Radiometric Data and the Young Earth:
Logic and Foundational
Assumptions
Radiometric dating is one of the most well-known, but least well understood, dating methods. For many people, radiometric dating is held to "prove" the age of the earth beyond any reasonable doubt, even if they haven't a clue as to how it actually works, what the data actually says, or what other possible interpretations may be. I'll put together more material as I have time that outlines the theory and science involved. However, the best way to begin is to look at the foundational assumptions inherent in radiometric dating in terms of logic structure.
This article focuses on argumentative logic and assumptions; it does not scientifically explain the abundances of isotopes nor the ratios thereof in the context of Genesis. This article will not "prove" radiometric dating is wrong; it will demonstrate that it is irrational for a Christian to accept the arguments predicated on radiometric dating; indeed, it would be irrational to expect or demand someone to adopt such a position!
Consider a hypothetical ocean found to contain 100 gigatons of salt, 500 tons of lead, and 700 tons of iron dissolved in it. Assume for the sake of simplicity that only a negligible amount of material escapes or precipitates out each year. Measurements show that each year, due solely to natural causes, .010 gigatons of salt, .010 tons of lead and .0010 tons of iron is being added. How old is the ocean? 10,000 years (salt)? 50,000 years (lead)? 700,000 years (iron)?
The question is significant because the answers given above blindly assumed the ocean was composed of pristine, clear water containing no salt or other substances in its initial state. What if we subsequently learned the ocean was the product of a massive engineering project? In reality, we discover, space aliens constructed the ocean in a week's time only 1,000 years ago. When they completed their work they added 90% of the salt we see today for the benefit of the marine organisms, adapted for salt water, that would be placed in it. They also left most of the iron and lead in the ocean, a byproduct of the construction process.
This example shows how initial states can be suggested that would reconcile disparate uniformitarian data on the age of something. In addition, we need to be aware that process rates are not always the same; what we measure today may be different, sometimes by many orders of magnitude, from the rate that has prevailed at other times due to differing conditions. But what does this have to do with radiometric dating and the age of the earth from a creationist perspective?
In order for an argument to be recognized as valid, it must rely on assumptions that are consistent with the beliefs of the person receiving the argument. Here is an example: an argument that states (in part) that there are natural laws in the universe because there is a Lawgiver (God) who rules the universe would not be accepted by an atheist. The atheist may well believe in natural laws, but not because they believe in a lawgiving God. The argument makes perfect sense to the theist who offers it, who can't understand why the atheist won't accept it. It is logical, after all.
That is to say, the internal logic structure is fine. It's the interface between the internal logic of an argument and the external beliefs of an individual where problems arise. In the previous example, the argument was predicated on the assumption that there is a God. This assumption was not shared by the target, thus the argument failed to "connect," or "dock" if you will, with the mind of the recipient. The theist and atheist could then go on to argue about the assumption of God, but until that assumption is agreed upon the original argument will not be accepted. Until then, to ask the atheist to accept an argument that assumes the existence of God would be to ask them to be irrational and/or illogical.
So the question is: are the assumptions upon which radiometric dating is built consistent with the biblical view of creation? Or does the Bible give us a different set of assumptions than that used for traditional radiometric dating?
Radiometric dating relies on the assumption of uniformitarianism, that the rates of radioisotope decay measured today are inviolable and constant throughout time and space. It also assumes a naturalistic origin of the universe, in which the various radioactive isotopes formed over billions of years due to nucleosynthesis in the interior of stars. I will not critique the scientific case for these beliefs here. Rather, I am interested in whether these assumptions are consistent with biblical teaching.
First of all, we can easily see that the record of creation described in Genesis does not correspond to the scenario upon which radiometric dating is based. In Genesis the universe is rapidly brought into a mature, functioning state in the space of six days. (See the Reason & Revelation area for hermeneutical considerations regarding the days of creation.) As in the example above, the oceans were created to support marine life from the start, which would presumably involve salts and other minerals being present from the beginning. This, of course, would throw off any attempt at uniformitarian dating that ignored that fact.
Likewise, the isotopic abundances of radioactive materials after the Creation Week of Genesis would hardly be the same as what we would have after six days in the "Big Bang" or any other old-universe cosmology! I am not concerned here with any opinions about the interpretation of scientific data pro or con the biblical or any other model. What I am saying is that isotope ratios that might be inferred from the record of Genesis are not the same as those inferred from old-earth models, so we shouldn't expect anyone who accepts Genesis to be irrational and accept an argument (radiometric dating) that is not based on their own beliefs.
The same is true regarding the issue of uniformitarianism. II Peter 3:3-5 provides a strong condemnation of uniformitarian thinking. Yet to accept the argument that radiometric dating proves an old earth we must accept the very argument that "scoffers" in the "last days" will teach in denying Creation and the Cataclysm (Flood). Does it make sense for a Christian to do this? Of course not.
The Christian who understands that the Bible is inerrant, perspicuous and true knows the correct interpretation of radioisotope data will involve a consistent, correct understanding of origins as layed out in the Bible. It will not involve irrational compromise between differing worldviews with contradictory presuppositions.
(First Draft)
Return to
Creation Science