 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
By Roger A. Scully, Jr.
understandable; there is a real world; (2) all nature is subject to the same laws (uniformity); (3) measurable causes
underline observable effects; (4) the simplest explanation is probably correct [this is a concept known as the
principle of parsimony, and sometimes called “Occam’s Razor”]; (5) the unfamiliar is explainable in terms of the
familiar, through analogy. After these assumptions have been stated and considered, the scientist is ready to
perform his task commonly called, “the scientific method.” Note how Henri Poincare, a world reputable scientists has
described this process in his work, “Science and Method”: “The scientific method consists in observation and
experiment.” Bertrand Russell, another noted scientists, adds, “In arriving at a scientific law there are three main
stages: The first consists in observing the significant facts; the second in arriving at a hypothesis, which, if it is true,
would account for these facts; the third is deducing from this hypothesis consequences which can be tested by
observation” (1931, p.57). Note in these statements the continual concept of “observation.” Dr. Douglas Marsland
has well said, “The primary basis of all scientific thinking is observation;” and again, Dr. Paul Weisz wrote, in his
book, “Elements of biology”, “All science begins with observation, the first step to scientific method…something that
cannot be observed cannot be investigated by science.” Finally, in this regard, Dr. Henry Morris stated, “Science
thus involves facts which are observed and laws which have been demonstrated.” Another element is that of
Experimentation. Mr. Morris again stated, “The scientific method involves experimental reproducibility, with like
causes producing effects.” This now sets the stage for a discussion of the age of the earth; and I trust as you read
you will better understand the reason for mentioning these scientific methods.
I call attention to radioactive isotope dating, which is also known as, and more commonly referred to as,
radiometric dating, which encompasses the totality of the testing involved in radioactive isotope dating. This is
claimed to be the most reliable dating method available to evolutionary scientists. This method has been called,
“one of the best known ways of assigning age to an object.” The premise of this dating method is that some
radioactive elements undergo decay to produce new elements. In order for this method to be properly used here are
three things that must be known to be true: (1) The quantity of radioactive elements present when the matter was
first formed must be known; (2) the rate of radioactive decay must be constant over time; (3) the matter must have
been insulated from outside factors. You must note that this information is almost always either unreliable or
unavailable; hence those producing the tests are forced to do a lot of “guesswork.” As one scientists said, “it seems
we do more guessing than actual dating.” Now, I call attention to the things sated in the first paragraph. This
method does not consist of observable effects. It does not involve demonstrable laws, or experimental reproduction.
(Neither the Big Bang, nor any element of organic evolution can fit the criteria of proper scientific method.)
I now call attention to evidence for a young earth. I start with the population statistics (population kinetics). Here is
the formula used: Pn=world population after n generations; n=number of generations; x=life span in terms of
generations; 2C=number of children per family. If evolutionary figures were entered into this formula, which having
lived on the earth for only 1 million years, then the earth’s population would be 1 x 10E5000 , which is a number 1
followed by 5,000 zeroes. But, the entire universe, with an estimated size of 20 billion light-years in diameter, can
only hold 1 x 10E100 . This would make the earth’s population 104,900 times greater than could fit into the entire
universe. However, if the earth would be 7,000 to 10,000 years old then the population would be 4.3 billion, which is
almost exact to what it now is.
Next, attention is called to the hydrogen in the universe. As you know, hydrogen is constantly being converted to
helium throughout the universe. Hence, if the universe is old, then there should be very little hydrogen left in it, since
hydrogen routinely is being converted into helium, the process of which is non-reversible. It has been noted that the
universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen. As Dr. Hoyle stated, “If matter was infinitely old, this would be quite
impossible.”
Finally, for the sake of space restraint, let us note atmospheric helium. Helium is derived from the disintegration of
uranium and thorium in the earth’s crust. Some of this radiogenic helium escapes and finds it way to the earth’s
surface, where it is added to the atmosphere. Here is the problem those who profess an old earth face: it has been
recognized for many years that there is not enough helium in the atmosphere to correspond to an old earth or the
rate of escape. Given the fact that the atmosphere contains 3.5 x 10E15 grams of helium, and that the rate of helium
formation is 3 x 10E11 grams per year, the earth’s age could only be about 10,000 years old.
These brief statements hardly exhaust the issue. However, these things cannot be ignored as evidence for a
young earth. In order for the theory of organic evolution to be proven, then the earth must be older than it has been
proven to be.