Three statements about what I am not, one statement about what I am: I am not anti-science; I am not insane; I am not an idiot; I am a young earth believer. I think these things need to be addressed, though not actually in that order, in order to have a discussion on the age of the earth. In order I intend to address the fact that I'm not insane, then that I'm not anti-science, then finally that I'm not an idiot. Only once all of these points are answered will I then move on to laying out a positive case for my position. With that being said, please be aware that this post will not get into the positive argument for a young earth, this post will instead only address the negative arguments; that one cannot be a young earth believer and still be intelligent at the same time. This post will only address the three statements on what I am not, I will leave the next post to address what I am.
So, to the first point, am I insane? Well, I think it would be hard for a truly insane person to answer that question in a way that would be convincing to anyone else. But, I'm going to argue that I'm not insane, rather I have different presuppositions than others have. This is where the really interesting battles in science are fought, for where we begin in an argument will often dictate where we end. If we assume there is no God, or at least that the question of God is irrelevant to science, then we assume that we can find no evidence in creation to support that there is a God, so anything that might indicate the work of this God must instead be interpreted as deriving from some other non-God explanation.
But, if I assume there is a God, and that this God has spoken to the specifics of creation, then I begin to look at creation and wonder whether I can find evidence to support this. I begin to look and see if there is evidence that the specifics given are true. Similarly I should be looking for evidence to disprove the specifics given if I was interested in determining whether this God was trustworthy or not. My presupposition both describes the evidence I am willing to look for, and the interpretive lens I will seek to examine that evidence through.
Because presuppositions are so important they naturally lead into the next question, as to whether nor not I am anti-science. If my presupposition is that scientists are all evil and attempting to lead the world to hell, then I would be anti-science. However, even as I sit here I think to myself, "I'm typing on a computer, sending information through the air to a wireless router that is then taking that information and putting it online on servers thousands of miles away, which are then interpreting that data and storing it so that you, an unknown reader, can access that information on your own computer, a highly sophisticated machine which could not have existed prior to the last decade (unless your computer is really, really old) without the advances of modern science." In essence, what I'm saying is that I am not anti-science.
I think science and scientific investigation are both great. I look to men like Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, and Albert Einstein as geniuses who moved the world forward in great ways. Science is a tool, or a process, by which lives across the world have been made better. However, science has also allowed us to do horribly immoral things that we couldn't have done in prior generations, such as the development of bio-weapons. Again, science is a tool, and the ability to engage in scientific investigation is a great gift from God that humans should engage in as part of our purpose for existence.
But, if I'm not insane, and I like science, why do I disagree with the pre-suppositions of science? Am I an idiot? No. I have a different world view, a world view that says both that there is a living God, and that this living God has spoken to how he created the world.
But how do I address the scientific evidence for the age of the earth? Ah, now that is a great question. Obviously I don't disagree with the evidence itself. To disagree with the evidence as it exists would be insanity; it would be a denial of reality. To say that science can't say anything from this evidence would be anti-science. To remain uneducated as to the evidence because I was afraid it would destroy my world view would be idiocy. Therefore I must address the evidence directly.
As I understand scientific argument, the way for determining the age of the earth must be based on dating radioactive materials. How this is done most accurate is through isochron dating. Isochron dating checks a daughter element against its parent radioactive element, and against other isotopes of the daughter element itself that are also present in the same formation. If you aren't familiar with chemistry, I will explain what all this means below.
Radioactive decay of an element produces a daughter element (uranium to lead, for example). But, not all lead is evidence of uranium, there are some isotopes (or types) of lead that exist independently of uranium. So, if I check for the amount of a lead isotope that derives from the uranium isotope present in a rock, and compare that number to the amount of lead that does not derive from the uranium isotope present and I do this over multiple rocks that all came into being at the same time in the same location I should find that they all agree on the amount of each isotope present, that is in terms of the ratios of the isotopes. (I know this is difficult to follow, so I'll try an illustration.)
So, for an illustration, let's say you had a bottle of ink. Now, the ink in your bottle is not particularly stable. Some of it breaks down occasionally so that you end up with a mixture of strong and weak ink. Now, into that bottle you then pour another kind of ink. If I were to mix that all together so that it was all evenly distributed through the bottle, the isochronic method indicates I should be able to figure out how much of the original pure ink existed, even without measuring the whole amount in the bottle.
Here's how it works: I know that I (ink) decays into M (milky ink) and that S (strong ink) is an additive not related to M or I. So, if I measure the amount of I, M, and S in a series of samples I expect that the ratio of M to S will be higher as the ratio of I to S is higher. So, the more I in a sample, the more M in the sample, and the less S in the sample. Now if my measurements of multiple samples all agree then I have a strong reason to believe that I can conclude what the original amount of I was. The reason I can conclude how much I was in the original canister is because I can deduce the actual ratio of I to S in the canister, and the ratio of M to I in the canister, then once I do the math assuming how much M is present going back to I, I can tell you how much I should have been in the canister. In this I have also determined the age of the canister because I had to do that to get how much should have been there. (If you still don't understand isochronic dating then the only thing I can recommend is doing some research on it. It is a difficult concept to grasp and I don't know how to make it easier.)
So, with this being the most accurate method of dating, what would I have to argue with? Well, let's address assumptions in the argument and then figure it out from there. The assumptions are: radioactive decay rates are known; these rates are unchanging; the elements we are measuring are evenly distributed; no additional amounts of the parent or daughter element have been introduced into the samples. Not all of these assumptions are valid.
In fact, the assumption of an even distribution is the hardest one to prove. Why? Because that isn't the way rocks form. Rocks form in an uneven distribution form. That is, rocks form in a mixed way, with the amount of any given element not being uniformly distributed through the rock. Thus when you measure for age using a whole rock you must have the whole rock. That means you would have to access the entire formation, and then you would have to have a uniform amount of the elements present in every section of that rock. In any other situation you do not have a uniform mixture. The assumption underlying isochronic dating is flawed on a logical level, not on a scientific level. If the logic were correct then the science would be correct.
In order to get around the rock issue you could simply do a test of a smaller area where you know that you could have different levels of the various elements. The problem is that then you can't determine how much of the original element you had because the two samples came from a rock that not perfectly mixed in the first place. If I find differing levels of elements in the samples then that indicates that the rock was not perfectly mixed, and I would need a perfectly mixed rock in order to determine the age of the rock based on the amounts of elements I have present. This is what is seen in nature.
In other words, the best science for determining the age of the earth rests of an assumption that cannot be logically demonstrated. This is not to say that the assumption is false, only that it cannot be demonstrated as being true. Whether or not the assumption is accepted must be based upon the presuppositions of the person examining the argument. Evidence does not interpret itself, rather it must be interpreted by the reader.
What is my point with all of this? My point is not to say that those who believe in an old earth are wrong or foolish or anything else. My argument is merely that there is room in the logical bedrock to erect the edifice of an argument for a young earth. The presuppositions of the old earth are not so solid that they cannot be undermined, they are not so strong as to withstand all attacks. Being a young earth believer does not make one an idiot, unscientific, or insane. Being a young earth believer means starting with different assumptions and building on those.
In my next post I will lay out the positive case for why I believe in a young earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment