One of the challenges facing Christianity today is in refuting the attacks on the Bible by those who don’t believe it. Science is regularly used in this regard, specifically the “science” of evolution. I say that in quotation marks because evolution really isn’t a science, by the definition of science. Rather, it is a scientific theory, based as much on faith as a Christian’s belief in God is based on faith. Evolution can’t be proven, so it can be no more than a theory. Yet evolution is taught in our schools as if it is established and proven science.
There are a number of different types of evidence used by the evolutionary scientific community to back-up their belief in evolution. These include the fossil record, radiometric dating, commonality of species and the reality of microevolution. In their thinking, the fact that species change, showing slight variations, proves macroevolution, by extrapolation. But that’s an assumption.
Assumptions are commonplace in science, so we shouldn’t blame them for that. But true science works to turn those assumptions into proven facts, rather than calling the assumptions fact and expecting everyone to accept it as so. There’s a huge difference between these two. The great Carl Sagan, speaking to the American Academy for the Advancement of Science said, as part of his definition of science, “The most fundamental axioms and conclusions may be challenged.”
Evolution Versus Creation
Evolutionary science seems to be contradictory to the teachings of the Bible, especially the creation account given in Genesis 1 and 2. According to evolutionary theory, the earth is billions of years old; an upgrade from the millions of years old that was taught 40 or 50 years ago. Some have tried to modify the Bible, in order to make it align with evolution; but that is dangerous. Once you start doing that, you bring into question the veracity of everything in the Bible. How can we know what parts are true, if we start with the assumption that some parts are wrong?
Probably the most famous of these adaptations of the Bible is what is known as the “gap theory,” which states that there was a great span of time between the first two verses in the Bible and that everything which evolutionary scientists say happened, happened during that time.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. – Genesis 1:1-2
This theory contends that God created the world in verse 1, and since He created it, it had to have been perfect. Then something happened to the earth, causing it to fall into the darkness mentioned in verse 2. The rest of the creation account is then a re-creation account, as God worked to restore His creation.
The big problem with this theory is that there is nothing in scripture to back it up. It supposes that evolutionary theory is correct and therefore tries to align the Bible with it. In doing so, it gives evolutionary theory a higher standing than God, having the authority to decide what was. It’s not all that big a step from that to saying that science, or something stated in the name of science, supersedes the Bible in whatever subject.
Another modification of the Bible to try and accommodate evolutionary science is equating the “days” of creation, mentioned in Genesis, chapter 1, with eras of time, perhaps each of which lasted millions of years. Once again, that supposes that evolutionary science is right and the Bible is wrong. But the Bible itself refutes that, as there are several places in the creation account where we find the phrase, “the evening and the morning were the ‘X’ day” (Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).
It appears that the only true and accurate interpretation of the Biblical account of creation is that it happened over a period of six consecutive days. This fits in with what is known as a “young earth” theory, in which the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
While the actual age of the earth is not made clear in the Bible, if we add up the genealogies found therein, we find a timeline of roughly 6,000 years. Even if we assume there are some gaps in the genealogical account, that could only account for a couple thousand more years, at the most. So, one of the most basic differences in how evolutionary science interprets evidence and how creation science interprets it is in just how old the earth really is.
Carbon-14 Dating
Amongst the tools available to the evolutionary scientist is radiometric dating, the best known of which is Carbon-14 dating. This method of dating is based upon the physical principle of half-lives, where radioactive elements decay at a fixed rate. The term “half-life” refers to the amount of time it takes for half of a radioactive substance to decay, converting it to some other substance.
Carbon-14 is one of several isotopes of carbon. What makes it unique is that it is radioactive, making it unstable. carbon-14 exists in our atmosphere at a rate of about 1 to 1 trillion, when compared to carbon-12, which is a stable isotope of carbon.
The theory is that all living beings breathe in both carbon-12 and carbon-14 as long as they are alive. Once they die, the level of carbon-12 in their bodies remains constant, as they are no longer breathing it in and it doesn’t leave the body. On the other hand, the level of carbon-14 diminishes as the isotope decays, turning it into nitrogen. By measuring the ratio between the two, it is possible to determine the age of a dead body or something made from a dead body, such as a leather bag.
Carbon-14 dating isn’t a fact, but rather a theory. Just like evolution in general, it cannot be proven, mostly because nobody can go back in time to check the validity of the assumptions used to support this theory:
- Carbon-14 has been decaying at the same rate throughout the history of the world.
- There has been no increase or decrease in the amount of carbon-12 or carbon-14 in the samples, since they died and were buried.
- The ratio of these two carbon isotopes found in a sample started out as being equal to the ratio that could be found anywhere in the world at that time.
- The world’s atmosphere has not changed, with the ratio of the two isotopes being the same towards each other and towards the air in general throughout history.
Even accepting these assumptions, carbon-14 dating can only be used for a timeline of about 55 years. That’s because carbon-14 has a relatively fast decay rate, with a half-life of only 5,730 years. So:
- The amount of carbon-14, as compared to carbon-12 will have been cut in half in 5,730 years.
- It will have been cut to one-fourth in 11,460 years.
- It will have been cut to one-eighth in 17,190 years.
- It will have been cut to one-sixteenth in 22,920 years.
- And it will have been cut to one-thirty-second in 28,650 years.
You can see the problem here. We’re starting out with a ratio of 1: 1,000,000,000,000, which is turning into 1/32 of that in 28,650 years. That makes it increasingly hard to get accurate measurements from which to estimate the age of a body or object made from a body. The level of inaccuracy increases, with a corresponding decrease in the level of accuracy.
While many people think that carbon-14 dating is used for determining ages of items that are supposedly millions of years old, that’s just not possible. However, that’s not a problem for evolutionary scientists, who have other means of radiometric dating available to them, including potassium-argon dating, uranium-lead dating, and chlorine-36 dating. Some radioactive materials used for radiometric dating have extremely long half-lives, such as uranium-238, which has a calculated half-life of 4.5 billion years.
The good thing about carbon-14 dating is that when it is used to date biblical archeological artifacts, it always supports the dates that the Bible gives for those items. So, rather than disproving the Bible, carbon-14 dating actually supports the Bible, although it can’t really support the creation account, as there are no artifacts which can be analyzed, which can be traced to the creation account.
The Problem with Other Radiometric Dating
Other methods of radiometric dating can give evolutionary scientists a longer timeline to work with, but at the cost of accuracy. The slower the decay process, the harder it is to determine specific levels and differentiate between them. Scientists using these methods often have to interpret the data and their results, leading to their methods being brought under scrutiny and question, especially by creation scientists.
Nevertheless, evolutionary scientists rely heavily on radiometric dating in their investigations, especially in dating the age of fossils that are supposed to be millions, tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions of years old.
Yet there is more than ample room for interpretation in these methods. Fossils themselves, the most common paleontological evidence found, are not living things or even the remains of living things. Rather, they are mineral deposits that replaced the bones of living things, when those living things decayed. They only form under very specific circumstances, limiting the number of fossils in existence.
Rather than try and determine the age of a fossil by radiometric dating in the fossil itself, paleontologists usually try to do it on samples taken from layers of coal that are above and below the strata the fossils were found in, as fossils are rarely found in coal. If they can determine the age of layers both above and below the one the fossil was found in, they can at least get a range for the age of that fossil. Coal is good for this, as coal is made from decaying plant matter.
There’s only one problem; the levels of radioactive isotopes found in a seam of coal vary considerably from sample to sample. So, the paleontologist must take a number of samples, seeking to find what is right.
In an ideal world, the proper way to approach this would be to do the most accurate possible analysis of the age of each sample and then average them. But we don’t live in an ideal world. So, while there might be some averaging going on, it is averaging of samples that give results which are close to what the paleontologist expects; everything else is thrown out, calling them “corrupted samples.” In this, the results of the work are not based on a true scientific process, because they have been made to match theory, rather than being allowed to stand on their own and prove or disprove the scientist’s theory.
The problem goes farther than that, as once the age of a particular strata has been determined, that information is then used to assign an age to all fossils found in strata of stone above and below the seam of coal that has been dated. Fossils of the same creatures, found in other parts of the world, are assumed to be the same age, along with any other fossils found in the same strata in those other locations. This allows that error to be compounded, as it is used in research around the globe.
Part of this is nothing more than an honest mistake, due to the expense and difficulty of radiometric dating and the rarity of the equipment used in doing it. not every scientist can afford such elaborate equipment, so is forced to rely on the work of others. But in doing this, another of Carl Sagan’s basic scientific principles is violated; that all conclusions must be repeatable. Without independent radiometric testing in various parts of the world, conclusions are based on work that is not repeated to give it that added layer of validity.
The Bible’s Answer for Carbon-14 Dating
The Bible doesn’t mention Carbon-14 dating or any other form of radiometric dating. That’s not surprising, as that technology didn’t exist at the time the Bible was written. Nevertheless, it does give us an answer to the question that carbon-14 dating raises.
When we are looking at the age of something, we can either look to historic or scientific data for our answers. If we were talking about something having to do with World War II, we wouldn’t bother with scientific data, as we have historic data to use. In the case of what is known as “pre-recorded history,” evolutionary science assumes that there is no historic data to use, but only scientific data. In this, they are ignoring the testimony of the only person who was there at the creation of the world, God.
The Bible’s account of creation is a historic record of what God has said about how He created the world, as He gave that information to Moses. To say that it is not true is to call God a liar. Yet according to the Bible, God not only isn’t a liar, but is incapable of lying.
God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor the son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? – Numbers 23:19
That by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us. – Hebrews 6:18
To refute the Biblical account of creation, is to say that God has lied. The evidence used for this is not certain enough that anyone should make such an accusation. It takes a considerable amount of interpretation of that evidence, to come up with what is called evolutionary theory, with many pieces of evidence having alternate explanations.
The fossil record, for example, may not have been laid down over millions of years, as they claim. Rather, it can equally be taken as evidence of the flood. If we accept the Biblical accounting of the flood, then we should expect to find stratification in the earth; stratification caused by the settling of the earth that was eroded away during the flooding process. Animals caught in that flood would also settle in certain stratum, based upon their size, weight, how close they were to the water’s edge at the time of flooding and the buoyancy of their corpses as they decayed.
Such an explanation of the stratification that is used as the geological record in evolutionary science would answer the question of anomalies that exist in the geological record, such as fossilized trees that grow up through layers of strata that supposedly represent millions of years.
The flood itself could have had a huge impact on carbon-14 dating as well, in that the earth’s magnetic field, atmosphere and cloud cover changed considerably at that time. Those changes would have impacted the amount of carbon-14 in the air, as the formation of that carbon-14 comes about because of the sun’s interaction with particles in the upper atmosphere.