Le Aug 4, 2012 à 10:50 AM, "OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson" <[email protected]> a écrit :
> What is your explanation for the scientific implications that come out of > scientific measurements deduced from radioactive decay, such as carbon dating? I have not followed the debate concerning the possibility that the universe was created relatively recently and that the Grand Canyon was carved out by the flood mentioned in the Old Testament. I did enjoy reading "Inherit the Wind" when I was younger. It seems to me that this debate forces the whole question of the scientific endeavor by attacking it at its roots. A case in point is that of the long-lived radioisotopes, which if one is to buy into the scientific account have a half-life of billions or years or more. Bystanders would seem to be presented with the following choice: 1. Assume that the radioisotopes really were created billions of years ago in the way that they seem to have come about (billions of years for the most part; 14C is continually replenished). This presents the recent-creation accounts with a difficulty to be explained. 2. Assume that the related science is manufactured, either through elaborate error or through intentional deception and sleight of hand. This would have to be a very impressive ruse to successfully pull off. 3. Assume that the universe was brought about very quickly in such a way that it contains long-lived radioisotopes which *appear* to be billions of years old but actually aren't. Options (2) and (3) will obviously seem incredible to most people. I'm no intellectual historian, but my guess is that intelligent design came about as an attempted compromise with science as creationists grappled with this and related challenges. The interesting point here is that recent-creation and intelligent design accounts would seem to be quite incompatible with one another. If your goal was logical consistency, you would hesitate to argue for both. Eric
