientific Creationism (1974: 137-138)
Not even uranium dating is capable of experimental verification, since no one could actually watch uranium decaying for millions of years to see what happens. In order to obtain a prehistoric date, therefore, it is necessary to use some kind of physical process which operates slowly enough to measure and steadily enough to produce significant changes. If certain assumptions are made about it, then it can yield a date which could be called the apparent age. Whether or not the apparent age is really the true age depends completely on the validity of the assumptions. Since there is no way in which the assumptions can be tested, there is no sure way (except by divine revelation) of knowing the true age of any geologic formation.
On the same page, he made these observations about assumptions/presuppositions (1974: 138)
For these or other methods of geochronometry, one should note carefully that the following assumptions must be made:
1. The system must have been a closed system.
That is, it cannot have been altered by factors extraneous to the dating process; nothing inside the system could have been removed, and nothing outside the system added to it.
2. The system must initially have contained none of its daughter component.
If any of the daughter component were present initially, the initial amount must be corrected in order to get a meaningful calculation.
3. The process rate must always have been the same. Similarly, if the process rate has ever changed since the system was established, then this change must be known and corrected for if the age calculation is to be of any significance.
Morris’ second assumption (The system must initially have contained none of its daughter component) is misconstrued and unnecessary, simply because radiometric dating calculations can still begin if one assumes one KNOWS what quantities of all isotopes were present when the rock was formed. In the final analysis, if daughter components were present or not is irrelevant as no one observed the initial conditions of rock formation. No one measured the quantities of isotopes present at formation. The old computer programmer's motto applies here: “Garbage in, Garbage out...” This if the assumption regarding initial conditions in radiometric dating is GARBAGE, then all dates produced using this assumption will necessarily be GARBAGE as well...
I see two reasons why even YECs have not explored this issue.
1) Fear of being labelled “anti-science” or a “crank”. (this will shut a lot of people up...)
2) An unadmitted acceptable of scientism, the Enlightenment belief that Science is unlimited and can reach back into the past to explain origins. The flip side of that coin is that people will reject any serious thinking or discussion about the LIMITS of science...
David Coppedge once observed
Apollo 16 astronaut Charlie Duke remembers a moon rock he picked up. The "experts" said one end of hand-size rock was 1.6 billion years old, but the other end was 3.6 billion years old, using the same dating method on the same rock! (https://crev.info/2024/04/apollo-moon-age/).
--------------------------
One of the participants in the forum made the objection that radiometric dates are not random but line up with stratigraphy.
To which I responded that this has no bearing on the issue that claiming to know the initial conditions of rocks being dated by radiometric dating systems. This response boils down to implying that geologists MUST believe the “we know the initial conditions” dogma. Yet this is a choice, to believe or not believe.
I got no further responses from Forum participants on this matter....
--------------------------
Here is another point where a different “metaphysical presupposition” actually provides the FOUNDATION for Science itself.
And this is a point of contact between (natural) science and theology. It is actually a point where (natural) science is completely DEPENDANT on theology (specifically the Judeo-Christian worldview). That science is dependant on theology results from the fact that Scripture provide one critical point of dogma, that God made Creation lawlike, and is a reflection of a rational/personal God. This entails that the elements of the material world around us obey laws, and this belief made the experimental method possible. And it makes the exploration of space and cosmology possible (with limitations)
Here is an old article of mine that covers the basics.
The Judeo-Christian Cosmology and the Origins of Science.
Coppedge, David F. (2026) We Were Wrong About Isochrons, Geologists Say. (Creation-Evolution Headliens - January 24, 2026)
Morris, Henry M. (1974/1976) Scientific Creationism. Creation-Life Publishers San Diego CA 277 p.
Powell, Tim MD (2024) The Danger of Scientific Consensus - Evergreen Family Medicine. Evergreen Family Medicine -> Archive
In a 1998 article, the philosopher Alvin Plantinga wrote (1998: 681-682)
the theory of evolution plays a fascinating and crucial role in contemporary Western culture. The enormous controversy about it is what is most striking, a controversy that goes back to Darwin, and continues full force today. Evolution is the regular subject of court room drama; one such trialóthe spectacular Scopes trial of 1925 has been made the subject of an extremely popular film. Fundamentalists regard evolution as the work of the Devil. In academia, on the other hand, it is an idol of the contemporary tribe; it serves as a shibboleth, a litmus test distinguishing the ignorant and bigoted fundamentalist goats from the properly acculturated and scientifically receptive sheep. Apparently this litmus test extends far beyond the confines of this terrestrial globe: according to the Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, 'If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization, is: ''Have they discovered evolution yet?"' Indeed, many of the experts, for example, Dawkins, William Provine, Stephen Gould, display a sort of revulsion at the very idea of special creation by God, as if this idea is not merely not good science, but somehow a bit Obscene, or at least unseemly; it borders on the immoral; it is worthy of disdain and contempt. In some circles, confessing to finding evolution attractive will get you disapproval and ostracism, and may lose you your job; in others, confessing doubts about evolution will have the same doleful effect. In Darwin's day, some suggested that it was all well and good to discuss evolution in the universities and among the cognoscenti; they thought public discussion unwise, however; for it would be a shame if the lower classes found out about it. Now, ironically enough, the shoe is sometimes on the other foot; it is the devotees of evolution who sometimes express the fear that public discussion of doubts and difficulties with evolution could have harmful political effects.
Alvin Plantinga (1998) The philosophy of biology. edited by David L. Hull and Michael Ruse. chap 34 When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible. pp. 674-697 (First published in Christian Scholar's Review, 21 (1991): 8-32.
Kuhar, M.J. On Blacklisting in Science. Sci Eng Ethics 14, 301–303 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9082-5
[1] - The prof who gave that Evolution course I had in the 1970s was a Communist. At the time he was a VERY zealous evolutionist as well as a devout Communist who, when he had the opportunity, would sermonize students to join the Communist Revolution against Capitalism. For some time I lost sight of him, but in the 90s, after the Fall of the Iron Curtain, he invited me to a class he was doing. I was surprised to observe that he’d defrocked from his hard-core atheism and was selling astral voyages and occult stuff to his students. He had become a shaman...