Blogs » Neurognosis » Why We Shouldn't Teach Creationism


A guest article appeared in the Victoria Advocate, titled “Why Shouldn’t We Teach Creationism”. I feel compelled to address some inaccuracies that appeared in this article. While I could spend time addressing the historical “support” cited, I’d rather stick to the science which is at the heart of the question “why shouldn’t we teach creationism”.

“The other main argument is that creation is religion and evolution is science. Balderdash!”

Creationism has its basis in religion and not in objective, evidence-based inquiry. The very tenets of creationism are based upon the stories and letters collectively known as the Judeo-Christian Bible. The very core of creationism is derived from the book of Genesis (part of the Torah) which supposedly recounts the creation of the universe, Earth and all life by a deity. To claim that creationism is not religion is “balderdash”. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory - a theory which has stood up to much scrutiny for well over 100 years.

However, if we’re going to talk about what is and isn’t science, let’s examine the concept of a theory. Let’s understand what a theory is in the scientific context.

There is much confusion right off the bat when people speak of evolutionary theory. There is a vast difference in the meaning of the word “theory” in the colloquial sense and the usage of the term in the scientific sense.

The lay or popular culture definition of the word theory is, “an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.” (Pickett, 2001). Such a definition is often thought to apply when one speaks of a scientific theory; that it is merely conjecture or a "guess" on the part of scientists. This is not at all accurate. That colloquial definition is not applicable in regards to a scientific theory. Which is described as:

“A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” (Pickett, 2001).

The construction of a scientific theory takes much more than simply coming up with an idea. Theories are built over time through methodological inquiry. As the mathematician Poincare (1905) stated in his La Science et l'hypothèse (Science and Hypothesis), “Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house”. Poincare’s point was the importance of a theoretical framework which can organize the facts in a useful way.

Science philosopher Patrick Suppes (1967) states that theories are of two parts: one part “logical calculus” and a second part called the “co-ordinating definitions”. He notes that theories are dependent upon constituent parts - statistical and experimental methodology being amongst these parts. He also notes in his conclusion that, “testing the fundamental theory is an essential ingredient of any sophisticated scientific discipline” (p. 64).

What did Suppes mean by “logical calculus”? The logical calculus consists of the base axioms (as Suppes referred to them) or rather the facts with which the theoretical framework is constructed – as in Poincare’s example, the stones with which the house is built. Therefore the coordinating definitions are the “empirical interpretations” as Suppes calls them which would be the product of the experimental and statistical methodologies.

In a paper about scientific understanding, Michael Friedman (1974) makes a statement in which he is agreeing with C.G. Hempel and says, “the philosopher of science should be interested in an objective notion of explanation, a notion that doesn’t vary capacriously from individual to individual” (p. 7). Such is true for science and the building of theories – ask different biologists what the theory of evolution is and you’ll get similar answers from them all – some wording will be different and some aspects may be highlighted more than others but an agreement nonetheless. This is evident when we look at definitions for evolutionary theory from different sources.

Audesirk et al. (2002) provides the definition:

“the descent of modern organisms with modification from preexisting life-forms; strictly speaking, any change in the proportions of different genotypes in a population from one generation to the next”

Futuyma (1986):

“Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.”

Jurmain, Nelson, Kilgore & Trevathan (2000):

“a scientific theory of orgnismal change over time originally developed by Charles Darwin; it embodies the ideas that species alive today are descendants of species living long ago, and that species have changed and diverged from one another over billions of years; the process of change over time by which existing populations of organisms develop from ancestral form through modification of their characteristics.”

Drickamer, Vessey & Jakob (2002):

“Genetic change in a population of organisms over time (generations)”

We get consistent concepts with varying amounts of detail but all the same concept – Drickamer et al.’s being the tersest. We don’t have a capriciously (impulsively, arbitrarily) varying concept. This definition is a summarized representation of the theoretical framework of evolutionary theory which is built up with those stones of knowledge. But do we know if evolution is a robust theory? Is it a strong theory? Are there criteria by which scientific theories can be assessed? There sure is.

Based upon criteria put forth by people such as Kuhn (1977), Blalock (1969) and Dubin (1978), Prochaska, Wright and Velicer (2008) assembled a model for testing theories. Their testing model consists of 11 criteria by which a theory can be evaluated. Those criteria are:

  1. Clarity
  2. Consistency
  3. Parsimony
  4. Testable
  5. Empirical Adequacy a. Predictive Power b. Explanatory Power
  6. Productivity
  7. Generalizable
  8. Integration
  9. Utility
  10. Practical
  11. Impact

If we look at these criteria as described by Prochaska et al., we can evaluate whether or not a theory is decidedly robust or in dire need of reformulation. I won’t take the time to extensively evaluate evoltuonary theory with that testing model. However, I can take a few criteria and compare how evolutionary theory and creationism compare on each criterion.

First, we’ll look at clarity of the theory. Prochaska et al. have defined this criterion by stating:

“Has well-defined terms that are operationalized and explicit and internally consistent. Explicit propositions are preferred. Assumptions, propositions, and concepts have definitions that are consistent, not redundant, and concepts have content and construct validity” (p. 565).

Evolutionary theory has many terms which have specific definitions, many of which are often a source of confusion for those who are not familiar with them. Natural selection, for instance, is a well known term but many are unfamiliar with its definition. Many people will automatically reference the colloquialism “survival of the fittest”, however, with an incorrect conceptualization of the phrase as it pertains to evolutionary theory. In evolution being “fit” does not necessarily equate to being the fastest, strongest or biggest. Evolutionary fitness boils down to propagation of the genes – those who create the most offspring are the fittest (Drickamer, Vessey & Jakob, 2002). Natural selection itself is defined formally as:

“the unequal survival and reproduction of organisms due to environmental forces, resulting in the preservation of favorable adaptations. Usually, natural selection refers specifically to differential survival and reproduction on the basis of genetic differences among individuals” (Audesirk, Audesirk & Byers, 2002, p. G-16).

This definition says nothing about being the strongest or fastest in relation to what natural selection is. It does specifically make note of reproduction and genetic differences as they related to differential survival of organisms. This definition of different concepts is consistent throughout the evolutionary biology literature and the knowledge of the process has been expanded and further investigated through many years of research in the field. Therefore, evolution does have clear and operationalized definitions, it is simply that those who receive or produce inaccurate information may find them lacking clarity.

How about creationism? Does it meet the standards of this criterion? Well, it differs greatly with mainstream science on aspects which are extremely important such as the concept of species, for instance. The scientific community makes use of the biological species concept which has a particular, operationalized definition. Now, it must be noted that this is only utilized with sexually reproducing organisms as those organisms which reproduce asexually must be classified by a different criteria. For example, bacteria are often classified utilizing molecular systematics (Olsen, Woese & Overbeek, 1994).

However, for brevity, I will only refer to the BSC. The biological species concept outlines the criteria for determining what constitutes a species. Mayr (2001), comments on the BSC, stating:

“(1) species are composed of populations, and (2) populations are conspecific if they successfully interbreed with each other. This reasoning resulted in the so-called biological species concept (BSC): ‘Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.’ In other words, a species is a reproductive community. Its reproductive isolation is effected by so-called isolating mechanisms, that is, by properties of individuals that prevent (or make unsuccessful) the interbreeding with individuals of other speices” (p. 167)

Creation “scientists” have a system called baraminology based upon the biblical concept of a “kind” of animal. In some instances the word kind is used interchangeably with “species”, however this is not in keeping with the scientific definition of species as baraminologists have their own methods for classification based upon the use statistical analysis (basically an attempt at the statistical procedure of cluster analysis) of basic morphology (i.e., beaks, wings, four legs) (Wood, 2008a). The problem with baraminology, as with creationism as a whole, is that it starts with a predefined conclusion and works with the “evidence” to make it fit that immutable conclusion. One glaring instance is an article written by baraminology “researcher” Todd Charles Wood (a Biochemist by training) for the website Answers in Genesis. In the article about horse species, Wood (2008b) states:

“In the meantime, new horse species arose, displaying designs that God had placed into horses at the creation. The successful horses were those pre-designed for cooler climates (larger body size), the eating of gritty grass (huge, thick-enameled teeth), and moving swiftly on an open range (long legs and other designs for speed).”

This “making the evidence fit the conclusion” tactic is also blatantly obvious is a paper published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly journal in 1998. Robinson and Cavanaugh (1998) were looking at “quantitative” methodologies for use in baraminology. The statement made in their abstract shows exactly what I have stated as presupposition of the conclusion:

“We have found that barminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates”.

The authors essentially rejected anything that did not fit their preconceived notion of what the answer should be and defaulted to a vaguer concept of clustering according how something “looks”. This is not science no matter how you dress it up.

The term “kind” if often used interchangeably with “species”, but this is not the scientific concept as laid out by the biological species concept. The kinds they refer to are those initially created kinds of animals which may have changed some over time according to how God “pre-designed” them. Therefore, the concept of a “kind” or “species” within creationism is very vague and based upon an elementary idea that if two things look alike then they must be the same “kind”.

This all leads into the next criterion (which I mentioned previously) of “consistency” which Prochaska et al. define as:

“The components do not contradict each other. The definitions are consistent with assumptions. There is fit between concepts and propositions and concepts and clinical exemplars” (p. 565).

By the very nature of how evolutionary theory is constructed, the components must work together as it is a massive, dynamic process which emerges as a consequence of its constituent processes such as the different types of selection, mutation and so forth. Often people will bring up the concept of punctuated equilibrium and present this as a displacer for phyletic gradualism – however, this is usually, again, another instance where an inaccurate understanding of the items being discussed comes into play. A common mistake is to see PE as a complete replacement to phyletic gradualism proposed by Darwin (1896). Indeed, even their original paper carried the title, “Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism” yet the title can be misleading. The idea PE proposed did not seek to replace phyletic gradualism completely but only attack the assumption that it was the only model of change at work. The idea Gould and Eldredge put forth was based heavily on Ernst Mayr’s “geographic speciation” – more commonly known today as allopatric speciation in which geographic isolation served to separate portions of a population from the whole and subsequently rapid change in the smaller population over time would occur – what Mayr (1954) called the “conspicuous divergence of peripherally isolated populations” (p. 158). Seizing upon this idea as a springboard, Gould and Eldredge saw these peripherally isolated populations as hotbeds of rapid evolutionary activity where cladogenesis would occur (divergence of a parent species into daughter species). They proposed that this would account for inconsistencies seen in the fossil record when viewed through the filter of gradualism. Over the years since the Gould and Eldredge paper, it has been confirmed empirically that both gradualism and PE are portions of the same process of evolutionary change (Pagel, Venditti & Meade, 2006).

Next we’ll jump into a central criterion for scientific theories, testability. Prochaska et al. explain this criterion further by stating:

“The propositions can be tested. Has the potential to generate empirical evidence. Has the potential to be falsifiable or refuted.”

Evolutionary theory has volumes of empirical research in support of it from several different disciplines and sub-disciplines. Can evolution be tested and has it? Yes and of course it has. Examples? Sure. Let’s look at the idea of divergence of clades. Evolutionary theory predicts that two species should become less similar the further away from their last common ancestor (LCA). Therefore we should see greater similarity between modern humans and chimpanzees than we would bacteria – okay that one’s pretty obvious. So what supports this idea empirically aside from the obvious? How about cytochrome c? What it is? It’s a hemoprotein, that is, a protein which includes a heme (a portion containing iron) which makes it capable of undergoing oxidation and reduction. Cytochrome c (cyt c) is involved in electron transport and is usually membrane bound. It is found in eukaryotes most typically in the inner mitochondrial membrane (Campbell and Ferrell, 2003).

So why does this make a difference evolutionarily? Because of the greatly conserved nature of cyt c. You’ll find that humans and chimpanzees have identical molecules while comparing us to other species will show more differences as we move away evolutionarily. The sequencing of cyt c has been used for many years to examine evolutionary divergence of organisms (Strahler, 1987; Curtis and Barnes, 1994). As to the divergence of bacteria and human cyt c, we can check this against the Protein Information Resource which was started in 1984 by the National Biomedical Research Foundation.

A search of the Homo sapiens sapiens (shortened to just Homo sapiens in the database) cytochrome c sequence will provide us with the percentage of similarity with other particular organisms. We find, as would be expected evolutionarily, that humans do not differ from the other great apes such as chimpanzees but we do differ (PIR, 2009) by one amino acid with Rhesus monkeys which have tyrosine instead of isoleucine (Strahler, 1987; PIR, 2009). Now when we examine the shared sequence percentage (utilizing BLAST) between Homo sapiens sapiens and R. rubrum, it is 36.36% (PIR, 2009). As predicted by evolutionary theory Humans are similar to our closest cousins, chimpanzees and only differ by one amino acid to our further away cousins, the Rhesus monkeys. However, we differ greatly compared to the anaerobic gram negative bacteria R. rubrum from which our clades diverged on the order of billions of years ago.

Along with the cytochrome c evidence, we have a more robust measure of divergence between clades – genetic comparison. The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium did this in 2005 when they did a comparison of the human and chimp genomes and provided a divergence of ~1.23% between the two on a base by base comparison of the over 3 billion bases. This verified earlier studies which concluded nearly exact figures independently (Chen and Li, 2001; Ebersberger, Metzler, Schwarz & Paabo, 2002). Here we can also dive into another criterion provided by Prochaska et al. – “predictive power” as a sub-criterion of “Empirical Adequacy”. Evolution would predict that those species of extinct hominids that originated before modern humans would be evolutionarily between the chimpanzee clade than would modern humans. Was this prediction verified? Yes it was. With an analysis of extracted Neanderthal nuclear DNA which found that Neanderthals did not sync up with modern humans nor chimpanzees but fell in between with a skewness toward modern humans – Neanderthals showing 99.5% similarity to modern humans compared to the 98.77% similarity with chimpanzees (Noonan et al., 2006; Green et al., 2006; Green et al., 2009). This also confirmed earlier genetic work showing Neanderthals were a separate, but very closely related, species from modern humans (Krings et al., 1997; Scholz et al., 2000).

What about creationism? Can it be tested? In a scientific context, it would be difficult to next to impossible. For instance, let’s forego the origins of the universe as this isn’t relevant to the discussion about evolution. Let’s focus on where modern science and creationism clash. Creationism posits that species are essentially static – populations do not change but “variation within a kind” (Morris, 1974) is accepted. If we utilized the view of one of the “pioneering” baraminologists Todd Wood, we can examine his statement which I cited earlier:

“In the meantime, new horse species arose, displaying designs that God had placed into horses at the creation. The successful horses were those pre-designed for cooler climates (larger body size), the eating of gritty grass (huge, thick-enameled teeth), and moving swiftly on an open range (long legs and other designs for speed).”

How can this be tested? How can you test to see if a deity “placed designs” into horses? I’m sure someone would venture an answer but to be able to show, empirically, a supernatural being predestined ancient horses to appear as they do now is beyond scientific inquiry and therefore NOT science. The current evidence points toward evolution through natural selection not predestination through divine guidance. This idea harkens back to Aristotle’s scala naturae view of nature. While it served as his attempt at organizing life into groups and is one of the first attempts at taxonomy, it is nonetheless, wrong. Evolution in nature has no predestined goal, no achievement to shoot for. It is a continual, unyielding process. Professor Paul Olsen (2004) points to some underlying motivations for this ladder concept stating that it, "supported feudal social stratification as well as putting everything in its place - we still have strong vestiges of that concept."

One last criterion I would like to touch on would be “Utility”. As would be assumed, Prochaska et al. have described it as providing “service and is useable”. Is evolution useful? Does it provide a service? Absolutely. What things are influenced and find a basis in evolutionary theory? Let’s see:

• Bioinformatics (Futuyma 1995) • Drug resistance management (Bull and Wichman 2001) • Fisheries (Conover and Munch 2002) • Drug discovery (Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003) • Epidemiology (Bull and Wichman 2001; Vogel 1998; Gaschen et al. 2002; Relman 1999) • Molecular “Breeding” (Arnold 2001) • Engineering (Marczyk 2004)

What about creationism? What has applied creationism scientifically produced that is useful? The count is zero. This is because creationism is not science, it is not based in science and therefore it has no place in the science classroom. I’m not saying creationism need be banned from schools, not at all, but put it in an area where it belongs such as in religious studies or philosophy and not in science classes.

“We need to come to grips with the fact that science can only examine what is in the present. It cannot look back into the past and certainly cannot look into the future. Educated assumptions can be made, but that is what they are, assumptions. To make an assumption pertaining to the past, you have to start with a frame of reference or belief. Belief: Sounds like religion doesn't it?”

Science is a process of inquiry that it not restricted to simple direct observation in the immediate moment. The very term “observation” is often equivocated due to the fact that it has a specific meaning within a scientific context. To observe in science does not necessarily mean that one must physically “see” something with their eyes; this is one means of “direct observation”. Processes and instruments have been developed to extend our ability to observe far beyond our own sensory capabilities. We can observe trends in populations by examining various forms of data. We can create reconstructions based upon collected data and even make predictions. To say that science is only limited to the “here and now” and anything outside of this is pure “assumption” is an unfounded claim.

Observation within science does not necessarily always mean something is seen by a scientist as it is happening, like you would think of Jane Goodall observing her chimps. Observation can take more forms than just that example. You need not see a process in its entirety to investigate its validity. You have more than one type of observation. Direct observation is not the only means of data acquisition which science utilizes, to declare such alludes to a poverty in understanding of how science works (Pennock, 1999).

The idea of observation presented here is more of the philosophical idea of sensory assimilation. Scientific observation is more complex than that, as are the methodologies for tackling questions. This is intimated by Solomon (1998) when he states, “It would be a mistake, however, to think of science as nothing but the gathering and testing of facts through experience”.

The laymanistic concept of observation is to watch – to “see” something occur as an active observer with one’s own eyes. Such is based on a version of scientific methodology in simplified terms everyone is introduced to as a child and continually given throughout much of their public education. However, observation in science is not that simplistic.

Observation itself in the context of science is not limited to seeing the “here and now”. Were it to be limited by this, our knowledge itself would be severely limited.

Observation can be divided into two major categories – direct and indirect. Direct observation would encompass the “here and now” idea. An example, as mentioned previously, would be a primatologist such as Jane Goodall observing her chimps in their day to day activities. Another would be a chemist observing a reaction directly.

Much of what is observed in science is not a “here and now” observation of a process. Plate tectonics is an example. We cannot actively sit and watch the continental plates move and shift – they move too slowly, a few centimeters per year. Our observations from many other aspects of the process are culled together to provide us with the information on this process. Such is the same for evolution. We have indirect observation of a larger process.

Also, let it not be misunderstood that evolution happened only “in the past”. It is a continual process which continues on even now. Allele frequencies can be observed in populations rising to prominence over time such as a study done over a 30 year period of the Galapagos finches by Peter and Rosemary Grant (Grant & Grant, 2005). It would be ridiculous for someone to sit and watch for 30 years a population of finches – it wouldn’t seem as though anything had taken place either due to our perceptual abilities therefore we develop methods to “show” us this taking place just as physicists developed the double slit experiment to examine the concept of particle/wave duality.

Geologists cannot sit and watch most of the processes they study take place – they occur over “geological time” in most instances and is far beyond the lifetime of a human being. Science is an inductive process for the most part. Parts are taken to give us a picture of the whole – hence the often used “puzzle” analogy. Now, are observations made in evolutionary research? Of course they are – both direct and indirect. Direct observations can come in the form of experimental observations made in, say, ecology with the migration and movement of animal groups. And indirect such as genetic testing and comparison in which we can infer things such as divergence between two clades as I showed earlier with the genome comparisons. Here we also have examples of independent verification through experimentation and observation.

“Evolution references are a long time frame and that is obvious by the large spans of time they give to all their discoveries, primarily because the methods used to measure time are inaccurate.”

Evolutionary processes work on long and short time frames depending on the organism populations and environments involved. Populations of bacteria can evolve much faster than a population of humans. There is no set “time frame” for evolutionary change with some change being gradual and some being short bursts offset by long periods of relative stasis (Pagel, Venditti & Meade, 2006). Mostly this is referring to the appearance of higher taxa usually referred to as “macroevolution” which is simply evolution at or above the species level (Mayr, 2001). Microevolution which is evolution below the species level is often not thought of as part of the evolutionary process as it is unequivocally demonstrated by items such as antibiotic resistance. However, by the very definition of evolution, “the descent of modern organisms with modification from pre-existing life-forms…” (Audesirk, Audesirk & Byers, 2002), microevolution is evolution just as is macroevolution.

The mention of “methods” of measurement is vague as I cannot infer what exactly he is referring to. If creation precedence is to be invoked then it is most likely a reference to the various scientific dating methodologies such as radiometric dating. However, the accusation that these methods are inaccurate is a consequence of a poverty of knowledge and understanding on the subject. In a comment upon a letter to the editor of the Victoria Advocate titled, “Commenting on Creationism”, we find some clarification:

“Scientifically, the carbon dating process IS flawed - and unreliable past 30,000 - 40,000 years. The science community KNOWS this and uses other dating methods when the numbers don't match up. Carbon dating is like looking at a candle and estimating how long it was before it started burning. You don't know how long it was to start with, or if conditions in the room have changed (was there less oxygen an hour ago? Was there any wind? was the wax in the top part of the candle the same as what's left?)”

To say the radiocarbon dating process is “flawed” is incorrect. If radiometric dating were “flawed” this technique would be useless and the amount of time, money and effort researchers put into it would be for naught. The idea that researchers would continue to knowingly utilize a completely unreliable methodology is a tad bit ridiculous and there is ample evidence to support the usage of radiometric dating.

The process has been continually checked against reference data in the published literature as well as shared within the scientific community and public at international conferences (Boaretto et al., 2002; Pazdur, Fogtman, Michczynski & Pawlyta, 2003; Scott, Cook, Naysmith, Bryant & O’Donnell, 2007).

He is correct in that radiocarbon dating begins to lose accuracy past a particular timeframe. The current techniques push the time boundary for accurate dating using the radiocarbon method to approximately 60,000 years (Plastino, Kaihola, Bartolomei & Bella, 2001). Some conditions may contribute to anomalous dates and these have appeared in the published literature (which many evolution opponents mistakenly cite as support for their position) and strict guidelines for testing procedures and what materials can be tested have been established (Long, 1990; Scott, 2003). Radiocarbon dating is not the only method utilized by scientists for dating samples. Other techniques – relative and absolute are utilized and often more than one technique is utilized. There are several methods of radiometric dating available – C14 dating is not the only dating method employed by researchers and it is only able to be utilized on particular samples. For example, Geochron Laboratories (n.d.) in Cambridge, Massachusetts gives the following list of samples for dating:

“Materials suitable for radiocarbon dating include charcoal, wood and other plant matter, soils and sediments, shells, bone, carbonates, dissolved inorganic carbonate (DIC), methane and hydrocarbons, and food products.”

You will often find relative and absolute dating methodology utilized to come to the most accurate date for specimens as well. The technique is calibrated against other dating methodologies independent from radiocarbon such as dendrochronology, ice cores, ocean sediments, varves and coral. This all converges to provide a calibration curve with which the most accurate date can be found for a sample. Studies examining the methodology of calibration have found that they are all in general agreement (Aitchison et al., 1989; Stein et al., 2000; Bard et al., 2004).

Radiometric dating techniques have been shown time and time again to yield similar results not only amongst different techniques but also in comparison to other dating methodology such as dendrochronology, electron spin resonance, fluorine analysis, and paleomagnetism (also known as archaeomagnetic dating). One example would be the Fen Complex in Norway. It has been dated by various means by independent researchers over a period of many years and all have yielded similar results:

Ar40/Ar39 – 588 +/- 10 Ma. (Meert et al, 1998) K/Ar – 575 +/- 25 Ma. (Verschure et al., 1983) Rb/Sr – 578- +/- 24 Ma. (Dahlgreen, 1994) Th/Pb – 570-590 Ma. (Saether, 1958) K/Ar – 565 Ma. (Faul et al, 1959)

These radiometric findings also agree with the paleomagnetic findings as well, with no disagreement in any case. Also, utilizing isochron methods from multiple samples gives added reliability which utilizes the statistical methodology of linear regression.

The calculation of dates relies upon the decay rate which occurs in a predictable fashion. The amount of parent isotope is compared to the amount of the daughter isotope thus giving us the ability to calculate the original isotope amount with the known decay rate. Utilizing the isochron dating method, the problem of original “amount” is circumvented by the use of other non-radiogenic isotopes (which can also be used with samples that may be contaminated as well) (Schwarcz, 1997). The decay rates can be directly measured as has been done for Rb/Sr. Davis (1977) measured the decay rate over a period of 19 years with 20g samples. This gave him a sample from which to calculate the decay rate since just a milligram contains ~1018 atoms. Also, in a large study of decay rates encompassing many experiments attempting to alter decay rates, Emery, (1972) found that the decay rates of beta and alpha decay to be “firmly established”. Not to mention that neutrino bombardment in nuclear fission reactors does not affect the uranium decay rate of the unfissioned uranium which squashes the argument of neutrino affects upon decay (Shure, 1983). Therefore the candle analogy is fallacious as a faulty comparison.

We also have extensive consistency within methodology for determination of the age of the Earth (which is often a point brought up in debate surrounding creationism) using not only terrestrial but extraterrestrial samples to arrive at the age of ~4.5 billion years old for the Earth (Plummer et al., 2003; Strahler, 1987; Monroe and Wincander, 2001; Jacobsen, 2003). Many different methodologies – many, many independent assessments on different samples and they all are in agreement for the general age of the Earth. This is something which cannot be ignored or rationalized away. Faulty dating methods would not yield such consistency.

Let’s also understand what C14 is and a bit about the basics of decay. Radiocarbon dating itself is explained succinctly by Ebbing (1996):

“Carbon dating (also called radiocarbon dating, C-14 dating) is a radiometric dating method. Carbon-14 is an unstable isotope which has a half life of 5730 years. This isotope is continually created within our own atmosphere due to the constant incursion of cosmic rays upon the earth. It is the “collision of a neutron with a nitrogen-14 nucleus (the most abundant nitrogen nuclide) that can produce a carbon-14 nucleus”

And what exactly is the basis for radiometric dating? This has to do with the physics of these radioactive isotopes and how they behave in a particular and predictable way in their decay:

“The rate of decay of radioactive isotopes is uniform and is not affected by changes in pressure, temperature, or the chemical environment. Therefore, once a quantity of radioactive nuclides has been incorporated into a growing mineral crystal, that quantity will begin to decay at a steady rate with a definite percentage of the radiogenic atoms undergoing decay in each increment of time. Each radioactive isotope has a particular mode of decay and a unique decay rate.” (Levin, 1999)

Plummer et al (2003) discusses the radioactive decay of isotopes:

“Radioactive decay is the spontaneous nuclear change of isotopes with unstable nuclei. Energy is produced with radioactive decay. Emissions from radioactive elements can be detected by a Geiger counter or similar device, and, in high concentrations, can kill humans.

Nuclei of radioactive isotopes change primarily in three ways. An alpha emission is the ejection of two protons and two neutrons from a nucleus. When an alpha emission takes place the atomic number of the atom is reduced by two and its atomic mass number is reduced by four. After an alpha emission, U-238 becomes Th-234, which has an atomic number of 90. The original isotope (U-238) is referred to as the parent isotope. The new isotope (Th-234) is the daughter product.

Beta emissions involve the release of an electron from a nucleus. To understand this, we need to explain that electrons, which have virtually no mass and are usually in orbit around the nucleus, are also in the nucleus as part of a neutron. A neutron is a proton with an electron inside of it, thus it is electrically neutral. If an electron is emitted from a neutron during radioactive decay, the neutron becomes a proton and the atom’s atomic number is increased by one. The third mode of change is electron capture, whereby a proton in the nucleus captures an orbiting electron. The proton becomes a neutron. The atom becomes a different element having an atomic number one less than its parent isotope.” Abell (1983) explains some additional points of half lives:

“...the earth’s crust contains radioactive elements that decay slowly. Among these are potassium 40, which decays to argon 40 with a half life of 1,250 million years, rubidium 87, which decays to strontium 87 with a half life of 4,880 million years, and uranium 238, which decays through a series of elements (including radium) to lead 206 with a half life of 4,470 million years.”

And while radiocarbon can have environmental confounds, Brush (1983) touches on one of the most important traits of radiometric dating utilizing other isotopes (specifically referring to uranium isotopes):

“As far as is known, chemical or geological processes cannot change the relative abundances of these isotopes.”

As was stated before, it is often offered that there are reports of anomalous dates obtain and those making this argument are not incorrect. However, when they claim this and merge it with the claim that the methodology is unreliable then their stance becomes untenable. For example, I have been offered the claim that a specific article from Science shows radiocarbon dating to “not work” because the researchers obtained unexplained, anomalous dates. However, apparently unknown to the person making this assertion, the cause of the off dates was shown in the very same paper and explained why this occurred when the paper was published back in 1963. The specific claim was that researchers found shells of living mollusks (from river beds) that were dated to be 2,300 years old and therefore shows that radiocarbon dating is “fallible” as well as “unreliable”. However, if the person making the assertion had read the paper, they would see that the cause of the anomalous dates was shown as being a result of humus on the production of the shell – or more specifically, inactive carbon from the humus (Keith and Anderson, 1963). Humus, which is broken down organic matter, was found in the soil. With this research, the paper added to the knowledge base of radiocarbon dating as was summed up:

“Maximum error is to be expected in shell specimens from animals which lived in humus-laden streams which were actively cutting into old flood plains or old soil profiles.”

Other instances have been offered as support for radiocarbon dating being wildly inaccurate but they are usually similar to the instance I just presented.

“Anthony J. Corte is a chapel minister at the Victoria County Jail for Faith Family Church and member of The John Birch Society.”

Although I disagree with Mr. Corte’s views it does not mean that I view him personally in a negative light. I am not a member of any church nor do I subscribe to any religion. However, just as I would like others to respect my choice to not align myself with any religion, I respect the right of others to adhere to whatever religion they wish. However, not every student in a classroom comes from a Christian home nor do all the families of these children subscribe literally to creation as laid out in the Christian Bible. Nor is there any scientific validity to the creation story found in the Book of Genesis. Evolution is a biological theory of change in the populations of organisms and it has a massive amount of evidence-based support from many scientific disciplines. This theory has been studied, scrutinized and tested for 150 years making it one of the most validated theories in science.

It may also be worthy to note that creationism is only at odds with evolutionary theory on the subject of change in organisms. Contrary to what is often thought by the public, evolutionary theory does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe, the Earth itself or the emergence of life; this is explained by other theories in other disciplines of science.

“He has attended three creation seminars. His personal library on the subject of creation includes 17 books and eight videos/dvds.”

I am not sure why this is relevant. I also have a personal library which includes many books on the subject of creation and evolution along with other subjects as well. But since we’re listing, my personal library includes approximately 50+ (50 is just what’s on a shelf, this does not include what I have in storage) books on the subjects of evolution, creationism, biology and associated disciplines as well as 11 videos in various formats. I have works by notable names in creation such as Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Jonathan Sarfati, Jonathan Wells, Phillip Johnson (which, btw, Wells and Johnson have both spurned medical research and knowledge by publicly stating that HIV does not cause AIDS but that’s another entire topic all together) and many others even Harun Yahya (the pen name for Turkish creationist Adnan Oktar). I also have works by notable figures in evolutionary biology such as Ernst Mayr, Stephen J. Gould, Niles Eldredge, Charles Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley, Theodosius Dobzhansky and many others. What does this prove though? Not much at all. Superficially it could be thought of as a having a large amount of literature equates to be well informed and knowledgeable upon a particular topic(s). However, it really doesn’t amount to much in the way of argumentative support.


Abell, G. (1983). The Ages of the Earth and Universe. In Godfrey (Ed.) Scientists Confront Creationism. New York: W. W. Norton.

Aitchison, T., Leese, M., Michczynska, D., Mook, W., Otlet, R., Ottaway, B. et al. (1989). A comparison of methods used for the calibration of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon, 31, 846-864.

Arnold, F. (2001). Combinatorial and computational challenges for biocatalyst design. Nature, 409, 253-257.

Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G. & Byers, B. (2002). Biology: Understanding Life (3rd ed.). Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Bard, E., Menot-Combes, G. and Rostek, F. (2004). Present status of radiocarbon calibration and comparison records based on Polynesian corals and Iberian margin sediments. Radiocarbon, 46, 1189-1202.

Blalock, H. (1969). Theory construction: From verbal to mathematical formulations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Boaretto, E., Bryant, C., Carmi, I., Cook, G., Gulliksen, S., Harkness, D. et al. (2002). Summary findings of the fourth international radiocarbon intercomparison (FIRI) (1998-2001). Journal of Quarterly Science, 17(7), 633-637.

Brush, S. (1983). Ghosts from the Nineteenth Century: Creationist Arguments for a Young Earth. In Godfrey (Ed.). Scientists Confront Creationism. New York: W. W. Norton.

Bull, J. & Wichman, H. (2001). Applied evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 32, 183-217.

Chen, F. and Li, W. (2001). Genomic divergences between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. American Journal of Human Genetics, 68, 444-456.

Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium (2005). Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature, 437, 69-87.

Conover, D. & Munch, S. (2002). Sustaining fisheries yields over evolutionary time scales. Science, 297, 94-96.

Dahlgren, 1994, Late Proterozoic and Carboniferous ultramafic magmatism of carbonatitic affinity in southern Norway, Lithos, 31, 141-154.

Darwin, C. (1896). The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection. (Vol. 1). New York: D. Appleton and Company.

Davis, D., Gray, J., Gumming, G. and Baadsgard, H. (1977). Determination of the 87Rb decay constant. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 41, 1745-1749.

Drickamer, L., Vessey, S. & Jakob, E. (2002). Animal behavior: Mechanisms, ecology and evolution. (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building. New York: Free Press.

Ebersberger, I., Schwarz, C., Metzler, D. and Pääbo, S. (2002) Genome wide DNA sequence comparison between humans and chimpanzees. American Journal of Human Genetics, 70, 1490-1497.

Eisen, J. & Wu, M. (2002). Phylogenetic analysis and gene functional predictions: Phylogenomics in action. Theoretical Population Biology, 61, 481-487.

Emery, G. (1972). Perturbation of nuclear decay rates. Annual Review of Nuclear Science, 22, 165-202.

Ebbing, D. (1996). General Chemistry. (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Faul, H., Elmore, P., and Brannock, W. (1959). Age of the Fen carbonatite (Norway) and its relation to the intrusives of the Oslo region. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 17, 153-156.

Futuyma, D. (1986). Evolutionary biology. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.

Futuyma, D. (1995). The uses of evolutionary biology. Science, 267, 41-42.

Gaschen, B. et al. (2002). Diversity considerations in HIV-1 vaccine selection. Science, 296, 2354-2360.

Geochron Laboratories (n.d.) Radiocarbon age determinations. Retrieved January 5, 2010 from

Grant, P. and Grant, R. (2005). Evolution of Character Displacement in Darwin's Finches. Science, 313, 224-226.

Green, R., Krause, J., Ptak, S., Briggs, A., Ronan, M., Simons, J. et al. (2006). Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA. Nature, 444, 330-336.

Green, R., Briggs, A., Krause, J., Prufer, K., Burbano, H., Siebauer, M. et al. (2009). The Neanderthal genome and ancient DNA authenticity. European Molecular Biology Organization Journal, 28, 2494-2502.

Gould, S. & Eldredge, N. (1972). Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism. In T. Schopf (Ed.). Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper.

Jacobsen, S. (2003). How old is planet Earth? Science, 300, 1513-1514.

Jurmain, R., Nelson, H., Kilgore, L. & Trevathan, W. (2000). Introduction to physical anthropology. (8th ed.). Stamford: Wadsworth/Thomson.

Keith, M. and Anderson, G. (1963). Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious results with mollusk shells. Science, 141, 634-637.

Krings, M., Stone, A., Schmitz, R., Krainitzki, H., Stoneking, M. and Paabo, S. (1997). Neanderthal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans. Cell, 90, 19-30.

Kuhn, T. (1977). Second thoughts on paradigms. In F. Schuppe (Ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories. (2nd ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Levin, H. (1999). The Earth through time (6th ed.). Orlando: Harcourt Brace.

Long, A. (1990). A quality assurance protocol for radiocarbon dating laboratories. Radiocarbon, 32, 393-397.

Marczyk, A. (2004). Genetic algorithms and evolutionary computation. Retrieve January 9, 2010 from

Mayr, E. (1954). Change of genetic environment and evolution. In J. Huxley, A. Hardy & E. Ford (Eds.). Evolution as a process. London: Allen and Unwin.

Mayr, E. (2001). What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books.

Meert, J., Torsvik, T., Eide, E. and Dahlgreen, S. (1998). Tectonic significance of the Fen Province, S. Norway: Constraints from geochronology and paleomagnetism. Journal of Geology, 106, 553-564.

Monroe, J. & Wicander, R. (2001). Physical geology: Exploring the earth. (4th ed.).Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.

Morris, H. (1974). Scientific creationism. Green Forest: Master Books.

Noonan, J., Coop, G., Kudaravalli, S., Smith, D., Krause, J., Alessi, J. et al. (2006). Sequencing and analysis of Neanderthal genomic DNA. Science, 314, 1113-1118.

Pagel, M., Venditti, C. & Meade, A. (2006). Large punctuational contribution of speciation to evolutionary divergence at the molecular level. Science, 314, 119-121.

Pazdur, A., Fogtman, M., Michczynski, A. & Pawlyta, J. (2003). Precision of 14C dating in Gliwice radiocarbon laboratory. FIRI programme. Geochronometria, 22, 27-40.

Pennock, R. (1999). Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Pickett, J. (Ed.) (2001). The American Heritage Dictionary. New York: Dell Publishing.

Plastino, W., Kaihola, L., Bartolomei, P. & Bella, F. (2001). Cosmic background reduction in the radiocarbon measurements by liquid scintillation spectrometry at the underground laboratory of Gran Sasso. Radiocarbon, 43, 157-161.

Plummer, C., McGeary, D., & Carlson, D. (2003). Physical geology (9th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Poincare, H. (1905). Science and Hypothesis. NewYork: Walter Scott Publishing.

Prochaska, J., Wright, J. & Velicer, W. (2008). Evaluating theories of health behavior change: A hierarchy of criteria applied to the Transtheoretical Model. Applied Psychology: An Interational Review, 57(4), 561-588.

Protein Information Resource (2009). iProClass Integrated Protein Knowledge Database – cytochrome c. Retrieved January 9, 2010 from

Relman, D. (1999). The search for unrecognized pathogens. Science, 284, 1308-1310.

Robinson, D. & Cavanaugh, D. (1998). A quantitative approach to baraminology with examples from the Catarrhine primates. Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, 34(4), 196-208.

Saether, E. (1958). The alkaline rock province of Fen area in southern Norway. Del. Kgl. Norske. Vidensk. Selsk. Skr, 1, 1-150.

Scholz, M., Bachmann, L., Nicholson, G., Bachmann, J., Giddings, I., Ruschoff-Thale, B. et al. (2000). Genomic differentiation of Neanderthals and anatomically modern man allows a fossil-DNA-based classification of morphologically indistinguishable hominid bones. American Journal of Human Genetics, 66, 1927-1932.

Schwarcz, H. (1997). Uranium series dating. In R. Taylor and M. Aitken (Eds.). Chronometric dating in Archaeology. New York: Plenum Press.

Scott, E. (2003). The fourth international radiocarbon intercomparison. Radiocarbon, 45, 135-150.

Scott, E., Cook, G., Naysmith, P., Bryant, C. & O’Donnell, D. (2007). A report on phase 1 of the 5th International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (VIRI). Radiocarbon, 49(2), 409-426.

Searls, D. (2003). Pharmacophylogenomics: Genes, evolution and drug targets. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2, 613-623.

Shure, K. (1983). Decay heat and decay rate of actinides in highly neutron-irradiated uranium initially of high /sup 235/U content. Nuclear Science and Engineering, 85, 51-54.

Solomon, R. (1998). The Big Questions: A Short Introduction to Philosophy. (5th ed.). Orlando: Harcourt Brace.

Stein, M., Goldstein, S. and Schramm, A. (2000). Radiocarbon calibration beyond the dendrochronology range. Radiocarbon, 42, 415-422.

Strahler, A. (1987). Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.

Suppes, P. (1967). What is a scientific theory? In S. Morgensbesser (Ed.), Philosophy of Science Today (pp. 55-67). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Verschure, R., Maijer, C., Andriessen, P., Boelrijk, N., Hebeda, E., Priem, H. et al. (1983). Dating explosive volcanism perforating the Precambrian basement in southern Norway. Norges Geologiske Undersokelse Bulletin, 380, 35-49.

Vogel, G. (1998). HIV strain analysis debuts in murder trial. Science, 282, 851-852.

Witte, J. (2006). Facts and fictions about the history of separation of church and state. Journal of Church and State, 48(1), 15-45.

Wood, T. (2008a). Bara – what? Retrieved January 9, 2010 from ... t&vPrint=1

Wood, T. (2008b). Horse fossils and the nature of science. Retrieved January 9, 2010 from ... s&vPrint=1

Update January 29, 2010

I would like to take a moment to respond to the comments regarding my post.

“First of all, let me say that this was a very well written article and although it wandered a bit, presented a very compelling explanation of the author's beliefs. I wish that I had hours to compose a lengthy response and compile a list of references that supported my opinions. Sadly, however - I have too many demands on my time.”

“Belief” has the following definitions (Pickett, 2001):

1.Something believed; an opinion or conviction 2.Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof 3.Confidence; faith; trust 4.A religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith

The majority of what I wrote is substantiated by the empirical data which I cited; it is not based upon my own personal conviction or confidence in something “not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof”. However, I see the intention of the wording is an attempt to equate what I wrote to being nothing more than my personal opinion, without any substantiation – this conclusion itself is invalidated by the literature I cited

“Couple of items that I would take exception with:

"...the accusation that these methods are inaccurate is a consequence of a poverty of knowledge and understanding on the subject."

No matter how you wrap it - calling your opponent ignorant is just rude, and doesn't really help your cause. I am NOT ignorant concerning radiometric dating methodology and will stand by my 30-40K range statement. (actually 26,000)

Even though I am aware of more recent studies (INTCAL09) that push the range to 50K and beyond, the science is based on the idea that the C14 decay rate is a constant - I suspect that it may not be - but that is a discussion for another time.”

My comment was not meant as an insult and that was not my intention. I wasn’t utilizing the statement in a derogatory manner but simply making a causal inference based upon what was written. Also, I’m not sure exactly why you wish to focus specifically upon radiocarbon as it was only one of the several radiometric methodologies I referred to. Nonetheless, let’s examine the statement you stand by that radiocarbon dating is useless or inaccurate past 26,000 years of age of the samples.

The carbon-14 isotope has a half life of 5,730 (+/- 40) years and through beta decay, carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14. And I’m sure if you’re aware of IntCal, then you are surely aware that the intercomparison isn’t done solely with radiocarbon dates but dates from other methodologies are included as well. For instance, radiocarbon dates have been successfully and repeatedly found consistency with tree ring data with an upper bound at ~12,400 cal BP and calibration of radiocarbon dates to at least 50,000 years has been verified by other dating methodologies (Reimer, Hughen, Guilderson, McCormac, Baillie, Bard et al., 2004; Reimer, Baillie, Bard, Bayliss, Beck, Blackwell et al., 2009) such as varved marine sediments (Hughen, Southon, Lehman & Overpeck, 2000), and found to be consistent in these comparisons (Hughen, Lehman, Southon, Overpeck, Marchal, Herring et al., 2004). IntCal09 picked up where IntCal04 left off – with your 26,000 year barrier. The major addition was the inclusion of major non-varved data using Thorium-230 dating (Reimer et al., 2009; Hughen, Southon, Lehman, Bertrand & Turnbull, 2006). While the IntCal04 group had data extending past 26,000 years (such as Kitagawa’s 40,000 year sediment data, Kitagawa & van der Plicht, 1998 and Bard et al.’s U-Th coral dates going back 30,000 years, Bard, Hamelin, Fairbanks & Zindler, 1990), they took the conservative route due to a larger scattering than they would have liked which was found to be due to some dates which suffered from slight (the dates were not ridiculously anomalous) processing issues (Reimer et al., 2009).

Okay, what about the techniques? Well, a technique dating back to the late 50’s is the use of proportional counters which were a large improvement from the original ring of Geiger counters (Moljk, Drever & Curran, 1957). Another older technique is called liquid scintillation for counting the emitted light which corresponds to beta decay through the use of a solvent cocktail – even though more modern counters do not need the use of the cocktail (Passman, Radin & Cooper, 1956; Jeffay & Alvarez, 1961).

And there’s also the AMS technique - AMS stands for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry. This technique (developed in the 70s) is utilized for its ability to separate isotopes from other abundant masses and uses particle acceleration of the sample atoms. Eventually the ions end up in a detector and are separated and counted. The isobars are differentiated due to the fact that ions lose energy at different rates when passing through the foil and into the detector barrier which has a general sensitivity of 2 parts per 1015 (Vogel, Turteltaub, Finkel & Nelson, 1995; Fifield, 1999). Each technique improved the ability to calculate the decay and subsequently calculate an age for the tested samples. Modern techniques and equipment let scientists use very small amounts and have a high sensitivity and accuracy.

Next we move on to the decay rate of C14. As I mentioned in my post, decay rates are not affected by temperature, a vacuum, massive atmospheric pressure, or the manipulation of gravitational or magnetic fields (Emery, 1972). Supposed instances in which perturbations of decay rate were found were reportedly associated with distance from the Sun (Jenkins, Fischbach, Buncher, Gruenwald, Krause & Mattes, 2008) and these findings were only on the order of a fraction of a percent - not a significant change. However, independent attempts at substantiating this correlation have not found the same results and thereby caste doubt onto the findings. More rigorous methods of analysis were utilized on a larger set of isotopes and the reported correlations were lacking (Norman, Browne, Shugart, Joshi & Firestone, 2009). It was concluded that the perturbations were from human error and not actual variation in decay rate. Therefore there is no scientifically supported reason to believe that the rate of decay of radiocarbon is not constant nor is there any effect which would significantly compromise the decay rate. Personal suspicion does not make for a valid counter-argument.

"...If radiometric dating were “flawed” this technique would be useless and the amount of time, money and effort researchers put into it would be for naught. The idea that researchers would continue to knowingly utilize a completely unreliable methodology is a tad bit ridiculous..."

Ahhhhh. Better to stick with science. Your argument that the science community wouldn't use it if it were flawed doesn't hold water. I would LOVE to assume that scientific researchers = INTEGRITY, but too many events related to global warming, and research paid for by special interest groups come to mind. They would CERTAINLY use it if it provided numbers that supported their conclusions. And when the numbers went horribly wrong - well that's just another 'exception'...”

I would say that this would be a hasty generalization. The topic of global warming is a complex one and is marred greatly by political interest and money on BOTH sides of the issue. The matter of evolutionary theory vs. creationism is really a matter of ideological axioms contradicted by findings in science. To intimate that those who perform research and support evolutionary theory are void of integrity is a bold statement and a bit of an insult to all those who work hard within the sciences to seek out knowledge. The fact of the matter is that if this were the case, then the utility of the theory itself would be null and therefore much of that which I listed under “utility” in the theory assessment would not work unless you suspect those in the applied fields and industries are supporting the lie. But as you said, “better stick with the science”, so let’s see about the use of radiometric (not only radiocarbon) techniques in the scientific literature – let’s focus on those instances commonly utilized by opponents to state that these techniques are invalid.

The instances evolution opponents utilize to support the idea that radiometric dating is “flawed” or “unreliable” are quite insignificant compared to the amount of radiometric dating that is found to be consistent through repeatability and inter-comparison. One important example of comparison between radiometric techniques and non-radiogenic techniques is the use of the astronomical polarity timescale (APTS) which makes use of Milankovitch cycles, has not only been useful as a calibration tool but also shown that radiometric results and other non-radiogenic methods are consistent with this technique (Hilgen, 1997; Hilgen1999; Kent, 1999; Raffi, 1999). A combination of many different techniques are culled together to create the geologic time scale which has found general agreement between the measured times (Gradstein, Ogg, Smith, Bleeker & Lourens, 2004). The instances where anomalous dates are found are mostly explained by other factors (human error on the majority) and not the reliability of the technique.

I already mentioned the anomalous readings of the mollusk shells and those were explained easily by the researchers which submitted the paper for publication to the journal Science in the 1960’s. Another similar article which is often reference is another paper published in Science where snail shells from live snails were dated at 27,000 years old. The paper in question, Riggs (1984), focused on the shells of live snails (specifically Melanoides tuberculatus commonly known as the red rimmed melania) living in an artesian spring in southwest Nevada. The dates reached at for the snail shells were, indeed, approximately 27,000 years. The authors explained why these dates were found in these shells – it was due to dissolved HCO3_ (hydrocarbonate or bicarbonate). Riggs explains this in the paper when he states:

“Since dissolved HCO3-- and shell carbonate are in isotopic equilibirium, there is no gradient to drive exchange and no evidence of exchange” (p. 60).

Both the article by Keith & Anderson (1963) and the article by Riggs (1984) are evidence of what is known as the reservoir effect in radiocarbon dating and the science community is aware of this effect and has been for a long while (Deevey, Gross, Hutchinson & Kraybill, 1954; Geyh, Schotterer & Grosjean, 1998; Rick, Vellanoweth & Erlandson, 2005).

Another often cited example of “flawed” dating involving dead seals of no more than a few weeks in Antarctica yielded ages of 650 and 1300 years old with radiocarbon dating. This instance is also the result of the reservoir effect. Upwelling of water containing “old” carbon occurs along coastal areas in Antarctica, is passed to the seals via food chain and the sample results from an admixture and then gives anomalous radiocarbon ages (Wakefield, 1971).

Looking at other isotopes in question aside from radiocarbon, an attempt was made in an article by Austin (1996) to show that K/Ar dating was invalid. The only thing Austin exhibited was either his ineptness or his knowingly deceptive behavior. The samples Austin had dated were dacite (volcanic rock) from Mt. St. Helens supposedly from a new lava dome. The dates he returned were anomalous. Why? Because the lower bound for dating using the K/Ar method recommended by Geochron Labs (the lab which Austin used) is 2 million years. Therefore the problem is not the technique but the improper use of it by Austin.

G. Dalrymple (2000) commented on the use of such instances to attempt to invalidate radiometric dating stating:

“Try, for example, wearing a watch that is not waterproof while swimming. It will probably fail, but what would a reasonable person conclude from that? That watches don’t work? Hardly” (p. 14).

These instances are not enigmatic “exceptions” but are issues which are thoroughly explained and not merely ignored and swept under the rug in some sort of mass conspiracy by scientists as many evolution opponents claim.

The conglomeration of evidence points to the fact that these techniques do work and are not “flawed” or useless. And to suggest that scientists are actively engaged in a mass cover up to fool everyone is quite absurd.

“The real problem lies in the fact that we have a dating system that can 'stretch' to reach 50,000 years - and scientists are making statements regarding 100, 200, 300 (and more) MILLION YEARS ago.”

I did go over other radiogenic dating methodologies aside from radiocarbon and other methodologies that do not utilize radiogenic materials. I assumed you were aware that radiocarbon dating isn’t utilized when investigating such timeframes as 100+ million years into the past. When dealing with such timeframes it is necessary to utilize other isotopes with much longer half lives such as uranium-thorium dating or Argon-Potassium dating which I referred to in my post. Using radiocarbon simply won’t work; it would be like trying to weigh your car on a bathroom scale. Here are a few other isotopes which are used:

Rhenium- Osmium dating with Rhenium having a half-life of ~4.23(+/- 0.13)x1010 years (Lindner, Leich, Russ, Bazan & Borg, 1989)

Potassium-Argon dating with potassium having a half-life of ~1.27(+/- 0.5)x108 years (Sawyer & Wiedenbeck, 1950; Mousuf, 1952; Leutz, Schulz & Wenninger, 1965)

Rubidium-Strontium dating with rubidium having a half-life of ~5.0(+/- 0.2)x1010 years (Aldrich, Wetherill, Tilton & Davis, 1956; McMullen, Fritze & Tomlinson, 1966)

Beryllium-Boron dating with Beryllium-10 having a half-life of ~1.52(+/- 0.05)x106 years (Holden, 1990).

And there are many others that can be and are utilized as well as non-radiogenic methods. Some of these such as dendrochronology I’ve already mentioned. There are also techniques such as fission track dating, photoluminescence (or optical luminescence) dating, amino acid raceimization, flourine analysis among others. Science DOES have dating techniques which stretch far beyond 50,000 years into the past – much further than the upper bound of radiocarbon dating and therefore their statements are not without empirical support.

“Thank you for the lengthy definition of evolutionary 'theory'. Many of us don't debate the current research and proven history of the same - we just have a problem extending it all the way back to creation - without the inclusion of some sort of intelligent force intervening.”

So what you are basically saying is that many people cannot see how this can happen so “some sort of intelligent force” was involved? There is not really a solid basis for this conclusion. This would amount to an opinion or belief which I was originally accused of writing. The very basis for such a conclusion is not rooted within science at all.

“Interesting read. I'll check out some of your sources as time permits. But still don't agree on all points.”

They are points we will mostly likely never agree upon no matter how much information I provide.


Aldrich, L., Wetherill, G., Tilton, G. & Davis, G. (1956). Half-life of Rb87. Physical Review, 103(4), 1045-1047.

Austin, S. (1996). Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens volcano. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10(3), 335-343.

Bard, E., Hamelin, B., Fairbanks, R. & Zindler, A. (1990). Calibartion of the 14C timescale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados corals. Nature, 345, 405-410.

Deevey, E., Gross, M., Hutchinson, G. & Kraybill, H. (1954). The natural C14 contents of materials from hard-water lakes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 40, 285-288.

Emery, G. (1972). Perturbation of nuclear decay rates. Annual Review of Nuclear Science, 22, 165-202.

Fifield, L. (1999). Accelerator mass spectrometry and its applications. Reports on Progress in Physics, 62, 1223-1274.

Geyh, M., Schotterer, U. & Grosjen, M. (1998). Temporal changes of the 14C reservoir effect in lakes. Radiocarbon, 40(2), 921-931.

Gradstein, F., Ogg, J., Smith, A., Bleeker, W. & Lourens, L. (2004). A new geologic time scale, with special reference to Precambrian and Neogene. Episodes, 27(2), 83-100.

Hilgen, F., Krijgsman, W., Langereis, C. & Lourens, L. (1997). Breakthrough made in dating of the geological record. EOS 78(28), 288-289.

Hilgen, F., Aziz, H., Krijgsman, W., Langereis, C., Lourens, L., Meulenkamp, E. et al. (1999). Present status of the astronomical (polarity) time scale for the Mediterranean Late Neogene. Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 357(1757), 1931-1947.

Holden, N. (1990). Total half-lives for selected nuclides. Pure & Applied Chemistry, 62(5), 941-958.

Hughen, K., Southon, J., Lehman, S. & Overpeck, J. (2000). Synchronous radiocarbon and climate shifts during the last deglaciation. Science, 290, 1951-1954.

Hughen, K., Lehman, S., Southon, J., Overpeck, J., Marchal, O., Herring, C. et al. (2004). 14C activity and global carbon cycle changes over the past 50,000 years. Science, 303, 202-207.

Hughen, K., Southon, J., Lehman, S., Bertrand, C. & Turnbull, J. (2006). Marine-derived 14C calibration and activity record for the past 50,000 years updated from the Cariaco Basin. Quarternary Science Review, 25, 3216-3227.

Jeffay, H. & Alvarez, J. (1961). Liquid scintillation counting of carbon-14: Use of ethanolamine-ethylene glycol monomethyl ether-toluene. Analytical Chemistry, 33(4), 612-615.

Jenkins, J., Fischbach, E., Buncher, J., Gruenwald, T., Krause, D. & Mattes, J. (2008). Evidence for correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth-Sun distance. Astroparticle Physics, 32(1), 42-46.

Keith, M. and Anderson, G. (1963). Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious results with mollusk shells. Science, 141, 634-637.

Kent, D. (1999). Orbital tuning of geomagnetic polarity time scales. Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 357(1757), 1995-2007.

Kitagawa, H. & van der Plicht, J. (1998). A 40,000 year varve chronology from Lake Suigetsu, Japan: Extension of the C-14 calibration curve. Radiocarbon, 40(1), 505-515.

Leutz, H., Schulz, G. & Wenninger, H. (1965). The decay of potassium-40. Zeitschrift fur Physik A Hadrons und Nuclei, 187(2), 151-164.

Lindner, M., Leich, D., Russ, G., Bazan, J. & Borg, R. (1989). Direct determination of the half-life of 187Re. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 53(7), 1597-1606.

McMullen, C., Fritze, K. & Tomlinson, R. (1966). The half-life of rubidium-87. Canadian Journal of Physics, 44, 3033-3038.

Moljk, A., Drever, R. & Curran, S. (1957). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 239(1219), 433-445.

Mousuf, A. (1952). K40 radioactive decay: Its branching ratio and its use in geological age determinations. Physical Review, 88(1), 150-151.

Norman, E., Browne, E., Shugart, H., Joshi, T. & Firestone, R. (2009). Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth-Sun distance. Astroparticle Physics, 31, 135-137.

Passman, J., Radin, N. & Cooper, J. (1956). Liquid scintillation technique for measuring carbon-14-dioxide activity. Analytical Chemistry, 28(4), 484-486.

Pickett, J. (Ed.) (2001). The American Heritage Dictionary. New York: Dell Publishing.

Raffi, I. (1999). Precision and accuracy of nannofossil biostratigraphic correlation. Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 357(1757), 1975-1993.

Reimer, P., Hughen, K., Guilderson, T., McCormac, G., Baillie, M., Bard, E. et al. (2004). Preliminary report of the first workshop of the IntCal04 radiocarbon calibration/comparison working group. Radiocarbon 44, 653-661.

Reimer, P., Baillie, M., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J., Blackwell, P. et al. (2009). IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0-50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon, 51, 1111-1150.

Rick, T., Vellanoweth, R. & Erlandson, J. (2005). Radiocarbon dating and the “old shell” problem: direct dating of artifacts and cultural chronologies in coastal and other aquatic regions. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32, 1641-1648.

Riggs, A. (1984). Carbon-14 deficiency in modern snail shells from southern Nevada springs. Science, 224, 58-61.

Sawyer, G. & Wiedenbeck, M. (1950). Decay constants of K40. Physical Review, 79(3), 490-494.

Wakefield, D. (1971). Mummified seals of southern Victoria Land. Antarctic Journal, 6(5), 210-211.

Final Update February 8, 2010

This will be my final reply to the comments as I don't see any need to continue this discussion.

  1. Identity assumption - My mistake.

  2. Integrity - The sentiment from the comments seems to be that researchers cannot be trusted. I am a researcher, so does this mean that the research I perform cannot be trusted? Or am I safe since I do not work with radiometric dating methods, climatology or in the field of evolutionary biology? I'm just not clear on how it is determined who in research can and cannot be trusted.

  3. I addressed two of the three criticisms - rate of decay and isotope amount. I could also address the open/closed system criticism, however, I feel it will be for naught. The analogy presented is similar to Sarfati's hourglass analogy, however, it is a faulty comparison as there is no evidence to suggest a conclusion of a variable rate of decay existing/existed. I could also easily cause a change in the rate at which the water is being poured by tipping the jug or pushing the individual pouring the water. As I explained previously with the citation of Emery's work, there has been no reason to think that anything has or can affect the rate at which the isotope decays. But in any event whether or not radiometric decay is constant or variable - I don't see this keeping us up at night worrying about it.

  4. As for the Egyptologist's quote, I've seen that quote many times before but nearly without fail it was exclusively found on creationist websites and in creationist literature (with the exception of the publication it originally appeared of course). Without having the primary source of the widely utilized quote I would have to err on the side of caution as quote-mining is a rampant practice. I will check this primary reference if time permits.

  5. @ sfarms - "scientists in labs and offices". In the field of biology there are many who are primarily field researchers. They appreciate the external validity of natural, direct observation and recording of that data. Evolutionary biology was born in the field with Darwin's journey on the Beagle. As for myself, I grew up in and around the pastures on the outskirts of Cuero and am no stranger to having my hands dirty.

  6. @ AltonEaston - My original post had focused on the Judeo-Christian verson of creationism as this is the version attempting to be pushed into the science classroom. However, you make an excellent point. If we are to teach other ideas why must it be limited to that version? Why shouldn't every creation story have equal rights? What makes this one more valid that the other? As for those who believe in creation and concurrently accept evolution, I would wager to say that would be a large portion of the populace. Many of the scientists who work in the field (quetionable integrity or not) hold concurrent belief in biblical creation AND the process of evolution and see no conflict. I think it comes down to a matter of interpretation of the creation story itself.

UPDATE June 19, 2010:


Thanks for reading the blog and I apologize for not replying sooner - too bad the Advocate doesn't have a notification system (that I'm aware of anyway) when someone comments on a blog. Well, better late than never I suppose.

Let's start off with your first statement, you said, "The Bible says let every seed bring forth of its own kind. When horses mate we get another horse etc etc. There is natural evoulution where one type of horse may naturaly flourish in a perticular environement but it doesnt eventualy turn into something else." That is all fine a good my friend, however there is an abundance of evidence to show that a population of organisms can, over time, change so much that they are very different from their ancestors. When this happens without the production of daughter species it is referred to as anagenesis and when daughter species are produced this is called cladogenesis.Anagenesis is phyletic change. That is, the entire population experiences a change in gene frequency instead of a speciation event (cladogenesis). Cladogenesis also takes place more rapidly than anagenesis does (Minkoff, 1983).

Here is a diagram taken from a text by Minkoff which shows how both work together to form the branches on the tree of life (although the pattern more resembles a bush rather than a tree):

I will say that it is natural to be skeptical of one animal suddenly changing into another and you'd be right. In evolution it is not individual organisms that evolve, it is populations of organisms that evolve through a complex interaction of those individuals with each other, the environment, other species and so forth. What happens is that that population is not a static, non-changing population. In fact, there are specific requirements that must be met in order for evolution to NOT happen. For evolution not to occur requires meeting the tenets of the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (Hardy, 1908; Weinberg, 1908) - only when those criteria are met will evolution not happen.

Those criteria are:

  • The population must be infinitely large (or at least large enough to overcome any contribution by drift).
  • Mating must be completely random.
  • There must be no selection taking place.
  • There must be no mutations.
  • There must be no gene flow.

There are some exceptions but those are far too complicated to discuss here. The key here is that in a population you will always have some type of mutation and mutations on average are neutral (Nachman & Crowell, 2000), that is, neither conferring an advantage or detriment of any type. Mutations that arise can also be advantageous to an organism in one environment or instance but become detrimental in another. One large example of this is sickle cell of blood cells. They give the advantage of dealing with malaria but also can give rise to sickle cell anemia. However, it is its beneficial aspect that would be one of the reasons for its continuation in the population.

These mutations provide the raw material for variation and change over time as the environment itself is not static either, it changes over time as well - long enough back and the Victoria area itself was the ocean floor, very different from what it is like now.

For instance, you use the horse as an example, modern domestic horses can be traced back to the organism which is considered the very first equid called Hyracotherium. This little animal lived between 60 and 45 mya and was only about 2 feet tall (Froehlich, 2002). These little critters had several daughter species but only the one that led to the rise of Orohippus was the line that led to the current organisms we call horses – that’s about 40 million years ago and a long lineage between modern Equus and Orohippus. The domestic horse is specifically Equus caballus, a separate species in the genus from others such as Equus quagga (Plains Zebras).

The evolution of the horse body size is a good example of Cope’s Law (Cope, 1896), however much of the early Equids remained in much of a stasis until around the Miocene when a lot of change took place which was directly related to diversification of feeding and habitat and the later Pleistocene saw the continual growth of body size and the extinction of some of the smaller species (MacFadden, 1986).

Next you make speak of a “sequence: stating, “Now there is a pattern of sequince that God used in creating ,starting with basic sea life, then graduating on up to man kind.”

It seems here that you see God as an agency which initiated the descent with modification. Last time I checked, evolutionary theory says nothing about how life began, contrary to what many people think – it only deals with life and how it changes over time. Therefore, if you see God as the initiator there’s really no contradiction with evolutionary theory there.

However, the view that life “graduated up” to humans I would disagree with, the “ladder of being”, that there is a hierarchy from the “lowly” bacteria to the “highly evolved” humans. This is incorrect and can be traced back to Aristotle’s scala naturae. These ideas about life are wrong. While it served as his attempt at organizing life into groups and is one of the first attempts at taxonomy, it is nonetheless, wrong. Evolution has no predestined goal, no achievement to shoot for. It is a continual, unyielding process with no goal. Professor Paul Olsen (2004) points to some underlying motivations for this ladder concept stating it, "Supported feudal social stratification as well as putting everything in its place - we still have strong vestiges of that concept."
Aristotle's "ladder", demons, angels, and finally god are above man with "minerals" down on the last rung.

Next you state, “Where is the missing link that has bafled scientest for centuries?”

Which is a common question from those who aren’t well versed in paleoanthropology. There are many specimens between modern humans and our divergence time from the chimpanzee around 5-7 million years ago – the australopithecines, the paranthropines, ardipithecus, kenyanthropus all roamed the Earth before the emergence of our genus Homo with Homo habilis and our eventual evolution via anagenesis from Homo sapiens idaltu.

The “missing link” is much of a misleading phrase as there someone could always demand a “link” no matter how many specimens are presented. For instance, I present you an intermediate specimen between two other species and you could ask where the “links” are between those, no suddenly, you want two links instead of one. This could go on ad infinitum and spill over into a type of Zeno’s paradox of the archer. To think there are no “links” connect us to the chimpanzee lineage is to ignore a large amount of scientific evidence. However, the actual last common ancestor between us and chimps has long been extinct.

Finally you make a perplexing claim stating, “The link between ape & man. The answer is again found in the Bible. Gen, there was an up right beast called the serpent, this beast was the most beutifull & smartest creature. He seduced Eve & was cursed to his belly as a snake forever. The closest dna to man is the snake, it is still associated with sex acts today. There is the missing link. These things are hiden from the wise (so called)”

I’m not sure where you have derived this information from but it is incorrect. Our closest living relatives are chimpanzees. The sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and the comparison of it to the human genome has given us unequivocal evidence of the genetic similarity of humans and chimps. It has been shown that the divergence between humans and chimps is only ~1.23% (Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, 2005). The findings of the consortium support earlier research which consisted of similar results. Chen and Li (2001) found the divergence between humans and chimps to be less than that of chimps and gorillas:

“The average sequence divergence was only 1.24% ± 0.07% for the human-chimpanzee pair, 1.62% ± 0.08% for the human-gorilla pair, and 1.63% ± 0.08% for the chimpanzee-gorilla pair.”

Ebersberger, Metzler, Schwarz and Paabo (2002) calculated the divergence to be 1.24%, the same as the calculation found by Chen and Li and only .01% different from the consortium’s findings.

We share such similar genetic makeup because we only diverged from our common ancester ~5-7 million years ago. This date is one of the reasons why there was so much fanfare around the Toumai (Sahelanthropus tchadensis) specimen because it is estimated to be around 6 and 7 million years old placing it close to our lineage's divergence time from the chimp lineage. As well there was some salience to the Orrorin tugenensis specimens which are approximately 6 million years old and some researchers claim to have found evidence of bipedality.

However, if there is some evidence to the contrary, feel free to present it as I’d love to see a genome sequencing study which showed how snakes are closer to us genetically than chimps.

I hope I’ve cleared up a few things for you.


Chen, F. and Li, W. (2001). Genomic Divergences between Humans and Other Hominoids and the Effective Population Size of the Common Ancestor of Humans and Chimpanzees. American Journal of Human Genetics, 68, 444-456.

Sequencing and Analysis Consortium (2005). Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature, 437, 69-87.

Cope, E. (1896). The Primary Factors of Organic Evolution, Chicago, IL: Open Court Publishing Company.

Ebersberger, I., Schwarz, C., Metzler, D. and Paabo, S. (2002) Genome wide DNA sequence comparison between humans and chimpanzees. American Journal of Human Genetics, 70, 1490-1497.

Froehlich, D. (2002). Quo vadis eohippus? The systematics and taxonomy of the early Eocene equids (Perissodactyla). Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 134, 141-256.

Hardy, G. (1908). Mendelian proportions in a mixed population. Science, 28,49-50

MacFadden, B. (1986). Fossil horses from “Eohippus” (Hyracotherium) to Equus: Scaling, Cope’s Law, and the evolution of body size. Paleobiology, 12(4), 355-369.

Minkoff, E. (1983). Evolutionary Biology. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Nachman, M. & S. Crowell. (2000). Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics, 156(1), 297-304.

Olsen, S. (2004). Evolution in Hawaii. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

Weinberg, W. (1908). Über den Nachweis der Vererbung beim Menschen. Jahresh. Wuertt. Ver. vaterl. Natkd., 64, 369-382.