{"id":794,"date":"2011-05-23T17:33:28","date_gmt":"2011-05-23T17:33:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/doxacommunications.com\/kolbe\/question-of-time\/"},"modified":"2011-05-23T17:33:28","modified_gmt":"2011-05-23T17:33:28","slug":"question-of-time","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kolbecenter.org\/question-of-time\/","title":{"rendered":"A Question of Time"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n


\nThe Age of the Earth from the Perspective of Faith and Reason<\/strong><\/div>\n

Today, many Catholics believe that Genesis 1-11 should be not be interpreted literally because it conflicts with scientific theories of evolution and an old age for the earth.\u00a0 However, in his 1893 encyclical, Providentissimus Deus, <\/em>Pope Leo XIII made it clear that the burden of proof rests upon those who would change the meaning of the first chapters of Genesis from their plain and literal sense:<\/p>\n

\"But he [the expositor of Scripture] must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine -- not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.\" <\/a>[1]<\/sup><\/p>\n

The issue was revisited almost 60 years later in Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis, <\/em>in which the Pope cautiously allowed for investigation into the theory of evolution while reserving final judgment on Scriptural interpretation to the Church:<\/p>\n

\"However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.\"<\/a>[2]<\/sup><\/p>\n

In 1991, Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson offered an innovative approach to the process of \"weighing and judging\" the evidence for evolution in his landmark book, Darwin on Trial<\/em>.\u00a0 Johnson drew upon his background as a legal scholar to examine not only the evidence for evolution, but also the parameters that scientists use to determine what evidence is admissible:<\/p>\n

\"But evidence never speaks for itself, it has meaning only in the context of rules of reasoning which determine what may be considered and what counts as evidence.\"<\/a>[3]<\/sup><\/p>\n

Darwin on Trial<\/em> helped to launch the Intelligent Design movement, whose proponents use methods similar to Johnson's to critique the claims of Darwinian evolution.\u00a0 However, there is one aspect of evolutionary theory that has yet to be publicly questioned by Intelligent Design advocates.\u00a0 As Johnson pointed out, Darwinian evolution requires long ages of time because of its reliance upon random chance as the essential agent of change.\u00a0 As of this writing, however, there has not been a serious critique of the presumed old age of the earth by an Intelligent Design advocate.<\/p>\n

Twenty years after Darwin on Trial<\/em>, the time is ripe for Johnson's methodology to be extended to the field of geology, and to the issue of the age of the earth. A complementary analysis to Johnson's would look first at the parameters that geologists use to interpret evidence, and then at the reliability of the evidence itself.\u00a0 The point of this exercise is not to argue for any particular age of the earth, but to examine the certainty with which age claims can be made<\/p>\n

One test of certainty would be to determine whether or not the evidence for an old age of the earth meets the burden of proof of reasonable doubt, the highest standard of proof in criminal law.<\/a>[4]<\/sup> Failure to meet the reasonable doubt standard would raise the possibility that other hypotheses for the earth's age merit consideration. It would also imply that the standard of proof required by Pope Leo XIII has not been met, and that the literal and obvious sense of the Book of Genesis--as understood by all of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church--should prevail.<\/p>\n

Presumptions<\/strong><\/p>\n

Geology is distinguished from the life sciences by its claim to be able to quantify the unwitnessed past.\u00a0 However, whenever anyone speaks about unwitnessed events, they have moved from the realm of science into the realm of history, and must proceed on assumptions. The most basic assumption of geology as it is now practiced and taught is the Principle of Uniformity, often phrased as \"the present is the key to the past.\" As the late paleontologist and popular author Stephen Jay Gould showed in his book, \"Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle,\" the term actually has two meanings. The first is \"uniformity of process,\" which is really a restatement of William of Ockham's principle of parsimony.<\/a>[5]<\/sup> Gould interprets it to mean, \"Don't invent extra, fancy, or unknown causes, however plausible in logic, if available processes suffice.\"<\/a>[6]<\/sup> In other words, if an observed geological process appears to explain the formation of a rock in the field, then that explanation should be preferred.\u00a0 Uniformity of process as a forensic tool is used by geologists on both sides of the origins debate.<\/p>\n

The second meaning, called \"uniformity of law\" by Gould, is philosophical in nature.<\/a>[7]<\/sup> It holds that natural laws are constant in space and time, and is articulated most clearly by geologist M. King Hubbert, the founder of the peak oil theory:<\/p>\n

\"History, human or geological, represents our hypothesis, couched in terms of past events, devised to explain our present-day observations. What are our assumptions in such a procedure? Fundamentally, they are two:<\/p>\n

(1) We assume that natural laws are invariant with time<\/p>\n

(2) We exclude hypotheses of the violation of natural laws by Divine Providence, or other forms of supernaturalism.\"<\/a>[8]<\/sup><\/p>\n

Such a statement however, is not derived from deduction, but is an a priori position, and a statement of faith in the idea that all that exists can be explained solely by natural causes.\u00a0 By definition, it excludes any possibility of miracles.\u00a0Unless one is a strict materialist, however, there is no inherent reason to exclude supernatural causes or to presume that natural laws have been invariant throughout time. This does not mean that a miracle must be proposed for every unexplainable phenomenon, but it does mean that miraculous causes should not be automatically excluded. For one who accepts the possibility of the supernatural, the requirements of logic and reason are satisfied by the practice of preferring the natural explanation unless there is a theological reason to do otherwise. He or she is then free to examine the evidence unfettered by the constraints of naturalistic uniformitarianism.<\/p>\n

The Evidence<\/strong><\/p>\n

Radiometric Dating<\/strong>. The only way geologists can quantify the unwitnessed past is by extrapolating rates of presently observed geological processes backward into time.\u00a0\u00a0 Of the processes used by geologists to estimate elapsed time, the main contributor to the idea of billions of years of age is radiometric decay. The term refers to the process of measuring the concentration of nuclear decay products in a particular rock or mineral, particularly lead and potassium, and the principal evidence for old age is the large amount of decay products found in certain minerals.\u00a0 The old age assumption is that the rate of nuclear decay is constant, therefore much time must have passed to allow for the production of so much decay.<\/p>\n

If age determinations based on the measurement of radioactive decay products are to satisfy the reasonable doubt standard, however, they must first be shown to be admissible scientific evidence.\u00a0 In the US, the use of scientific evidence in court cases is governed by a rule of evidence called the Daubert standard.\u00a0 The US Supreme Court has suggested that the following factors be considered by judges when deciding whether or not to allow scientific evidence in a case:<\/a>[9]<\/sup><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Has the technique been tested in actual field conditions (and not just in a laboratory)? [e.g. fingerprinting has been extensively tested and verified not only in laboratory conditions, but even in actual criminal cases. So it is admissible. \u00a0Polygraphy on the other hand has been well tested in laboratories but not so well tested in field conditions]<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Has the technique been subject to peer review and publication?<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. What is the known or potential rate of error? Is it zero, or low enough to be close to zero?<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. Do standards exist for the control of the technique's operation?<\/span><\/li>\n
  5. Has the technique been generally accepted within the relevant scientific community<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In the case of radiometric dating, the answer is \"Yes\" for questions 1, 2, 4 and 5.\u00a0 But for several reasons, the answer to question 3 is \"No.\"<\/p>\n

    First, other geological processes have been found to profoundly contradict the dates derived from radiometric decay.\u00a0 For example, Carbon 14 is an isotope formed by the radioactive decay of carbon atoms, which is not supposed to be detectable in organic material older than about 50,000 to 60,000 years because of its short half life. However, it is often found in materials dated by other methods to be millions of years old, including petroleum, coal, wood, and bone, and has even been detected in diamonds otherwise dated at billions of years of age.<\/a>[10],<\/a>[11],<\/a>[12]<\/sup><\/p>\n

    Additionally, the surprising discovery of soft tissue in fossils presumed to be millions of years old brings radiometric dating into direct contradiction with currently observed decay rates of organic materials.\u00a0 In 2005 and 2007, evolutionary scientist Mary Schweitzer reported on the discovery of what appeared to be blood cells in 65 million years old tyrannosaur bones.<\/a>[13],<\/a>[14]<\/sup> This presented a quandary for scientists, because organic material is not supposed to last that long based upon present decay rates.<\/a>[15] <\/sup>When her work was called into question, Dr. Schweitzer obtained similar tissue in 80 million year old hadrosaur bones, went to extraordinary lengths to prevent contamination and perform rigorous tests on her samples, and defended her discovery in an article in Science<\/em> that appears to have satisfied her detractors.<\/a>[16]<\/sup> But nobody, including Dr Schweitzer, has called into question the high improbability of blood surviving 65-80 million years.<\/p>\n

    More ancient organic matter has been unearthed since Schweitzer's original discovery.\u00a0 Examples include:<\/p>\n