Marco Rubio was caught off guard during an interview by Michael Hainey for GQ. He was asked how old he thinks the earth is.
His response:
I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.
What’s going on? Why would the interviewer even ask the question? And why would Rubio be so evasive?
In many circles, the earth’s age is a test question. For conservative evangelicals at places like Dallas Theological Seminary, it’s meant to determine who can be trusted to sustain the classical commitments of conservative Evangelicalism, not the least of which is a commitment to the propositional inerrancy of scripture. It’s also a political test question, one designed to identify who is willing to line up with conservative populists to resist the cultural control of the liberal establishment.
It’s clear that Hainey knows what’s what when it comes to evangelical politics, which is why he asked the question. And it’s clear that Rubio does as well, which is why he evaded, giving what is in effect a theological version of Obama’s famous response to the question about when life begins: that’s above my pay grade.
Two comments:
Viewed theologically, it’s bad for Christianity when theological questions are reassigned to the political sphere. The long history of cultural conflict over biblical authority in public life–the Scopes trial and much more–makes it understandable that conservative cultural populism sometimes focuses on questions of creation. But that ends up overburdening the question. St. Augustine viewed our reading of the actual duration of the 7-day creation as a matter of theological judgment, not authoritative doctrine. He was surely right, and it compromises the authority of genuinely authoritative doctrines to think otherwise. This is one of the weaknesses of American evangelicalism. It tends to let the contingencies of our cultural and political history in American shape the horizon of the church’s thought.
Viewed politically, it’s fascinating that Rubio adopts what amounts to the “pro-choice” view when it comes to scientific questions. This is the default position in American politics. If there’s one rule a astute politician follows, it’s this: When faced with controversies that are politically costly, speak up for “freedom.”
This works in some cases, but not when it comes to scientific questions. It’s not possible to sustain a culture of truth if we imagine that we can make cosmology or earth science into a “choice,” anymore than we can sustain a culture of life if everybody gets to make up his or her mind about when life begins.
Therein lies our challenge. Christians and cultural populists are right to resist the cultural imperialism of secular liberalism. But we need to be wise. As I pointed out, the genuinely authoritative doctrines of the faith are undermined when peripheral questions are made central. The same thing happens when we allow peripheral and ultimately sterile debates about the age of the earth to displace the genuinely important struggle to preserve the central convictions of a Christian intellectual and moral culture. We need to resist the false doctrine of scientism (for example: materialism), and the ersatz morality of secular liberalism (for example: the cult of “inclusion,” which means the assault on traditional morality). These are metaphysical and moral questions, not scientific ones. In a metaphysically and morally divided country we can make a very strong and legitimate political claim that we need to preserve an open space in public life for people to be shaped by their churches and moral communities rather than state-controlled education.
November 20th, 2012 | 12:47 pm
I doubt the interviewer would ask a liberal politician any question remotely connected with geology or astrophysics. That said, I would like from fundamentalists a scientific answer to the question: If the universe is six thousand years old (or some such Bible-based number) how is it that we can see the Milky Way?
November 20th, 2012 | 12:55 pm
Does the age of the Earth or the creation of the Universe or the biological origin of the human species really make that much difference in the day-to-day life of the average American? Probably not. But I DO expect our elected officials to live in the REAL world, rather than subscribing to a lot of superstitious nonsense.
Marco Rubio was not asked, “How old is the Earth?” He was asked, “How old do you think the Earth is?” Surely he has an belief, based either on science of theology, but instead he chose to dance away from the question. I find that dismaying. If we take “Young Earth” creationism at face value, EVERYTHING we know about physics and astronomy and even higher mathematics completely falls apart.
During his campaign Mitt Romney lamented how science education was lagging behind the rest of the Western industrialized world. Considering how 46% percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years, Romney certainly would have had his work cut out for him if he had been elected.
Let’s face it: “Young Earth” creationism is the antithesis of science. It completely inverts the scientific method, starting with an assumption (i.e. “God did it.”), then contorting science to fit that assumption, and if scientific facts do not support the notion that “God did it,” those facts can be dismissed as nothing less than an elaborate Satanic deception. I expect fundamentalist Christian preachers to spew this kind of gobbledygook, but not members of the House Science Committee and CERTAINLY not up-and-coming Presidential prospects.
November 20th, 2012 | 12:59 pm
Finding oil is a very high-stakes issue for oil companies. Trillions of dollars are riding on it. When they look for the most likely spots to drill, do they use Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?
If the Earth is only 6,000 years old, where did the oil come from? If created in the ground, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it did form from plankton, but 10,000 times faster than any chemist thinks it could in those conditions? A young Earth and a Flood would imply some interesting questions to ask, some extremely valuable research programs to start. How come nobody’s actually pursuing such research programs?
Why don’t creationists put together an investment fund, venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If “Flood geology” is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why is no one doing this?
Wouldn’t it be interesting if Hainey asked those questions of someone who’s on the Senate “Commerce, Science, and Technology Committee”?
November 20th, 2012 | 1:29 pm
So how should he have answered? He was right, I think to say that he’s not a scientist and isn’t qualified to answer, implying that a scientist would be qualified to answer it. On the other hand, he refers to a “mystery” about the age of the earth, implying that a scientist would not be so qualified. Which is it?
As you say, you can’t have it one way with creationism and the other way with abortion. But the evidence is rather clear (I’m pretty sure, speaking as a non-scientist) that the earth was not, in fact, created in six (not seven, by the way, on the seventh day God rested) days. Can we just admit that and move on, however much it might annoy certain Evangelicals? We aren’t doing them any favors by supporting their error.
Public schools cannot be expected to give a platform for every fringe belief. Where do you draw the line? It would be better to argue for the objective evil of abortion, rather than for an “open space” where even kooks are tolerated. That, after all, is how liberals argue anyway, in objective terms, despite their invocations of “tolerance.” They know “tolerance” just means “doing things our way.” They don’t actually care about “open space” at all. Republicans need to stop falling for this obvious ploy.
November 20th, 2012 | 2:12 pm
I would be interesting in hearing how R. R. Reno thinks the question should be answered.
I would point out that Rubio says, “I’m not a scientist, man. . . . I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that.” Doesn’t that imply he thinks a scientist is the one qualified to answer the question?
My own answer: The scientific consensus is that the earth is 4.54 billion years old, and there are powerful reasons to believe that is an accurate figure. If a person cannot accept the scientific answer to the question of the earth’s age for religious reasons, then of course that person is entitled to his or her religious beliefs. The Catholic viewpoint, however, is that science (properly understood) and religion (properly understood) cannot contradict each other.
November 20th, 2012 | 4:46 pm
I agree with Rubio’s pointing out the irrelevance of the question to the political and economic issues facing the country. I would have gone on to say “So obviously, you’re not asking the question in good faith. You beleive if I answer the question one way, I alienate my base of support; if I answer it another way, I alienate independent voters. You’re playing ‘gotcha.’ Sorry, I’m not playing.” But then I’m too politically incorrect to get elected dogcatcher anyway.
November 20th, 2012 | 10:54 pm
Absolutely right, Fred, and that’s a great answer. The media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) are engaged in a to-the-death game of gotcha, and if conservatives and Republicans don’t figure out how to play they are finished. We could see the beginning of it when George Stephanopolous asked Romney about his views on contraception. He was taken aback and rightly said it wasn’t an issue, but didn’t go on to take the offensive against the interviewer. Why should he have? We didn’t know then what they had up their sleeves. By the time they got to Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock with their bizarre questioning about abortion and rape (bizarre for a political campaign in 2012) every candidta
November 20th, 2012 | 10:56 pm
…every candidate should have realized what was going on and figured out how to avoid being put on the defensive, but instead to turn the tables.
November 20th, 2012 | 11:14 pm
You know all the discussion we hear about Christian kids falling away from their faith in college? But no one ever points out one obvious reason Christian students fall away–they find out their churches and schools have systematically and consistently lied to them about scientific matters. Why don’t we stop doing that?
November 21st, 2012 | 8:15 am
Fred –
Believing that the entire profession of science is either mind-bogglingly incompetent, or else engaged in a conspiracy of a size that beggars the imagination, is irrelevant to our politics and economics?
Look, creationists believe that scientists are wrong about the age of the Earth – by a factor of 750,000. It’s like saying, “Scientists claim that North America is about 2,000 miles wide, but it’s actually only as wide as a lane of traffic.”
A mistake of that magnitude can only be the result of horrific incompetence or criminal fraud. And pretty much every scientist would have to be guilty of that. Again, Rubio is on the Senate “Commerce, Science, and Technology Committee”. I think it’s important to know if he thinks scientists must be either semi-functional morons or untrustworthy con artists.
November 21st, 2012 | 9:46 am
Ray,
A mistake of that magnitude might also simply be the result of a lack of information – you know, like when the entire scientific establishment thought the earth was flat or when the entire scientific establishment thought the sun revolved around the earth or when a good portion of the scientific establishment invented their own creation myth about a living cell spontaneously evolving from non-living organic chemicals.
The fact is we don’t know when the universe was created because we weren’t there. A number of independent sources of data suggest that the universe is several billion years old, but calling people morons or con artists or anti-science for daring to raise questions about educated guesses doesn’t add anything to the discussion. We can speculate all we want, but we won’t know until God tells us definitively.
And to the commenter who asked about how we would be able to see the Milky Way if the universe were only a few thousand years old, if you generally trust the authority and authenticity of the Bible, according to Genesis 1:14-15 one of the reasons that God created the stars was to mark times and seasons on the earth, so there’s no reason that God couldn’t have created the stars in such a way that they were visible the moment they were created (by also creating the light waves between them and the earth at the same time).
The age of the universe is a complicated question and one that ultimately cannot be answered by scientific investigation alone.
November 21st, 2012 | 11:06 am
The key phrase is “I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. “.
I dislike politicians. I think that given enough time, all will become prevaricators, if not thoroughly corrupt. (Some work in duplicity like Rembrandt worked with paint-it’s their true medium) This is not an example of any of that.
Acknowledging that a specific question is subject to irreconciliable and irresolvable opinions, but is outside the concern and competence of politics isn’t cause for complaint.
It is prudent, especially in a time when politicians seem to think elections make them infallible expositors on all matters-witness Al Gore’s numerous opinions on climatology or the unelected Michelle Obama’s opinions on food and exercise.
November 21st, 2012 | 11:28 am
And here’s then-Sen. Obama, D-Ill., speaking at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa. on April 13, 2008:
Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?
A: What I’ve said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that’s what I believe. I know there’s always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don’t, and I think it’s a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don’t presume to know.
November 21st, 2012 | 11:55 am
Alex –
Isaac Asimov dealt with that long ago: “[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was [perfectly] spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”
(Seriously, read that whole essay. It’s not that long and it makes an important point.)
That’s not what I said. I said that the only way scientists could be that wrong was if they were morons or con-artists. There’s a difference between scientific conclusions and “educated guesses”.
Can you name any of those “independent sources of data” that are covered in any high-school geology textbook? If not, you probably shouldn’t be on the Senate “Science” Committee.
November 21st, 2012 | 2:23 pm
Ray @ 8:15, I didn’t say science or scientific knowledge are irrelevant; I said the question was irrelevant. Surely, you don’t believe that Rubio is a New Earth Creationist do you? The reporter who asked the question was not the slightest bit interested in scientific facts or even in Rubio’s knowledge of scientific facts. He was interested in creating a “gotcha” moment for Rubio. He was clearly not asking the question in good faith, and Rubio should have called him on it.
November 21st, 2012 | 2:58 pm
“In many circles, the earth’s age is a test question. For conservative evangelicals at places like Dallas Theological Seminary, it’s meant to determine who can be trusted to sustain the classical commitments of conservative Evangelicalism…”
HOW can this be when the Bible gives no information related to the age of the earth. [And I am a conservative evangelical.]
Unlike the YECs, conservative evangelicals ought to acknowledge that the first two verses of God’s Holy Word do, in fact, exist.
http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/in-the-beginning/
November 21st, 2012 | 3:13 pm
Fred –
Why shouldn’t I? We know that many representatives on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee are. And when asked a straight-up question about it, Rubio ducked it.
Why would it be a “gotcha moment” if nobody thought the question was relevant? Why did Rubio duck the question?
November 21st, 2012 | 3:21 pm
“Surely, you don’t believe that Rubio is a New Earth Creationist do you?”
I don’t know, even after Rubio’s response. He hasd the pportunity to remove any doubt and faield to take advantage of that opportunity. It is my opinion that a YEC should not be elected to high government office. I also believe that a YEC candidacy is doomed.
The question may be irrelevant to some, but is very relevant to many.
November 21st, 2012 | 4:27 pm
Dr. Reno,
I agree that making the earth’s age into a weird litmus test for evangelicals and politicians is quite problematic, but sadly, I think you’ve perpetuated the problem here by mentioning a school like Dallas Theological Seminary.
I went through their Th.M. program a few years ago and though I did have a few professors who held a young earth view, none were combative about it and the rest held positions that ranged from Augustine to Peter Enns.
So perhaps if we want to make progress in this area, we ought not incorrectly lump all “conservatives” together into one crazy, populist bunch, but instead recognize that we have allies with nuanced views all around us.
November 21st, 2012 | 5:12 pm
Mr. Reno,
Knowing that this was a trick question, Marco Rubio’s answer is quite good and adequate. I am not sure why you consider his answer equivalent to “pro choice”, if anything, it is an evasive answer with “pro-life” overtones worthy of a shrewd politician who knows that answering meaningfully would trap him.
What you should have asked is why only “scientists” are qualified to answer that question. What makes scientists like Stephen M. Barr qualified and Rubio not qualified? What makes Barr qualified to write articles like his recent “Chance, By Design”, which using your pro-life paradigm makes Barr clearly “pro-choice” !?
What makes Rubio’s answer very meaningful is his insistence on the freedom of teaching what the parents believe, and in this Rubio follows what G. K. Chesterton highlighted about the whole Evolution-Creation debate long time ago. Sadly, many, including The First Things it seems, still haven’t even discovered the problem of “compulsory education”:
“The problem arises out of compulsory education. It is the great paradox of the modern world. It is the fact that at the very time when the world decided that people should not be coerced about their form of religion, it also decided that they should be coerced about their education….
Now it is nonsense to say that such a philosophy cannot be inculcated except through theology. It is nonsense to say that you have kept such things out of the schools merely by keeping the priest out of the school, when you admit the professor into the school. … The professor can insinuate any ideas about life because biology is the study of life. The professor can suggest any view of the nature of man because history is the story of man. …
But if the Fundamentalists say that some secularists abuse the right of secular education, they say what is exceedingly probable– and, if they say it is intolerable, they tell the truth.”
http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/Compulsory_Education.html
November 22nd, 2012 | 10:44 am
“Finding oil is a very high-stakes issue for oil companies. Trillions of dollars are riding on it. When they look for the most likely spots to drill, do they use Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?”
As a former petroleum geologist who now holds a young earth view, I can tell you that exploration geologists look for patterns and structures. A friend of mine who has worked for over 30 years in the oil business told me that her company has essentially stopped using paleontological data in exploration. Just look where the money flows–oil companies are investing in seismic stations, not paleontologists–see this article: http://www.geotimes.org/oct00/oilpatch.html
The presumed age of the earth depends ultimately upon the absolute dates provided by radioisotope dating. However, those dates are contradicted by recent finds of preserved soft tissue and C-14 in fossils presumed tens to hundreds of millions years old by isotope dating. When two methods contradict so profoundly, the least that can be said is that the dates provided by radioisotope analysis do not pass the burden of proof of reasonable doubt.
My conclusion as a geologist is that the data are not conclusive enough to maintain with certainty that radiometric dating gives an absolute date for the age of the earth. Given that uncertainty, I see no reason to doubt the true historicity of the Genesis narrative, especially since the Christian Church interpreted Genesis as authentic history for 1800 years, and it was not new theological insight that produced the modern allegorical interpretation, but rather the desire of theologians to accommodate Scripture to the new theories of old age and evolution.
November 23rd, 2012 | 8:46 am
C.C. – I’m afraid I find Glenn Morton more convincing.
I asked them one question. “From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,” That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either.
November 23rd, 2012 | 8:53 am
Monkeyville –
Would Rubio be as qualified to answer a question about biology as biologists? As qualified to answer a question about neurology as neurologists? As qualified to answer a question about physics as physicists?
I’d say “scientists” – geologists in particular – are qualified to answer questions about the age of the Earth because they study it in great detail all their lives as part of their profession. Is that not a good enough answer?
November 23rd, 2012 | 12:54 pm
Ray Ingles,
Obviously you didn’t get the POINT of Chesterton’s article! — you don’t need theology or priests to instil a certain (today materialistic) world-view, professors can do that also based on what they teach and how they teach and insinuate implications. They have done an “excellent” job in that respect. In fact, this materialistic education in the English speaking world has been going on since Darwin, specifically since Darwin’s Bulldog T H. Huxley instituted such education for the British workers, and it has been the main culprit behind the general degradation of religion, morals and science. You can blame pretty much all modern evils on this “education” of the masses. Those who are familiar with the work of Chesterton, this is the main and the recurring theme in his works!
( Somehow I accidentally got an extra “f” in the word “education” I was typing, which, surprisingly, gave it the real meaning and I was tempted to leave it in, but I decided to take it out. For the online First Things editor – if you feel even this comment in the brackets is inappropriate, please take it out.)
Yes, geologists would be qualified to answer scientifically the age of the earth, but their answer will inevitably imply a certain “theology”, specifically aimed against the religion of American Fundamentalists. Rubio answered correctly, he didn’t claim to be a scientist or a theologian! And it is up to the American citizens to decide whether they want to uphold the real freedom of religion, or whether they want to continue with the sham “freedom” of religion and enforce materialistic education, especially in the lower grades where it is more important to teach good morals based on religion than some still controversial “darwinian” science.
Likewise teaching of professors like Stephen M. Barr — his theory of chance behind natural processes is muddleheaded and controversial, theologically and mathematically. He is free to publish it and defend it, perhaps something good will eventually come out of such “chaos”, but it would be ludicrous to teach such complex “theory” to elementary school kids as real proven science. Yet the equivalent of such a “philosophically, theologically and mathematically” fuzzy theory is actually being taught in biology classes all over the world, and it is such an unspecified muddled “theory” that is used to prove Darwinian evolution scientifically.
November 23rd, 2012 | 2:58 pm
Moneyville –
November 23rd, 2012 | 3:06 pm
Monkeyville –
Why ‘inevitably’? Is it because that’s what the data says? (Is it also ‘specifically aimed against’ the Hindu religion which postulates a universe hundreds of trillions of years old?)
And are parents really restricted from educating their children as they choose? What curriculum covers evolution in the lower grades, anyway? My son’s only learning about it now in the 7th grade…
November 24th, 2012 | 7:57 am
I’d say it would depend upon which geologists you ask. Obviously, the vast majority favor an old earth view, but it is a logical fallacy to assume the truth of a proposition based solely upon the number of people who support it.
November 24th, 2012 | 8:23 am
When talking about scientific theory, I think it’s more accurate to speak in terms of predictions rather than facts. One prediction of the young earth model is that C-14 should be found in petroleum-bearing deposits, and that has been a problematic issue for conventional geologists for a long time.
Another prediction would be that shales and mudstones, which are the source rocks for petroleum reservoirs, should have been deposited in a short time. The shale argument has been used against the young earth model by Morton and others, because the traditional hypothesis was that they were formed by settling out of suspension over a long period of time, but the work of Jurgen Scheiber at Indiana University has showed that shales can be deposited in a short time by currents, so that argument, anyway, is not really valid. In addition, sequence stratigraphy, which was developed by a petroleum geologist, is very consistent with a catastrophic worldwide marine transgression.
However, my point is that neither the young earth nor the old earth view is really pertinent to petroleum geology. If the age of the earth was so important to exploration departments, they’d be hiring more paleontologists.
It’s also important to realize that much geological data is equivocal in regard to origins, depending upon the preconceptions of the researcher. For example, the fossil record can be viewed as either a record of appearance and disappearance of organisms in time, or as a record of worldwide catastrophic burial and ecological zonation.
However, there are some data that are unequivocably anomalous for the old earth position, such as the existence of preserved soft tissue and C-14 in fossils presumed tens to hundreds of millions of years old, when such material should have disappeared long ago.
Obviously, different people will weight different pieces of evidence differently. The C-14/soft tissue data just seem pretty significant to me.
November 26th, 2012 | 8:14 am
Y’know, I’ve been hearing about this for a long time. In fact, back in the early 90′s I actually chased some references because I could easily go to the university library. Oddly enough, I found that… well, read for yourself.
The article you yourself cited doesn’t agree.
Except that the zones are physically located on top of each other, and somehow never ever mix. And not just macrofauna, but microfossils like pollen are somehow sorted into very specific layers, and never appear in ‘younger layers’ and disappear after ‘older layers’.
Which specific cases are you citing? I’ve looked into a few, and they haven’t proved as spectacular as all that.
To return to something you said previously –
There are far more problems than that for a young Earth. Ice cores, tree rings, varve layers (with included sorted fossils), etc. But radioactive dating has an incredible amount of supporting data – including from unexpected places. Ever heard of Oklo, Gabon, Africa?
There’s another problem with arguing against radioactive dating, BTW. A currently-fashionable argument for God claims that the structure of the universe is ‘fine-tuned’ for our kind of life. That even tiny variations in a even a single physical constant would totally mess up the universe as a life-bearing place. But if that’s the case, it would be impossible to accelerate radioactive decay by 750,000 times and have a recognizable universe…
November 26th, 2012 | 12:07 pm
Ray Ingles & C.C,
Re: Why ‘inevitably’? Is it because that’s what the data says?
Yes, indeed, why inevitably? It all depends on whether you believe that science can eventually come up with some solid and undeniable results and conclusions. Can it? And if it cannot, then why pretend it can? And why then impose such “science” as absolutely true in schools?
This is the old debate of theology/religion vs. science — which one is ultimately superior and which can supply absolute knowledge?
S.J. Gould’s attempt at NOMA or “non-overlapping magisteria” tried to make science independent of religion, but is it?
November 26th, 2012 | 3:53 pm
I am completely at a loss to explain why my response to you disappeared, Monkeyville.
November 28th, 2012 | 11:10 am
Ray, your original question was, ”When they look for the most likely spots to drill, do they use Flood geology, or mainstream?“ I agree with you that the article I cited argues that paleontology is important in oil exploration, but judging from the first line of the article, and from my friend’s comment last year, the oil companies don’t seem to agree with the article’s author.
In regards to C-14 in petroleum deposits, I quote W. Libby, the originator of the C-14 technique: “The long time that coal or oil have been underground insures that the original radiocarbon in the plants which produced them would long since have disappeared.” (etler.com/docs/OSTI/ACC0338.pdf). Yet petroleum does contain C-14, as evidenced by this talkorigins page: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html, which concludes, “I now understand why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!”
The site gives alternate theories for the existence of C-14, which is perfectly legitimate— I just object to the exclusion of the hypothesis that most easily satisfies the principle of parsimony, which is that the C-14 is original to the petroleum-bearing formation.
Also, this summer, a German scientist associated with a Catholic group, the Kolbe Center for Study of Creation, presented the results of C-14 studies in dinosaur bones at an AGU/AOGS conference in Singapore. Afterward, the presentation abstract disappeared from the online program without any explanation. Fortunately, it was recorded, and you can see the presentation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ
Again, what I object to here is not alternative theories for C-14 in organic materials, but censorship and suppression of data that doesn’t fit the prevailing paradigm.
Here is a list of reports of organic material that have been found in ancient rocks, many of them published after Mary Schweitzer’s 2005 discovery: http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue. She, by the way, maintains the radiometric age of her samples, despite the existence of studies to the contrary, including one published this year (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1748/4724.short).
I agree with you that there is a general order in rock layers, but I don’t think the biostratigraphic zonations are as precise as you think, because when fossils appear in layers where they’re not supposed to be, they’re labeled as “reworked.” For example, the presence of trilobite fossils in presumed Ordovician rocks was labeled as “reworking” at Green Point, Newfoundland (www.stratigraphy.org/GSSP/file42.pdf). A three toed track in western Washington was attributed not to a dinosaur, but to a giant bird, simply because it was located in rocks of presumed Eocene age, although the author admitted, “In rocks of Mesozoic age, tracks of this size and shape would likely be interpreted as having been made by a small dinosaur …” (nwgeology.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/giant-eocene-bird-footprints-paper-palaeontology.pdf) You can find other examples by searching for “reworking of fossils” on Google Scholar.
I can’t comment upon the physical constants argument because I don’t know enough about it. I agree with you that there are problems with the young earth hypothesis, though not necessarily the ones you give—here’s a list from a YEC geologist: http://thenewcreationism.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/the-top-five-challenges-for-creationist-geology/
However, there are many problems with the old earth-evolution model as well. Ultimately, I think the main divide in this debate is not between old earthers and young earthers, or even between evolutionists and creationists. It’s between those who believe in God and those who don’t, between those who hold that all that exists is the material world which can be discerned by the senses, and those who believe that an order of being exists beyond that of the purely material. For the former, the assumption must be that natural laws are invariant, which excludes all possibility of miracles, including a supernatural cause for the creation of the universe.
For the latter, however, there is no inherent reason to exclude supernatural causes or to presume that natural laws have been invariant throughout time. This does not mean that a miracle must be proposed for every unexplainable phenomenon, but it does mean that miraculous causes should not be automatically excluded.
For me, the conflict between radiometric dating and the evidence of C-14 and preserved soft tissues is significant enough to conclude that the absolute dates provided by radiometric dating do not pass the burden of proof of reasonable doubt. The hypothesis of a one-time appearance in the not-so-distant past of all living kinds, with a built-in but limited potential for variation, is consistent with both the biologic and the geologic evidence, and should not be automatically excluded just because it doesn’t fit into the narrow philosophical domain of uniformitarian naturalism.
Thank you for your patience with this long post—you evidently took the time to look into the matter, so I felt I needed to adequately explain my reasoning.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact