Replies

""true science" and picking unproven tenants that you refuse to question are incompatible. No, I am not arguing that the tectonic plates don't exist or any of that. I am only pointing out that refusing to question something that has not been proven conclusively is bad science. There problems with the commonly used models of geologic age. To refuse to acknowledge them is just as bad science as picking an age for the earth and bending all conclusions to match it."

There are things that have been proven conclusively about geologic time, unless you deny that there are any scientific means for testing the age of rocks, such as radiometric dating, a technique many creationists have assaulted as flawed. The criticisms of radiometric dating -- and I've read them -- do not fly by any standard that meets the test of true science. There are such things as "parent" and "daughter" elements within igneous rocks that exhibit constant rates of radioactive decay of isotopes. Many creationists criticize this method arguing that the constant presence of daughter elements cannot be proven, but those criticisms frequently deal with either metamorphic or sedimentary rocks, for which the constancy of composition cannot be accounted, which are then transposed to igneous rocks, whose constancy can be proven. Other criticisms creationists have advanced for the dating of rocks are even less scientific, in which they have asserted that radiometric dating itself is flawed, even if a rock's structure and history is known. This is pure denial, because science does have an understanding of nuclear physics and a key part of that knowledge is radioactive decay of isotopes. Radiometric dating under controlled conditions does work and there is not an accredited university offering a degree in Physics anywhere in this country that will deny that. And I reject out of hand any charge that these universities are controlled by "evolutionists" who slant scientific inquiry to reinforce their beliefs. Atomic bombs work for a reason, which is that the basic principles of nuclear physics are understood.

The importance of dating rocks comes into play when you test the Theory of Plate Tectonics, the basic tenets of which were proven in the International Geophysical Year of 1957-1958 when two important missing pieces of the puzzle were put in place. The first was the formation of new crust in the mid-Atlantic ridge. Scientists were actually able to prove that two points on either side of the ridge were farther apart at the end of the geophysical year than they were at the beginning because magma extruding up through the rift had formed new crust and pushed them in opposite directions. This wasn't assumed it was observed and measured from start to finish. And the second piece of the puzzle was the extensive radiometric dating of rocks gathered at points equidistant from the observed mid-Atlantic ridge, meaning at equal points of distance east and west, whose ages matched. Again, this was observed not assumed. With the formation of new crust and plate movement proven, the missing piece of the theory needed to match the destruction of crust through plate subduction and vulcanism was in place. The only things that remain that make "plate tectonics" a theory are the explanations of its origins, some believe that a catastrophic event may have caused an initial breaking of the crust, others believe it was always present; and differences over what is taking place underneath the plates that explain their movement. The movement of plates is an established scientific fact as are the ages of igneous rocks dated to establish a known history of some portions of that movement. And the ages of those rocks date to millions of years.

I have been amazed to visit sites such as "AnswersinGenesis" and others who attack the Theory of Plate Tectonics, "Uniformitarianism" (which is the assumption that those processes now acting upon the earth also acted in the past), radiometric dating, and more. I have even taken their articles and performed web searches to see the response of scientists to some of these charges and I find that they are ludicrous. And it is important to point these things out, because one of the underlying assumptions many creationists -- not all -- make before they attack the Theory of Evolution is that there is "scientific proof" that the earth is not millions of years old and that this proof is rejected because the scientific community is "controlled by the evolutionists" who refuse to permit any challenge to their current theories. This is pure unadulterated hogwash.

Now to get back to the Theory of Intelligent Design, which is the subject of this thread. From what I see of it so far, there is no rejection of science involved in its formulation, in so far as I can see. If that is true, then I am prepared to examine it with an open mind. Especially since I am a religious person who believes "in one God, the father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth." But before I can accept even the possibility that the Theory of Intelligent Design can be treated as a legitimate alternative to the Theory of Evolution I am going to have to see that it approaches scientific inquiry in a scientific manner. Most "Creationist Science" approaches scientific inquiry as an exercise in Metaphysics and is not scientific at all.