Feedback RE: Bill Nye's Plea

I felt that the following comment from my previous post (about Bill Nye) warranted its own spot, so I am reposting it here:

Mark H. writes:

"I think that you should consider more the implications of a YEC point of view. Ask yourself this question: What would you do if you believed that the Bible definitely teaches the YEC position? There would then be a conflict between the Bible and mainstream science. How would you respond to it? What would be the rational response? In my view, as I think that there are objectively conclusive/certain reasons to think that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, the rational thing to do would be to accept the claims of the Bible and assume that mainstream science is wrong on these issues. After all, mainstream scientists themselves admit that their convictions are only (very highly) probable, not absolutely certain; and probable arguments, no matter how strong, revert to 0% evidence when up against objectively certain claims.

So for YECs who have this view of what the Bible is and what it teaches, their rejection of the mainstream scientific paradigms on these issues is entirely rational. They are doing exactly what they should be doing. And their attempt to rebuild science on what they take as biblical foundations is entirely appropriate and rational, and we should all join in with them. IF YEC assumptions about the Bible and what it teaches on this issue are valid, all of this follows.

So the real point of controversy, the real issue, is what the Bible is and what it teaches on this issue. The scientific evidence is not the determining factor in this dispute. It is important, but it is rationally overridden by other concerns.

I know you know the biblical issues are important, and thus you have used many blog posts to provide an alternative interpretation of the Bible on these issues. And I also recognize that presenting the scientific evidence clearly can force people to go back and rethink the biblical issues. But I do think it would helpful to consider further the rationality and logic of YEC scientific claims, given certain assumptions.

As you know, I have held this YEC position in the past, and I would hold it still if I had not come to the conclusion that there are legitimate ways of reconciling biblical teaching and mainstream science. I am still agnostic on many scientific claims, but I will not oppose them with any strong conviction, because I do not believe I have the clear backing of God's Word behind me, but just my own non-expert opinion."

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Thanks for commenting, Mark. I think your reasoning above is not only clear and concise, but very relevant to understanding how the public discussion over evolution actually works.

"What would you do if you believed that the Bible definitely teaches the YEC position?"

Remember that I held this position for many years, even while studying geology at the university. My response was not unlike your suggestion, and I sought for a means—with absolute confidence—to explain the rock record according to a paradigm defined by what I deemed "biblical history". If the data appeared to support long ages without a catastrophic flood, I had rational reason to believe that our scientific interpretation was not yet up to par.

But my post was not about what YEC's should do or where the real controversy lies, as you put it. My interest is in how YEC's might respond the message of this video and why the video will ultimately be ineffective. I think you made that point well in your comment: they proceed with absolute certitude that their interpretation of scripture trumps any contrary evidence from geology/biology.

I ultimately left that paradigm for two reasons, as you know. First, YEC's were demonstrably wrong in their explanations of geological data and often lied about that data. Moreover, their methods were entirely ad hoc, wherein they would take scientific studies by 'secular' scientists and introduce any arbitrary reason necessary to make their case before a non-expert audience. This is not only bad science, but a morally questionable approach by those who 1) claim to be evangelists and 2) hold graduate degrees and ought to know better.

Secondly, I realized that there is no more certitude in biblical exegesis than in the natural sciences. Each often deals in multiple competing hypotheses/methods to obtain information from a complex dataset, and neither are comparable to mathematic logic, in which following 'the rules' always yields the correct answer. Geology and biblical exegesis are similarly hermeneutical sciences, but when it comes to reconstructing history, radioisotope geochronology (for example) allows for far more numerous tests to verify its assumptions and conclusions than (for example) interpreting the relationship between Genesis 1 and primeval events. We rely on the historical sciences, moreover, even to know whether our copy of Genesis 1 matches those from ancient Israel, let alone to translate it accurately.

This is not to promote skepticism regarding the authority of the biblical text, and you know that I believe the records to be reliable and authoritative. I would suggest, however, that 'our certitude' in what the Bible claims can never trump historical evidence completely because it depends thereupon. You cannot even argue that Genesis 1:1 ought to be translated a certain way without referring to historical evidence that is no less disputable than most geological evidence. Thus I cannot agree that scientific evidence "is rationally overridden by other concerns." I would also dispute the claim that any part of the Bible was intended to or could give us more detailed information about Earth history than the geological sciences. I am convinced that attempts to make the Bible yield such information are anachronistic products of modern hermeneutical methods. If my conviction is valid, then YEC paradigms are not merely illogical, but they place massive, unnecessary stumbling blocks before our society and (more importantly) the doors of the church.

"I will not oppose [many scientific claims] with any strong conviction, because I do not believe I have the clear backing of God's Word behind me, but just my own non-expert opinion."

One of the most fascinating and beautiful characteristics of the biblical text, in my opinion, is its innate ability to transform people and cultures across time and space. One might say that it is the living word of God. But to utilize this aspect of the text requires that we are mindful of its dynamic complexity—its poetics—and that we recognize that the experience of reading the text (its affect on us, the reader) should not be divorced from the academic pursuit of its meaning. In other words, reading scripture in faith is no less important that obtaining the 'true meaning', which often is not so simple and may even depend on the context of the reader. New Testament expositions of the prophets are a prime example, I think. It is this feature, in any case, that separates the secular academic from the Christian academic in the natural sciences. It is in faith that we explore creation just as we explore the revealed Word. One does not trump the other, but both are made sensible by that faith. The very pursuit of knowledge in each discipline produces divinely inspired wisdom, often through getting the 'wrong' answer time and again. Thus if we claim certitude in one field where we have none, we preclude ourselves from much of what God has yet to reveal to us.

Or so I view my own journey thus far, and this rejection is the source of my frustration when YEC hermeneutics become the justification for rejecting claims of modern science and even prevent the student from learning or examining them properly.

Why Bill Nye's plea will (unfortunately) fall on deaf ears...

My commentary here is a bit late to the party, but I hope still relevant. On a quick personal note, I've spent 40 hours on planes in the past month, covering more than 25,000 miles. Between flights, I spent all my free hours in the laboratory or trying to experience the U.S. one last time before departing on my year long adventure. It's good to be 'home', but it seems I have a lot of news to catch up on, particularly the YEC community's response to the video below.

I imagine that you have all seen Bill Nye's brief comments regarding evolution as a foundational science and the societal speed bumps created by those who deny it. I also predict there would be a mixed reaction among you to his exhortation, even if you generally agree with it. If you're like me, Bill Nye played a large role in developing your childhood fascination with science in action. Now that we are 'grown up', it follows naturally that he check up on his prior audience to remind them what is and is not science (he is also active in promoting the public understanding of anthropogenic climate change).

To put it briefly, I don't mind at all that Bill Nye's popularity is a medium for these messages. In fact, I fully support his efforts and generally agree with his position. Few things are more bothersome to me than celebrity lecturers, but Bill Nye is not merely a likable personality that is passionate about some message. He is also uniquely qualified to teach it. It would seem, therefore, that he is the perfect choice to awaken aspiring parents of young scientists from their dogmatic slumbers. Yet somehow I am skeptical as to whether any YEC parent will be moved to do anything but to remove Bill Nye from their list of childhood heroes. Let's take a look at the video together, and I will explain why this message will (unfortunately) fall on deaf ears:

"The denial of evolution is unique to the United States..."

It is not entirely fair to single out the United States as a unique home of those who deny macroevolution/common descent. These groups are sufficiently popular in several European countries to warrant frequent news coverage, as well as educational offices devoted to supplementing the teaching of evolution (e.g. the British Center for Science Education). Young-Earth varieties are more popular and more successful in South Korea, and anti-Darwinian sentiments dominate public and academic spheres in Turkey. For this reason, YEC parents watching this video may come away with the impression that Mr. Nye has not kept up on current affairs and geography.

Nonetheless, the United States is unique in harboring the most successful 'counter-offenses' to the 1859 revolution, and its ministries (e.g. Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research) continue to offer unmatched resources to global networks battling the teaching of evolution. Nuanced as such, Bill Nye is not wrong to warn us that whereas the United States ought to be a lighthouse for the nations when it comes to innovative science, she is currently muddying the waters. But for YEC's that see themselves as bearing that very light, this warning must be accompanied by both persuasive and compassionate speech. This video lacks both, in my opinion.

"...the United States is where most of the innovation still happens..."

The United States is and will continue to be a leader in innovative science, medicine, and technology, but largely for economic reasons. We have an abundant supply of funding for these disciplines with a relatively low demand (from the society, that is) for qualified people to fill them. Consequently, countries in which there is a deficit of science funding tend to export top scientists to the United States (not intentionally, of course), where these ex-patriots can pursue their groundbreaking research without financial hindrance. Few of you would have difficulty choosing between $200/month and $8,000/month salary to work as a full-time professor, even if choosing the latter involved leaving your home country. Combine that with the potential for $150,000+ research grants from the National Science Foundation, and you can understand why the U.S. is supported by a wonderfully multinational research base.

What can we expect for the next generation? Consider the following two trends. First, there is growing skepticism for scientific establishments/disciplines whose academic conventions conflict economically, politically, or (somehow) theologically with major communities in the U.S. The result appears to be that scientists are slowly losing their credibility as role models for society (the riposte "but science says!" has all but lost its flavor). Skeptics of evolution, for example, constitute a major voting group that will decide (or vote for officials that decide) how and when and why we fund scientific research and education, and science funding is currently being cut. Secondly, many developing countries (e.g. China, India, and Russia) may soon be able to match American funds, at least to the point that the U.S. is no longer an importer of capable scientists to make up for our slack.

If these trends continue and converge, the U.S. will no longer have the 'luxury' of devoting so many resources to debating major scientific paradigms that, for many, have long been established. So I would support Bill Nye on this point, though I think it should have been explored to avoid misunderstanding (especially for non-U.S. scientists that may feel insulted by his characterization of American ingenuity).

"When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in that, it holds everyone back..."

If I were a YEC, I would consider this a victory call. That 'secular' scientists should feel that they are losing their grip of influence on the general population is a well known mission of organizations like AiG. Therefore, it pains me to think how many parents will ignore Bill Nye's reasoning to follow as to how precisely we Americans are 'held back' by their attitude toward science.

"Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science..."

Yes. More specifically, evolution is a unifying concept that currently explains the range of phenomena from all aspects of the life sciences. One need not accept evolution to accept this fact. Whether in medicine or in classifying dinosaur bones, evolution is the fabric by which we approach the problem. Since it consistently yields positive results in biological/geological research, has not been contradicted by numerous incoming data (e.g. the Human Genome Project), and currently has no rival theory with anywhere near the explanatory power, the vast majority of earth and life scientists accept it. Yes, evolution is a subject of ongoing research and yes, there are details to be resolved. But by and large, this statement is true.

It has not always been the case, however, that evolution was the unifying concept, and the revolution begun by Darwin's ideas was not the only in history to alter the academic landscape. Therefore, most YEC's will find comfort in the hope that one day, a more palatable concept may replace the theory of common descent, even among secular academics. Perhaps in two centuries, evolution will be consigned to a list of scientific dogmas that died so hard with such a dedicated following.

I suppose a creationist can hope, and I sympathize with this kind of hope. Everyone struggles in trying to reconcile differences between how the world appears and how we hope or believe it ought to be. Even in grieving over the death of a loved one who we think shouldn't have died. We might feel that he/she didn't deserve it, even if we don't believe in any sort of 'cosmic justice'. If you can understand this struggle, then you can understand why YEC's are reluctant to dialogue when told to 'face reality'.

Don't get me wrong here. I am not suggesting that YEC or even Christianity in general is something that people simply accept against all reason or evidence. Every worldview interprets facts through a lens of faith ("brute facts are mute facts") and each bears unique challenges from those facts—some apparent and some real. Consider, for example, the paradox raised by Paul between a suffering church and a victorious King. The Gospel itself is not a palatable answer given because it makes simple sense, but a powerfully subversive one that flies in the face of all we thought we knew.

So should we expect that one day evolution will disappear to the vindication of all skeptics at present? There is good reason to say no. Although evolutionary biology may look quite different in 50 or 100 years, its core principles (common descent, the phylogenetic tree, speciation through natural selection and genetic modification, etc.) have been so corroborated by multiple independent methods and disciplines that they are likely to survive even future scientific revolutions, much in the way that the core of Newtonian physics survived the 20th century.

"...analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates..."

A legitimate question is raised as to whether one may be a successful/prolific scientist (particularly a successful biologist) without accepting certain aspects of the evolutionary paradigm. Bill Nye suggests here that "you're just not gonna get the right answer" if you deny evolution, and he cites pre-Plate Tectonic geology to make his point. One can also add Sequence Stratigraphy, which was developed by Exxon Mobil and applied with great success to exploration geology.

In my experience, however, this charge does not hold up. Even today, geologists regularly cite papers that were published before the geological paradigm shifts in the late 70's and 80's because they do, in fact, give many of the right answers. In principle, one can identify ancient coastal margins and correlate sedimentary strata without reference to plate tectonics and sequence stratigraphy. Likewise, it is possible to contribute to the fields of medicine, biochemistry, ecology, and so forth without accepting common descent.

The answers are incomplete, however, lacking a mechanism to explain all the data. One may conduct geological research successfully without accepting the theory of Plate Tectonics, but the conclusions are held back when the most parsimonious explanation is excluded. This, I believe, is why Bill Nye suggests that your "world becomes incredibly complicated" when you deny evolution. It is currently the most parsimonious explanation for similarities in genomic data among primates, for example, or comparative anatomy or the general structure of the fossil record.

Leaving evolution aside for a moment, I hope you will recognize from discussions on this blog how complicated geology becomes when you approach it from a Young-Earth, 'Flood Geology' perspective. Flood geologists reject deep time (billions of years) a priori, so the most parsimonious explanation for trends in radiogenic isotopes is no longer available. Instead, they turn to absurdly complicated (and quite impossible) scenarios in which accelerated nuclear decay produced the observed concentrations of these isotopes. But then another problem arises: the heat produced by enhanced rates of radioactive decay. So an even more complicated scenario is posited, in which cosmic expansion somehow offsets the additional heat. How this could possibly explain convergence between isotopic systems is still unexplained by such models (see the last two posts for more details). Nonetheless, 'Flood Geologists' would prefer to complicate their models ad infinitum before accepting what 99% of their colleagues accept as blatantly obvious—the Earth is much older than YEC's are willing to believe.

But how about the charge that life will "still be a mystery" rather than an "exciting place"? Young-Earth Creationists sincerely believe that because of their faith in 'biblical' creation, life is no longer a mystery. Many are quite enthusiastic about studying natural phenomena, and they have no sense that their foundation is mistaken or unscientific. Therefore, they will swiftly reverse this claim by saying that evolution makes life not only mysterious (there is so much unknown about the origin of life and complex biochemical 'machinery') but also dull and hopeless. It is wonderful that Bill Nye can share his passion for science, but he has little to offer to a dedicated YEC, who conflates the Young-Earth view with a respect for God's message. Since they know the joy that comes with the gospel, they will never believe that 'evolutionists' could match it with a fascination for nature. I too know that joy, and I concur.

"And I say to the grown-ups, if you wanna deny evolution...that's fine. But don't make your kids do it, because we need them."

Perhaps the most quoted section of this video, Bill Nye makes a bold but heartfelt plea for YEC parents not to pass on their denial of evolution for the sake of society. Assumed in this plea is that one cannot be scientifically literate or a successful engineer if one denies evolution. Of course, this assumption is demonstrably not true. Although I disagree strongly with geologists at AiG like Andrew Snelling and Steven Austin, they are scientifically literate and they do understand how science works. They just rebel against that method in favor of what they perceive as 'more biblical' to conduct their own research. I think their methods and conclusions are quite flawed regarding Earth history, but it does not prevent Andrew Snelling, for example, from consulting with a mining company and identifying an economically significant ore body. Likewise, engineers who are creationists can and have 'built stuff', including the rockets that delivered American astronauts to the moon.

I have not yet delved into the responses to this video by YEC's, but I predict that most will drive at this point first. They will reach into their list of 'famous scientists that believed in biblical creation' to show that one can be a successful scientist and deny evolution. Perhaps next post, I will focus on specific responses. But for now, I think this tried tactic begs the question. If I am studying sedimentary geochemistry, for example, does it matter where I stand regarding the latest in psychoanalytical theory? Very few scientific disciplines, especially in engineering, are held back in practice by the denial of macroevolution and common descent, even if evolutionary theory helps to explain them better. This is true even of many fields in medicine.

Bill Nye's main point, however, drives at the bigger picture: what is our attitude as a society toward the natural sciences if a large portion of the population is willing to reject major unifying paradigms on the word of a handful of dissidents? Will it continue to progress, or will even the developing world soon pass us by? Will we always have the luxury to debate the finer points of biochemical evolution in bacterial flagellum and how to qualify the teaching of evolution in public schools?

The world is not so static. If these questions do not seem pertinent now, give it a few years. I think they are worth considering, whether or not Bill Nye's message will be received by any YEC parents. My prediction is that, unfortunately, it will not.

Why does Andrew Snelling use RATE team funding to falsify his own claims?

I would like to suggest that if you have donated money to the Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth (RATE) team—either directly or by supporting ICR and Answers in Genesis—then Dr. Andrew Snelling has spent that money to discredit your beliefs regarding the age of the Earth. Unfortunately, he reports this research through 'technical' articles that are unintelligible to much of his audience, and therein he hides the fact that the results actually contradict his professed beliefs. In other words, Dr. Snelling depends on the ignorance of his readers regarding geology—specifically geochronology, which entails various methods of dating rocks. Let's take a closer look, using Snelling's article on Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand as an example.

Radiogenic isotope data in volcanic island arcs

If you read my previous post (The Orinoco Flow) and subsequent comments, then you are already familiar with some of the methods by which geochemists investigate tectonic processes at subduction zones (like the Lesser Antilles volcanic arc). Radiogenic isotopes (i.e. those produced by radioactive decay) are essential tools in quantifying the tectonic interplay between oceanic sediments, subducted crust, and the upper mantle—all of which contribute to magma generation that produces oceanic island chains. To date, geologists have thoroughly documented the influence of oceanic sediments—even specific river basins—on the isotope geochemistry of volcanic rocks around the world. The most relevant conclusion to this blog/discussion is that the subduction of oceanic crust was accompanied by the slow accumulation of sediment in the deep ocean over tens of millions of years. Conversely, Young-Earth models do not predict the isotopic data at volcanic island arcs, primarily because they offer no model by which the mantle and crust evolved to drastically different isotopic values.

Ratios of radiogenic isotopes can be combined with geochronological data (radiometric dates) to elucidate tectonic processes over time. The most common (and accurate) way to date such rocks is to apply the U-Pb method to zircon crystals in volcanic rocks. These crystals are quite small and rare, but are incredibly resistant to chemical alteration. In other words, geologists can use independent lines of evidence to study the history of these rocks: one isotopic system (U-Pb) to date the rocks and several others (Sr-Rb, Sm-Nd, Lu-Hf, etc.) to distinguish the origin and ascent of the magma.

As an aside, the oldest zircons to date were found in the Jack Hills of western Australia and date as old as 4,404±4 million years (see the PDF of the original article by Wilde et al., 2001). I raise that point here as a brief example of how these geochronological data look, since you can see the photos, figures, and data tables for yourself in this original Nature article. Note in particular the reproducibility of dates and the sample size (a circle ~40–50 millionths of a meter in diameter).

Figure 1b from Wilde et al. (2001), showing CL image of sampled detrital zircon.

"The Relevance of Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isotope Systematics to Elucidation of the Genesis and History of Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Radioisotopic Dating"

In his 2010 'technical' article (posted at AiG here), Andrew Snelling published the results of another RATE team project, which essentially involved sending very young volcanic rocks to geochemistry labs for a plethora of expensive analyses. Snelling believes that in the brief history of geochemistry, researchers came to discover that radiometric dates—"particularly on oceanic islands", he says—were typically unreliable and anomalously large. Consequently, he wanted to measure a handful of isotopes from volcanic rocks in New Zealand to convince his readers that radiogenic isotope ratios are quite meaningless with respect to the age of those rocks.

In actuality, Snelling's examples of 'unreliable ages' primarily derive from K-Ar determinations that were made before geochronologists knew how to correct for excess argon and xenoliths (bits of old minerals in young volcanic rocks). His stated agenda is therefore unwarranted, since more recent analyses of very young, historical volcanic rocks using the Argon-Argon technique are spot on. One example comes from the Ar-Ar dating of the 79 A.D. Pompeii eruption, which yielded an age of 1,925±94 years and is summarized in a news report here. Another comes from the re-dating of historical volcanic basalts in New Zealand using the Ar-Arg method (Cassata et al., 2008; discussed on my blog here). The work of Guillou et al. (2011), whose K-Ar, Ar-Ar and radiocarbon dates (~30,000 years) of volcanic flows and wood fragments all overlap, further corroborates my point that geologists now have little trouble obtaining reliable dates, even for very young volcanic rocks.

The only geochronological tool employed by Dr. Snelling was the whole-rock K-Ar method, which yielded model ages between zero and 3.5±0.2 Ma (see original article here). This method does not (and cannot) address the problem of excess argon or inherited material, however, so it is not surprising to any geologist that Snelling obtained non-zero ages in half of his 13 samples (that's right, half of his samples yielded the correct age!). Model ages are always contingent on whether the conditions of the model held. Since lava flows in volcanic island arcs are known to contain excess argon and inherited material in some cases, geologists do not expect the model K-Ar age to be the real age. Keep in mind also that these samples were sent to a laboratory without instrumentation sufficiently precise enough to analyze young (less than 2 Ma) samples. This is much like trying to weigh a few grains of sand on the vegetable scale at the grocery store and then complaining that their scales are broken! One must ask, therefore, how Dr. Snelling can effectively discuss 'age data' in these rocks if he refuses to apply any of the commonly used, modern methods in his study. We'll return to this point later.

Before diving into a mash of petrological details, Snelling summarizes a couple of well-known geochemistry textbooks with respect to the general use of radiogenic isotopic analyses in volcanic island arcs. He writes:

"...radioisotopes in [historic/recent] lavas reflect the isotopic compositions of the mantle sources of these lavas, and of any crustal contamination the magmas may have incorporated during ascent and extrusion." (emphasis mine)

This should sound familiar to you by now. It appears that Snelling generally understands that most radiogenic isotope systems in volcanic arcs are not hypothesized to reflect the age of the actual eruption. Nonetheless, Dr. Snelling continues as though geologists believe these isotopes should reflect the age of eruption and admits—albeit slyly—that he has wasted the grant money from the RATE project:

"Because these samples are from recent lava flows (only 28–54 years old), the isotope ratios of these samples were not expected to yield any age information." (emphasis mine)

In other words, after referencing a couple of 15-25 year-old geochemistry textbooks (which all specify that Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb isotopes in volcanic arcs are related to mixing between various mantle and crustal sources), Snelling decided to spend thousands of dollars on a handful of useless isotope data. I say 'useless' because Snelling had no meaningful hypothesis that could be tested by these data. The statement "no age information is expected" is not a scientific hypothesis. Hence, Snelling's article is by no means a 'research' paper, but rather a lab report that contains his educated opinion. In the sciences, we call this "shaking the box"—that is, to perform laboratory analyses just to see how the data will look and then describe the reasons for any trends retrospectively.

Nonetheless, even though Snelling claims that the samples were not expected to yield age information, he understands that these isotopes are radiogenic (produced by radioactive decay) and thus change over time. Dr. Snelling believes that radioactive decay occurred a million times faster within the past ~6,000 years, so within his own paradigm, these isotope ratios should reflect the passage of time somehow. Why not offer a means by which to test the young-earth model with the new isotope data? Unfortunately for Snelling, no such test exists, but with a handful of tables and verbose petrological descriptions, he is successful in misdirecting his audience.

Though he disagrees with conventional models, which say that isotope ratios of rare-earth elements in the mantle (such as Rb, Sr, Sm, and Nd) evolved through melting/recycling of crust and mantle convection, Snelling did not claim—let alone demonstrate—that his data are inconsistent with the accepted geological history of this island arc. Instead, he confuses his readers by leading them to believe that geologists typically construct Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb isochrons and calculate Nd-model ages from continental volcanic arc samples—they don't. As in the previous example from the Lesser Antilles, geologists are interested in these isotope ratios primarily to learn about the history of subduction, composition of the mantle, and how oceanic sediments and crust are incorporated back into the mantle. For that purpose, isotopes of Sr, Rb, Sm, Nd, and Pb are extremely useful (e.g. Hart, 1988) and have been used to construct coherent models of mantle convection and mantle sources. In fact, Snelling's numerous tables and figures are perfectly consistent with the notion that volcanism in New Zealand results from the subduction of oceanic sediments on the Pacific Plate several million years ago.

No age information?

Given the dubious tactics employed by the RATE team, one should question whether Snelling's conclusion is even correct, that the isotopic data yield "no age information". Besides the brief discussion on K-Ar dates (see below), Snelling offers a strange and rather mysterious review of Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd data:

"Selective plotting of the data does yield some seemingly valid isochrons, such as a 5-point Rb-Sr isochron yielding an apparent age of 133 ± 87 Ma and a 5-point Sm-Nd isochron yielding an apparent age of 197 ± 160 Ma. The “goodness of fit” statistics for these two isochrons yield low MSWD values... However, the probabilities of these fits being meaningful are only moderate and the assigned error margins on each of the determined isotopic ratios required to constrain the fits are intolerably large, resulting in final error margins that are more than 50% of the apparent isochron ages. Such selective manipulation of the data is thus not only misleading, but completely meaningless." (emphasis mine)

As an aside, why would a 'technical article' contain phrases like "goodness of fit statistics"? In any case, Snelling begins with an admission that he only calculated a model isochron age after cherry picking the data. Although 10 data points are available, he chooses 5—why? Apparently, Snelling wants his reader to have the impression that geochronologists arbitrarily choose their data to make the best possible fit. Of course, this is not true, but his silence on the topic leaves one to make the false assumption.

The actual (mathematical) result of cherry picking these data is an inflated margin of error (which he then complains is "intolerably large") and the option for Snelling to pretend that the isochron ages are 133 and 197 million years, respectively! When the YEC reader is told that 30-year-old volcanic flows yield isochron ages >100 million years with ridiculous margins of error, he/she is bound to believe mistakenly that Snelling's experimental data discredit radioisotope dating. Snelling makes no effort to guard against this misperception and is thus guilty of deceiving his audience. Let's take a look, rather, at how Snelling's full datasets plot:

If you are familiar at all with isochron plots (cf. Figure 5), then you already know that the flat lines imply a zero age. In other words, Snelling's isotope data did reveal age information! The age of these volcanic rocks, according to the Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd isotope systems, is consistent with the known ages of ~30–60 years. As Snelling notes, the line is statistically valid even with 5 points (MSWD < 1). The slightly non-zero slope on my plot results only from analytical uncertainty. As I mentioned, however, the isochron method is not typically employed for such systems because 1) chemical alteration can falsify the model assumptions, and 2) the U-Pb and Ar-Ar methods are far more accurate and less susceptible to and affected by chemical alteration.

Pb-Pb isochron

Snelling discusses only briefly the results of his lead-isotope data:

"...better apparent results are obtainable with the Pb isotopic data, a 7-point isochron yielding a 207Pb-206Pb age of 3908 ± 390 Ma. The statistics of this fit are much better, with small error margins for each data point and a reasonable MSWD value of 1.07, but the probability of the fit is only moderate and this apparent isochron has intercepts with the Pb isotope growth curve at -92 Ma and 3921 Ma. For comparison, the Pb isotopic data also yield a 9-point 208Pb-206Pb line of best fit with a low MSWD value of 0.45 and a high probability of 0.87."

Again, no graph is provided with the above description, nor any explanation as to why only 7 or 9 points are used (rather than all 10 from Table 2). More importantly, Snelling spends no time discussing why this apparent isochron yields an age of ~3.9±0.4 billion years. Since the volcanic arc system obtained Pb from various sources in the mantle and crust, the apparent isochron reflects the time since the Pb in these volcanic rocks were last part of the same reservoir (let's say, the mantle of the early Earth?). In other words, this apparent age (apparent because it has nothing to do with the age of volcanism) tells how long ago the mantle began to separate into different parts, such as continental crust and upper and lower mantle. Once again, therefore, Snelling's isotopic data do yield some age information, contrary to his stated anticipation. These data suggest, however, that the mantle and crust have been decaying radioactively for nearly 4 billion years.

At this point, Dr. Snelling should explain why the YEC model better explains these data than conventional models of Earth history. However, he avoids mentioning that his data (funded by YEC ministries) actually support modern geology (and those pesky 'evolutionists'). Instead, he escapes scrutiny and raises readers' doubts with the following nonsensical interpretation:

"These outcomes would thus seem to have some validity and meaning to them, implying some significance to these trends in the Pb isotopic data."

Sadly, this sentence is worth quoting back to any YEC that complains about being rejected by peer-reviewed journals. One cannot write a 'technical journal article' with no hypothesis and then conclude that the results 'seem' to be valid with 'some significance' without even explaining why the results (which are consistent with previously published results and interpretations) better support your interpretations.

In summary, the result of Snelling's work is twofold: 1) the isochron method works, despite Snelling's thousands-of-dollars effort to prove otherwise; and 2) the YEC worldview offers no alternative model by which to understand these data, which seem to falsify its own claims. Sr, Rb, Sm, Nd, and Pb isotopic data from Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand are all consistent with a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth, which began to differentiate geochemically into various mantle domains early in its history.

K-Ar dates and "being thorough"

To add more fuel to his readers' skepticism of radioisotope methods, Snelling briefly cites his own 1998 paper, for which he obtained Potassium-Argon model ages on a ~60-year-old lava flow. These ages ranged from 0–3.5 Ma (million years). Although the laboratory was not equipped to analyze samples less than ~2 million years old or to account for xenoliths (i.e. tiny bits of material much older than the actual volcanic flow), Dr. Snelling felt convinced that "excess [Argon] had been inherited by these magmas during their genesis in the upper mantle, and therefore has no age significance."

On the contrary, these data have some "age significance"—Dr. Snelling simply declined the opportunity to interpret them scientifically. In short, he could have analyzed these samples in a modern K-Ar or Ar-Ar laboratory—the latter of which can more easily distinguish excess and inherited argon. Regardless, when margins of error and crustal contamination are taken into account, Snelling's K-Ar model ages are effectively zero for the volcanic eruption itself.

After stating that no "age information" was expected from isotopic analyses, Dr. Snelling makes another misleading and unscientific claim:

"Nevertheless, a thorough analysis of the data was still undertaken to test for any “age” information they might still yield."

Dr. Snelling's 'thorough analysis' was unscientific because he did not define any method by which he would 'test for age information' (remember the cherry picking and disregard for complete data sets?). This statement is also misleading because his analysis was anything but thorough. For a study 'published' in 2010, whose budget was not limited, Snelling should have employed the most common precision geochronometers: the Ar-Ar and U-Th methods.

Why didn't Snelling perform these analyses?

One can only suspect that he was not interested in geological research, but a fancied petrological report (which he interprets occasionally as a consultant). The latter offers little scientific value, but allows Snelling to convince his target audience of unsupported claims—namely, that Sr, Rb, Sm, Nd, and Pb isotopes are unrelated to geological age and that geologists cannot accurately date young volcanic rocks. In summary, Dr. Andrew Snelling spent thousands of dollars—donated by AiG ministry supporters, themselves convinced of Young-Earth Creationism—on a project that only demonstrated the reliability of radiometric dating and supported conventional interpretations of radiogenic isotopes in volcanic arc systems. Snelling hid the significance of his results from the reader, however, in verbose, semi-technical writing, to which he concluded:

"Even though radioisotopic decay has undoubtedly occurred during the earth’s history, conventional radioisotopic dating of these rocks therefore does not necessarily provide valid absolute “ages” for them. This is especially so if accelerated nuclear decay accompanied the catastrophic operation of those geologic and tectonic processes responsible for the mixing of the radioisotopic decay products during magma genesis." (emphasis mine)

Snelling did not employ conventional radioisotope methods to date these rocks (Ar-Ar and U-Pb), so his first conclusion is unsupported. Nonetheless, whole-rock K-Ar ages are effectively zero, while Rb-Sr and Nd-Sm isochrons do plot on a zero-age line and so accurately reflect the absolute age of the rocks. The notion of accelerated nuclear decay—perhaps the most absurd scenario postulated by YECs—is unnecessary, therefore, to his conclusion. In any case, Snelling should explain to the reader precisely how and why accelerated nuclear decay would affect these isotope systems. The difference in isotopic ratios (e.g. 87Sr/86Sr) between the mantle and crust, for example, requires that one reservoir inherited more Rubidium than the other, after which both reservoirs underwent some ~4 billion years worth of radioactive decay. When did this happen in the Young-Earth timeline? Furthermore, according to Snelling's paradigm, why does the crust contain more Rubidium and less Samarium than the mantle? Was it simply created that way? This phenomenon is well explained by experimental geochemistry (see last post), but requires arbitrary, ad hoc assertions on the part of YECs.

I hope that by this point, you can better recognize the sly tactics of the RATE team and will pray for them to cease from taking money from hopeful supporters—all of whom are evangelical Christians that trust the judgment of AiG researchers. The RATE team results do not support the notion of a young Earth, but rather corroborate the conventional tectonic model in which the Earth evolved chemically over sever billion years. Your money is better spent tending to the widow and the orphan.


References Cited

Hart, S. R., 1988, Heterogeneous mantle domains—Signatures, genesis and mixing chronologies: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 90, p. 273–296.

Wilde, S.A., Valley, J.W., Peck, W.H., and Graham, C.M., 2001, Evidence from detrital zircons for the
existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago: Nature, v. 409, p. 175–178.

RE: Comments on sediment subduction; case of the Rb-Sr decay system

Regarding the last post, Mike wrote:

"Thanks for posting this, but it's so technical that I doubt many people can follow it. Could you put in a little summary with a simple diagram or two? I think what it means is that the evidence shows that sediment from very old crust has been carried down the river, deposited on the ocean floor, subducted, and re-emerged in volcanism, and that all this is impossible in a short time frame. Is that the general idea??"

Thank your for the feedback. Please forgive me for the technical level. I found it difficult to condense the papers into a manageable narrative without oversimplifying. I hope to keep your attention, however, because these isotopic systems are discussed regularly and at length in YEC circles. In fact, they are even offered as evidence for a young Earth (!??!).


In any case, the short answer to your question is yes, you have understood correctly.

Isotopic ratios (especially of Sr, Pb, and Nd) in volcanic arcs show evidence of 'contamination' by oceanic sediments. But not just any sediments—as you keenly noted—very old sediments that eroded from very old continental crust. In the case of the Lesser Antilles, each element tells the same story: the Orinoco River basin had to be in place and depositing sediment into the western Atlantic before the ocean crust was subducted beneath the Caribbean tectonic plate. It is worth noting that this phenomenon appears not only in the Lesser Antilles but—well, every island arc around the world. Since YEC's and 'Flood geologists' would have us believe that plate tectonic movements happened very fast during/after the Flood (i.e. before these river basins formed), their model would not predict such trends in the isotopic data (in which you see perfect mixing lines between the upper mantle and modern oceanic sediments). Rather, their model is falsified by these data, even if we grant that the subduction of oceanic crust and the volcanic eruptions that produced the island chain could have occurred within ~5,000 years.

But we won't grant such a scenario, because it is physically absurd (not to mention, it misses the whole point of the flood narrative, both theologically and historically).

Hopefully this confirms that you followed the article better than you thought. However, I made a few quick figures to better explain the whole process, focusing on the Rb-Sr system. Let's begin with the first figure from the last post:

When the continental crust that now underlies much of South America formed, it incorporated a relatively high amount of Rubidium compared to what was originally in the mantle. The reason is that Rubidium does not 'fit well' into the solid structure of the mantle, and so it is excluded preferentially when part of the mantle melts. This process is well documented by experimental petrology. When you melt a rock like peridotite—a close match to the composition of the mantle—the bulky elements with large ionic radii (pretty much everything on the left side of the periodic table) are concentrated in the melt. That melt eventually produces continental crust. The result is that continental crust has, on average more radioactive Rubidium (87Rb) than the mantle. Over time, therefore, the crust will accumulate more radiogenic Strontium (87Sr) than the mantle. In this fashion, we can distinguish Strontium derived from old continental crust versus a young piece of basalt (the ratio of 87Sr/86Sr is much higher in the former; see Fig. 1).

To visualize the accumulation of radiogenic Strontium in various minerals, consider the following figure:

In this graph, there are three isotopes of which to keep track. The first is 86Sr, which is stable. It's concentration does not change over time, because it does not decay and is not produced by decay. The second/third are 87Rb and 87Sr, which are radioactive and radiogenic, respectively. Over time, 87Rb decays into 87Sr, so the abundance of the former drops while the latter grows.

Geochemists are more interested in ratios, however, and so I have plotted the ratio of 87Sr (radiogenic) to 86Sr (stable) in yellow. Notice that since there was relatively little 87Rb to begin (the blue is much smaller than the gray), the ratio of gray vs. green changes very little with time. From this graph, you can understand why the 87Sr/86Sr ratio of depleted mantle (which contains almost no Rubidium) has changed very little in the past 4.5 billion years (cf. Fig. 1).

For continental crust, which contains a relatively high concentration of Rubidium, the process is the same but the rates are different. In this case, we have more 87Rb to start—relative to 86Sr—so the ratio of 87Sr to 86Sr changes more rapidly with time. This graph explains the high slope of continental crust in Figure 1, as well as the high 87Sr/86Sr ratios found in very old granites (e.g. the Canadian Shield and, of course, the Orinoco watershed).

We might also point out that since the half-life of 87Rb is ~48 billion years, the most important element here is time. Without a lot of time, there is no known mechanism by which to form minerals with such drastically different 87Sr/86Sr ratios. Some YEC's will try to redirect your attention to things like 'accelerated nuclear decay', but the explanation is 1) ad hoc, made up only to rationalize why the data contradict their hypothesis; 2) physically absurd, since a 1-million-fold increase in decay rates would produce enough heat to melt the Earth; and 3) completely arbitrary and even contrary to orthodox notions of divine providence, in which God does not produce random miracles just to make it appear geochemically that mountain ranges and volcanic islands formed through a more elegant and ancient process.

Just to complete, the following (roughly drawn) figure illustrates how mixing appears between modern oceanic sediments and the upper mantle in the case of Strontium isotopes:

As I mentioned, the process is much like mixing yellow (mantle) and blue (sediment) paints, which produces some hue of green in between. The precise hue depends on the extent to which mixing occurs between the reservoirs. Nonetheless, data from multiple isotopic systems converge on one story—that of an incredibly slow process by which the mountains were 'transferred' from one place (the Orinoco watershed) to another (the Lesser Antilles island arc).

I hope this clears up any questions that arose from my previous post. Feel free to continue any discussion below or by e-mail.

The Orinoco Flow: sediment subduction and the Lesser Antilles volcanic arc

Radiogenic isotopes and the origin of volcanic island arcs

Isotopes are amazing geochemical tools. They can be used not only to date minerals radiometrically but to constrain small and large-scale geological processes. The subduction of oceanic sediments into the mantle is one such process, about which geologists want to know: what is the ultimate fate of ocean-bottom sediments? For example, what portion of these sediments is taken down into the mantle? How much is scraped off onto the accretionary prism? And finally, what portion of oceanic sediments are melted and returned to the surface through volcanism?

Some of the most important isotopic ratios used to answer these questions are also used in radiometric dating: 87Sr/86Sr, 143Nd/144Nd, 206Pb/204Pb, 207Pb/204Pb, 208Pb/204Pb, 176Hf/177Hf, and even 10Be/9Be. In each of these ratios, one isotope is radiogenic (produced by radioactive decay) and the other is stable. This ratio changes over time, therefore, based on the concentration of the radioactive parent element (Fig. 1). Since the isotope 87Rb decays into 87Sr, for example, the 87Sr/86Sr ratio will increase at a faster rate in minerals with a higher concentration of Rubidium than in minerals with zero Rubidium (i.e. if no Rb is present, the 87Sr/86Sr ratio will never change).

Figure 1: Isotopic evolution of 87Sr/86Sr over time in various Earth reservoirs.

The application of this principle to geochronology is straightforward: if the original isotopic ratio and decay rate can be determined, then so can the age of the mineral. But what does this have to do with plate tectonics, subduction zones, and island arcs in particular?

Consider the Lesser Antilles volcanic arc—that parabola of paradise off the north coast of Venezuela. These islands have been forming through volcanic eruptions over the past tens of millions of years, as Cretaceous-aged basalts and sediments were subducted beneath the Caribbean tectonic plate (Fig. 2). A portion of these rocks/sediments then began to melt upon reaching a depth of ~100 km, causing magma to ascend toward the surface and mix with the upper mantle (check out a visual explanation here). Since the subducted crust/sediment and the upper mantle are of different age and composition, their isotopic ratios will also be distinct (remember how and why these isotopic ratios change?). The final product (surface volcanic rocks) depends of the relative contribution of each, much like mixing yellow and blue paint in varying quantities to produce different hues of green. This geochemical variation is the key to answering the aforementioned questions for each volcanic arc around the world.

Figure 2: Age of basaltic oceanic crust (K-Ar method) currently being subducted beneath the Lesser Antilles island arc. Note that radiometric dates increase systematically from north to south, as expected from the geometry of the crust (distance from the spreading center) and the current plate movement of ~2 cm/yr. In other words, rocks that are 400 km further from the spreading center (the star marked 'Barbados' vs. the northernmost age) are about 20 million years older (~400 km divided by 2 cm/yr is 20 Ma; 105 Ma - 83 Ma = 22 Ma). From Carpentier et al. (2008).

From mantle to crust

Now take a step back in time, to an ancient Earth where massive continents do not yet exist. Much of the Earth's upper mantle would have had a very similar isotopic composition for elements such as Sr, Nd, U, and Pb. As early as ~4.3 billion years ago, basaltic crust began to crystallize at the surface. In the 'short' interval between ~3.5 and 2.5 billion years ago, a majority of continental crust also formed, and the mantle and crust became geochemically isolated reservoirs. Since the process of crystallization always prefers certain elements over others (smaller elements over bigger ones), each reservoir developed unique relative abundances of parent/daughter pairs. For example, the relative abundance of Rb vs. Sr is higher in the crust than in the mantle, so the isotopic ratio 87Sr/86Sr increases faster over time in crustal rocks than in the mantle. On the other hand, Sm vs. Nd is higher in the mantle than in the crust, and so the isotopic ratio 143Nd/144Nd increases faster in the mantle than in crustal rocks. Since 238U decays to 206Pb, relatively high abundances of Uranium (as in crustal rocks) contribute to higher 206Pb/204Pb ratios in continental crust.

In short, high 87Sr/86Sr and 206Pb/204Pb ratios accompanied by low 143Nd/144Nd ratios are good geochemical signatures of very old continental crust. Unless, of course, one can propose a viable alternative mechanism to explain their origin and evolution.

Sediment contribution over time to the Lesser Antilles archipelago

In the following graphics, one can see how geologists apply these isotopic systems to understand the contribution of subducted sediment to volcanic eruptions. First, we need to determine the 'hue' of our yellow and blue paints (i.e. the mixing 'end-members'). On the one hand, we have upper mantle that resides directly beneath the volcanic islands. The isotopic composition of the upper mantle is relatively easy to determine, since it is continually sampled and preserved by Mid-Ocean Ridges (MORs). Dredging ships frequently collect samples of Mid-Ocean Ridge Basalt (MORB), which are then analyzed for their isotopic and elemental compositions, as well as their magnetic polarity and age. Not surprisingly, MORBs from around the world are geochemically very similar. Furthermore, their distinct geochemistry is consistent with theories that the chemistry of the upper mantle is due to the formation of oceanic crust early on in Earth history (see previous section).

Our second mixing end-member is formed by clay-sized particles that sink to the bottom of the ocean. The origin of these particles is found on continents, where old continental crust is weathered and carried out to sea by major rivers. Fortunately, the ocean sediments being subducted beneath the Lesser Antilles have also been sampled in many places by the Deep Sea Drilling Project (the stars in Figures 2 and 3 represent such sites) and analyzed geochemically.

To determine the extent of mixing between these end-members, volcanic rocks are sampled along the arc. Figure 3 is taken from one study that focused on the petrologically diverse island of Martinique, which developed in multiple stages of a long eruption history. Since the volcanic island formed over the past 25 million years, the authors were able to address this question for much of the Cenozoic.

Figure 3: From Labanieh et al. (2010). Map of the Lesser Antilles volcanic arc and Martinique island, for which three stages of the island's volcanic history are delineated. Sampling sites of ocean sediments (stars) and volcanic rocks (see inset) are also shown. As an aside, note the width of the accretionary prism (distance between the 'Subduction trace' and the 'Prism front'). How long must this subduction zone have been collecting sediment?

One can predict the composition of the final product by plotting the isotopic compositions of both end-members on a graph with isotopic ratios on each axis (Fig. 4). The more that subducted sediments contributed to magma generation in the subduction zone, the closer those values will plot to modern isotopic ratios of oceanic sediments (dark gray fields):

Figure 4: From Labanieh et al. (2010). Four isotopic cross plots from Martinique Island,  indicating a significant contribution of oceanic sediments during magma generation (up to 20%). Red/Blue lines are mixing lines between MORB values and ocean sediment values. The range of compositions of Mid-Ocean Ridge Basalts between 30°N and 30°S are shown in light gray fields.

It is evident from the examples above that the composition of volcanic rocks on Martinique Island are due to a mixture between the upper mantle and subducted oceanic sediments. One can also see how the extent of mixing is variable in time and space (Fig. 5). For example, note how the mixing lines—blue vs. red—shifted slightly when the arc itself moved west (cf. Fig. 2). This westward shift in volcanism was possibly due to a shallowing of the angle of subduction following the subduction of an aseismic ridge around 6–7 Ma (Labanieh et al., 2010). In any case, the isotopic mixing trends seen at Martinique Island are common to the rest of the islands of the Lesser Antilles and are prime examples of this phenomenon of plate tectonics. These data also corroborate the theory elegantly, since they are predicted directly by it.

Figure 5: From Labanieh et al. (2010). Relative contribution of oceanic sediments over time, based on K-Ar dating of individual volcanic rock samples. After 5.1 Ma, the end-member composition changed, possibly due to the subduction of an aseismic ridge on the Atlantic Plate.

The Orinoco Flow

Figure 6: From White et al. (1985). Isotopic con-
tours show more radiogenic Sr and Pb in front of
the Orinoco River delta. Results are similar when
Nd isotopes are plotted.

What is the source of deep-ocean sediments being subducted between the Caribbean tectonic plate? One key to answering this question is the geographic variation in isotopes along the Lesser Antilles arc. Nearly 30 years ago, White et al. (1985) documented the modern influence of the Orinoco River on the isotopic composition of sediments lying immediately in front of the Caribbean Plate (Fig. 6). Since the Orinoco River watershed drains sediments derived from very old continental crust (the Archean-aged Guiana Highland), 206Pb/204Pb and 87Sr/86Sr ratios become higher as one moves closer to the river delta. We can predict, therefore, that these isotopic ratios are higher in volcanic rocks from the Southern Islands than in those from the Northern Islands.

As it turns out, that is precisely what White et al. (1985) and later researchers found. Although the debate regarding the significance of this mechanism is not yet fully settled (Carpentier et al., 2008), it is generally agreed that the Orinoco River basin has long been in place (since the Cretaceous) and contributed sediments enriched in radiogenic isotopes to the subducting slab.

Figure 7 represents a cross-plot of Nd and Pb isotopic data from the island arc. As you may recall, the relatively high 206Pb/204Pb and low 143Nd/144Nd ratios are characteristic of old continental crust. Such values (note the Site 543 sediments field) are represented more by the Southern Islands than the Northern Islands. This trend suggests that the geochemistry of volcanic rocks along the Lesser Antilles arc is strongly determined by the geochemistry of oceanic sediments in front of the arc.

Figure 7: From Carpentier et al. (2008). Cross plot of Nd and Pb isotopes showing greater contribution of oceanic sediments in the Southern Islands than in the Northern Islands.

To add some icing to our petrological cake, Carpentier et al. (2008) also demonstrated that Uranium-rich black shale units, which were deposited during the Late Cretaceous Oceanic Anoxic Events (OAE I and II), could account for anomalously high 206Pb/204Pb in the Southern Islands, since they are present only in sedimentary strata to the south. Over time, 238U decays to 206Pb, so the ratio of 206Pb/204Pb will increase at a faster rate in U-enriched sediments relative to the crust or mantle. What does all this mean? Even the islands of the eastern Caribbean can attest that the oceanographic events responsible for these black shales (a long-term reduction in available oxygen to the oceans) occurred more than 80-million years ago, while the Atlantic plate was being subducted slowly (about 2 cm/yr) below the Caribbean plate.

Conclusions and implications for YEC

Corroborative evidence is still being discovered for Plate Tectonic theory, which revolutionized geological disciplines in the 1970's. The Lesser Antilles volcanic island arc is a prime example of the phenomena associated with the subduction of oceanic crust and sediments. Combined isotopic data from numerous elements demonstrate how conventional theories regarding the Earth's age and history can be tested through multiple, independent methods. Simultaneously, one can see how such theories are potentially falsifiable, since they were formulated before the isotopic data were available, yet were able to predict trends in those data. If you were able to follow the examples above, I hope you will better understand how geology has progressed scientifically (rather than through conspiracy and ideology).

Young-Earth Creationism has attempted to keep up with modern geology by transforming Plate Tectonic theory (which describes a notably slow process) into 'Catastrophic' Plate Tectonics—a process that barely works on paper, but so rapidly that it would have boiled off most of the oceans. The latter is hotly debated within YEC and not accepted by many. Personally, I would predict its disappearance in the near future if it weren't so necessary to accepting the obvious evidence for Plate Tectonic theory. It will be interesting to see whether YECs make any attempt to adapt to the flood of new evidence for the theory's more conventional version.

Despite the fact that Catastrophic Plate Tectonics is an abstract, geophysical model (i.e. difficult to grasp or critique by the layman—myself included), one can ask whether it accurately predicts the relevant evidence. For example, how does Catastrophic Plate Tectonics explain the isotopic data presented above from the Lesser Antilles? How did the South American continent crystallize from molten rock (a slow process in itself), decay radioactively to produce distinct Nd, Sr, and Pb isotopic values (a 2.5 billion-year process), deform structurally (to form major river basins like the Orinoco), weather extensively (to fill the North Atlantic basin with fine-grained sediment, which typically needs thousands of years to settle at the ocean bottom), and yet be covered with miles of Phanerozoic sediments? When the big picture is considered as a whole, the YEC mentality becomes a fleeting illusion.

Radiogenic isotope data from the Lesser Antilles arc seem to indicate that oceanic sediments have long been weathering out of the Orinoco River watershed, subducted beneath the Caribbean Plate, and melted and incorporated into the magma that produced the idyllic islands of the eastern Caribbean. Radiometric dating of volcanic rocks and oceanic crust corroborate the picture interpreted from radiogenic isotope data (Fig. 2), and are even predicted by modern rates of subduction and distance from the trench to the spreading center. The Beryllium-10 method (which I will discuss in a later post) provides an additional test to determine that the process of subduction occurred over several million years rather than several hundred.

Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and YEC cannot account for the isotope trends in volcanic arcs, because they provide no mechanism by which distinct isotopic signatures form in a matter of hundreds or thousands of years. Furthermore, these paradigms cannot explain the origin of massive amounts of continentally derived sediment, which were subducted beneath oceanic plates before the modern tectonic picture formed (i.e. before the Flood). I will return to this point in the next post when I discuss Dr. Andrew Snelling's article entitled "The Relevance of Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isotope Systematics to Elucidation of the Genesis and History of Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Radioisotopic Dating", in which he cunningly misrepresents the geochemical methods employed to understanding volcanic arc systems.

If this post was sensible to you, his errors will be obvious.


References Cited:


Carpentier, M., Chauvel, C., and Mattielli, N., 2008, Pb–Nd isotopic constraints on sedimentary input into the Lesser Antilles arc system: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 272, p. 199–211.

Labanieh, S., Chauvel, C., Germa, A., Quidelleur, X., and Lewin, E., 2010, Isotopic hyperbolas constrain sources and processes under the Lesser Antilles arc: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 298, p. 35–46.

White, W.M., Dupre, B., and Vidal, P., 1985, Isotope and trace element geochemistry of sediments from the Demerara Plain region, Atlantic Ocean: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 49, p. 1875-1886.

"Orthodox at Heart"—a personal reflection on the church in Russia

Such is the title of my guest post over at The Two Cities blog. If you're interested in the topic, please check it out and feel free to comment on the article at either site.

Much could be said in comparison of American and Russian churches. One topic at which I only hinted (but didn't have room to explore), is that of the relationship between the church and our respective  political revolutions (in 1775 and 1917). Both revolted against monarchist states, accused of exploiting the wealth and prosperity of the people while infringing on individual rights. Both led to quasi-secular nations that broke with the European tradition of a state church. In the American case, however, religious freedom was emphasized as a divine right, and the replacement oligarchy touted a quasi-Christian deism, in which God could be found through academia (forgive the oversimplification). For Russia, religious freedom was promoted only to undermine the Orthodox Church (associated with the strength of the Imperial upper classes), but later squashed through censorship and persecution. As a result, continued health of the Soviet Union relied on a new standard of orthodoxy, and to stray from such made one an enemy of the State. Despite the ostensible opposition to liberty, this structure secured the government against future revolution, as was seen, for example, in the American Civil War (for Southern Independence) scarcely 85 years after the nation's founding.


As the commemoration of our American Revolution approaches, we might ask ours uniquely bears on modern affairs, mindsets, and particularly the church, compared to those of other countries. Many Russians ask today whether their own revolution marked a positive or justified turn in national history. If we ask the same in America, what kind of answers emerge?


I never thought to ask this question, so I thought I would share.

This is St. Petersburg

Never do things turn out as you expect; I should have expected nothing less in moving to Russia.

It has been a month since we landed at Pulkovo airport, but only today did I feel that I actually 'live' here. Despite my hope that my summer would abound with free time to read and write, each day has flown by with a series of small tasks, whose size alone could not predict the induced stress and required time to complete. Yesterday, we visited a friend that was holding part of our luggage while we searched for an apartment. I timed the 9-mile journey: 8 minutes walking to the bus stop; 13 minutes riding to the Metro station after waiting nearly five. We spent another 39 minutes total in the subway (three lines, two transfers), after which we walked 8 minutes to another bus stop and waited 4 minutes for the right bus, which drove 8 minutes to our stop. Only 10 minutes of walking remained (that's 95 minutes total) before we took an elevator to the ninth floor and called victoriously through the door: "Мы пришли!"

"The Crimson Drawing Room", Yusupovskiy Palace

I miss my car and my freeways, but really we shouldn't complain. In exchange, I am living in the heart of a world-famous city that is ripe with history and cultural opportunity.

So perhaps I should begin with the good news? After more than two weeks of searching, we found a comfortable, clean apartment on one of the most famous streets in all of Russia: the Moika river embankment (Набережная реки Мойки). Alexander Pushkin once lived on the same, along with countless Russian nobles during the imperial age. Our apartment building—built in 1862 by a noble family for naval officers—faces the river, on which boats full of tourists or unwinding locals continually pass. Only a 5-minute walk takes us to St. Nicholas Naval Cathedral (Никольский Собор), the Neva River (see below), or the famous Yusupov Palace (Юсуповский Дворец; worth a Google-image search), in which Rasputin was assassinated shortly before the family was forced to flee Russia by rising revolution.

About 1:30 AM, the bridges of the Neva open for oversized traffic.

It was not without trial, however, that we recaptured what I came to know as a 'romanticized' view of the city. During my visit in December, we did not venture far outside of the 'Noble' city center. Upon our arrival, we soon learned that the most of St. Petersburg is not unlike any other Russian city: endless blocks are filled with familiar Soviet infrastructure and architecture; public trash cans overflow onto the streets and parks; cigarette smoke bellows from sad faces with a beer in one hand and a baby stroller in the other; excessive graffiti marks otherwise historical monuments, to which rusty metal doors offer little invitation; constant traffic inspires every driver to act as though he/she is transporting a woman in labor on a reality TV show. More importantly, however, we now had to deal with a range of services (from real estate markets to mobile phone providers to educational institutions) not used by tourists, as well as the peculiarities produced by a free market catered to Russian demands (of which common courtesy is not one!).

To be fair, we Americans share many of these habits and attitudes toward ourselves and our own cities, which are far from spotless. I think we just tend to 'hide' them better with countless misdemeanor laws. Though these laws exist in Russia, the police have no interest in enforcing them and the fines are so minimal (about $3 for speeding ~10 km/hr over the limit) so as to be ineffective. And though we take pride in our smiling faces behind the counter, a sincere care for strangers is notably rare.

Russian Real Estate

This common wooden flooring is creaky and
hygienically suspect, but quite durable!

Our greatest challenge by far was finding a permanent residency. After staying a weekend with friends, we managed to find a temporary 2-room apartment for rent. Although the conditions of the 80-year-old apartment were somewhat shocking at first, by the end of our weeklong stay (half the price of a hotel) we were very surprisingly comfortable and desired not to leave. This apartment was located downtown, one-block from Nevsky Prospect and Moscow Train station (i.e. the station from which trains depart toward Moscow), which made it a convenient, central point from which to explore the city. We did not anticipate, however, the complexities of the local real estate market. In fact, I would like to suggest to any entrepreneurs that one could turn a significant profit by streamlining this process.

If you want to find an apartment in the U.S., the process is rather straightforward and simple, especially if you have a neighborhood in mind. With internet access, you can basically 'walk' your prospective streets on Google maps until you find a nice looking complex, or sift through pages of website databases that sort by price, amenities, etc. In either case, you need only call the office to inquire about details or check out their website to find numerous pictures of each model. If you're in the area during business hours, you can even drop in for an immediate showing of available units. Rinse and repeat until you are satisfied with your new residence.

A very typical Russian kitchen: small, with
small appliances (including the washing
machine!) and minimal counter space.

Let's take a step back 80 years, and forward twelve time zones.

During the Soviet era, every piece of property was nationalized. Your residence was essentially assigned to you, and tenants had no liberty to move around or upgrade to different units (though a waiting list was available). On the one hand, you could enjoy life without the anxiety of mortgage payments and potential loan defaults. In exchange, however, three-generation families typically lived in a cozy, but incredibly tight space (300–600 square feet). Showers were nonexistent and bathtubs were a luxury. Many buildings were not even designed to carry them, as bathing was reserved for a weekly trip to the communal bathhouse (banya). The familiar 'blocky' Brezhnevka units, produced in mass during the late 60's, were notably cold from the concrete walls/floors and visually unappealing, but they were a significant step up for those living in 'Kommunalki', or Communal Apartments.

Everything changed with the post-Soviet 'reconstruction' era, when all property was instantly privatized. This meant that each family inherited the apartment(s) in which they lived. No mortgage, no rent; it was yours. Moreover, any family fortunate enough to have turned a profit in the free, but fierce, market could finally purchase something newer, bigger, and better. Enter the modern Russian real-estate market.

Somewhat reminiscent of my own childhood,
metal swings and teeter-totters fill the yards.

Although newly constructed apartment buildings appeared very slowly in the 1990's, vacancies abounded as millions of Russians fled through recently opened borders. Even today, many landlords of Russian apartments live abroad and rent out by giving power of attorney to friends/family (keep this concept in mind). The owners of our temporary home, for example, live in Germany and typically rent the place to international students at ~50% above market price. As an aside, most landlords prefer to deal only in cash, for it allows them to hide their supplemental income from being taxed. Since ~100% of your rent payment is income for the landlord, and the average rent and average salary are approximately equal, it pays well to be a landlord in Russia.

So what does all this mean for the potential letter of a Russian apartment? First, there is no such thing as a commercial 'apartment complex' with a manager's office, website, model units, and the like. Each individual unit is privately owned. Consequently, you can find vacancies only by word of mouth, internet databases, or real estate agencies. Second, the demand for apartments in major cities is extremely high, so you can hardly afford to be picky. Unless you work in the oil industry, your best economic opportunities are in St. Petersburg, Moscow, and the Volga cities. Russia is second only to the U.S. in terms of immigration, moreover, so thousands of new workers flood these cities each year, hoping for a chance to send money back home (in fact, the political parallels in immigration debates between the U.S./Mexico and Russia/former Soviet Republics are striking, right down to the cultural stereotypes). Lastly, where there is money, there is fraud and corruption. Renting an apartment from a crook is a common way to lose your savings.

The Search

Since real estate agents understand the market demands, they do very little work for too much money. In major cities, you can expect to pay 100% of the monthly rent as a "finder's fee" to the agent, and unless you are well connected or extremely patient, agents are necessary to your search. Very few are courteous/helpful, and many will not even take the trouble to e-mail you photos. Online databases are a tempting place to start, but once you call the number on the ad, you are likely to hear the following:

"Hello, I am calling about ad online for the apartment on Soviet street." "Sorry, it has been rented out. What are you looking for?" "We need a place with x, y, and z, no more than such and such price, near this metro station." "And who will be renting?" "We are a young couple, husband and wife, no kids or pets." "Both Russian?" "No, one is American." "White or black?" "White." "Good. Let me search and I will call you back."

We found that many ads are left posted because they draw a lot of calls, despite the fact that the unit is unavailable. Also, if you are single, or have kids, pets, or a face that doesn't look Russian or 'western European', your choices will be limited. At this point, the agent will search the common database (a highly specialized task, I know) and call back several hours later with some options:

"Hello, I found four apartments! Here are the addresses and specifications. Would you like to see any of them?" "Yes, the third one sounds nice." "Okay, I will call you back with an appointment time."

Now the agent will call another agent, who will call the apartment owner about a showing time, since the agents themselves do not have access to each apartment. Once the owner returns the call, the other agent returns his/her call, and you will hear back from the first agent within...1–2 days. You may have figured out by this point that working with multiple agents simultaneously can speed up the process.

Now it's time to see the apartment. Making your way across town can take up to an hour or more, so be sure you have no other priorities in life. Keep in mind also that 90% of apartments here are barely livable by modern standards, so you must give each the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless, on three occasions we didn't even make it to the building before deciding 'absolutely not'. On three other occasions, even the realtor was shocked at the condition of the apartment. In two cases, the kitchen was in the hallway; once the bathroom was in the kitchen (I couldn't make that up). Sometimes the elevator worked, but just barely, and life's too precious to trust equipment with that much rust. Other times, the elevator was turned off to preserve power, or there was no elevator at all. Sometimes the real estate agents would smoke and talk on their phone while showing you the apartment. Often the address you were given was not the actual address, so the online street view would become a shattered dream. And as a last reminder, '10-minute walk from the Metro station' seems to be code for 'a 20-minute jog'.

To complicate matters (though for our own benefit), we received some friendly advice on how not to get scammed. Consider the following for future reference:

1. Never sign a lease with anyone but the owner of the apartment. Even if the unit is rented via Power of Attorney, the owner can arbitrarily vacate the premise ("Sorry, my family wants to visit St. Petersburg, so you'll have to move out now"). Demand to see the papers proving ownership before signing the agreement.

2. That being said, do not deal with realtors alone. The agents are nothing but middlemen, who profit by hiding information from you and from the owner. They make no guarantees and their fees are non-refundable.

3. Try out everything—stove, fridge, faucets (both cold and hot), bed, bath, shower, and toilet. Even do some business and make sure it flushes. Apartments are not likely to come with free maintenance.

4. Take pictures of all original documents. If you can, take pictures of the realtors themselves. It is not uncommon for crooks to rent an apartment temporarily using a forged passport, and then impersonate a real estate agent with a forged Power of Attorney to rent it to you, the hopeful tenant. If they are successful, they will make off with the agent fee, first month's rent, and a security deposit (~$2–3,000 total), while you are stuck with a set of keys that don't even fit the lock.

Next stop, St. Isaac's Cathedral—an architect-
ural masterpiece and cultural icon. View from
our street.

5. That being said, sign the lease and pay the fees inside the apartment with owner and realtors present. If everything works in your favor, you will never see the agents again; make sure you have no reason to. On the other hand, you will deal with the owner regularly. It is good to leave an endearing impression.

6. Lastly, don't be afraid to bargain and pretend that you are poor. Although market demand is high, and the odds are not in your favor, every case is different—you might get lucky! In our case, the owner was willing to replace the stove and sink, install a dishwasher, and redo the main plumbing at no cost, just to make it comfortable and presentable to her American tenant. We were very blessed.

At last, a place to call home

We did not expect to find a reasonably priced residence in the heart of the city, but rarely do things turn out as you expect. We faced none of the worries implied by the points of advice above and were rather shocked by the grace and kindness of our landlord. By the kind providence of God, we have come to experience that romantic perception and may live comfortably in what once was Peter's noble bastion, what became Leningrad—the city of heroes—and what is now a piece of living history. The neighborhood is both beautiful and friendly; numerous grocers, restaurants, and bus stops are within short walking distance. On that note, if any of you find the opportunity to visit St. Petersburg, do not hesitate to contact me. We'd be happy to show you around the city.

White Nights

View looking north in mid-June, ~2 AM.

In St. Petersburg, part of the summer is devoted to celebrating "White Nights" with nightly fireworks, concerts, and heavy pedestrian traffic past midnight. At 59.5° N latitude, the summer nights scarcely end. Jet lag is a challenge wherever you go, but here it was complicated by the lack of regular darkness. After the first week, we had adjusted to the Russian time zone; after two weeks, we nearly adjusted forward to PST. It is difficult to convince oneself that it is time to sleep when the sun never sets completely. On a clear night at 2 AM, it appears to be sunset, until you realize that the sun is 'setting' in the north—not the west. At 4 AM, it is fully bright again. Nonetheless, we enjoyed many late-night walks along the riverbanks of the Neva and Moika. It is a brilliant contrast to the cold, dark winter we had previously experienced.

What's next?

Now that we are settled in, my goals are simple: take advantage of the university to learn Russian more fluently; complete field work on several geological projects; write some posts about the latest in YEC news; eat lots of soup, pelmeni, pirogi, and chocolate; drink lots of tea, but only a little vodka; enjoy the city, especially its museums; and of course, stay healthy and have fun. The tea/chocolate are perhaps the most pertinent.

I hope this personalized detour has kept your interest. I will end here with some photos that didn't make it into the main text. See you next time.

St. Petersburg–Helsinki–Tallinn–Stockholm–Copenhagen;
sail the Baltic at a reasonable price! The port is a 5-minute walk
from us. (Photo taken from the bridge in the video above.)

Artificial zoom on the iPhone: just good enough to capture the midnight
skyline along the Neva.

Sleepy? Marry a Yusupov.

Arched entrance to "New Holland" island, built in Peter I's
time to house lumber for the shipyards and naval prisoners.
View looking across the Moika river from our street.

Looking west down the Moika; New Holland Island on the right.

I've always wanted a circular love seat under a hemispheric ceiling...

The concert hall and dance floor became deceptively large with the raised ceiling and its fleeting geometry, as well as  mirrors on both walls. Keep that in mind when designing your next home.

Did Alexander Pushkin leave a personalized copy of Homer's Iliad on your bookshelf, too? Strangely, I had an easier time reading the Greek on this page than the Russian translation...

This art gallery (i.e. the hallway connecting the concert hall to the theater) was once filled with a private collection that rivaled most in Europe. Note the skylight and brightly toned walls to illuminate the canvas paintings.

This hallway connects to the prior...

And leads here: another art gallery, which connects to the theater. The door on top is for the family 'box seats', while the stairs lead down to the guest seating (including those for the Emperor).

"Because it's my house, and I want to be noticed when I invite world-class musicians and thespians to entertain me and my guests." This has to be one of the most beautiful theaters around. Fortunately, the Russian educational ministry has kept it open for the occasional play/concert.

The stage is apparently as large as the theater itself, though it is hidden by curtains. Also hidden is the orchestra pit with seating for twelve musicians (look for the gap before the stage).

St. Nicholas Naval Cathedral. We happened to pass it on one of our walks downtown (of course, it's hard to miss).

This inspirational monument watches over Palace Square (see below).

Hermitage Museum (former Winter Palace of the Emperor). View from Palace Square.

I saw the masts from our apartment window and had to take a look. Can I steer?

View of the Izhora Plateau from Dudergof—one of several hills that breaks the flat landscape. During WWII, the city of Leningrad was under siege for 2 1/2 years. Hitler fully expected to capture it swiftly, rename it Adolfsburg, and then move forward to take Moscow. Instead, he was met with fierce resistance by a starving population. The campaign inflicted more than 1.5 million deaths—many of whom were civilians—but ultimately failed, nonetheless making it the most deadly in history. Essential to the siege was constant bombing from artillery, which gained a vantage point from this and other hills.

Speaking of German artillery...

View from the adjacent hill.

Ordovician carbonate strata underly much of the landscape (part of a field trip with the Physical Geography class at the university).

Something serene about the Russian summer cottage... Photo taken on the Izhora Plateau.