They therefore asked some supplementary questions that secular scientists were not asking. This team had their own ideas as to what the answers would be, but they had to actually do the studies to find out if these were valid. This research would require donations totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars since no government agency in the United States would support such work. The money did come in and the highly technical research was carried out.

The answers, while not exactly what they had predicted (in some cases), nevertheless did help to explain how young rocks and thus a young earth came to be the way they are. The secular data, when examined in the context of these recent studies, in no way justify conclusions of an old earth.

Originally the RATE team (short for Radioactivity and the Age of the Earth) had not intended to look specifically at Carbon-14 (C-14) dating. In that the half life of C-14 is only 5730 years, this element obviously is not a popular secular dating choice when the expectation is for ages in the million or billion year range. What this element can do for us, however, is to indicate an unexpectedly young age for certain materials. With so short a half life, a quantity of C-14, no matter how large, will be all gone (turned back into Nitrogen-14) within 43.6 half-lives or the passage of 250,000 years.

Most natural Carbon exists in the stable form called Carbon-12. Nowadays only one atom in one trillion is C-14. This latter atom is produced when a cosmic ray strikes an atom of Nitrogen-14. That converts the atom into a radioactive atom of C-14. However after 5730 years, one half of the radioactive Carbon atoms present will have reverted to stable Nitrogen-14. After another 5730 years, a further half will have decayed, leaving only a quarter of the original C-14 left after only 11,460 years. And the process of decay continues.

Everybody agrees on all this of course, so how can this be a problem for secular science? Living plants and animals all accumulate some C-14 while they are alive. Through photosynthesis, plants turn Carbon dioxide into food. Thus radioactive Carbon in fairly similar proportions to its presence in air, is turned into plant tissue. Animals eat plants, so they also contain C-14 in proportions somewhat similar to air.

Once a plant or animal dies however, it stops the intake of nutrients. The only place for the C-14 levels already present in this tissue to go, is down and out. Obviously organic material, no matter how well preserved, if it is older than a quarter million years, should contain absolutely zero radioactive Carbon.

Imagine then the surprise of the scientific establishment to actual analyses of ancient Carbon. Whether it is ancient coal or fossilized shells or whatever, all organic material contains detectable levels of C-14. Does this mean these materials are young in age? That is a good question!

Early C-14 studies, performed in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, were conducted using a beta-decay counting technique. This method however was unable to distinguish cosmic rays from particles emanating from the Carbon source. Thus the method could not reliably measure low levels of C-14. Within the past twenty years however, the much more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) method has come into general use. These machines are so precise that they are fully capable of measuring C-14 levels as low as 0.001 percent of modern Carbon (pmc). Based on the known rate of C-14 decay, a measurement of 0.79 pmc translates by a simple equation into an age estimate of 40,000 years.

The expectation of the secular science community obviously has been that organic Carbon materials considered to be millions, ten of millions or even hundreds of millions of years old, will contain no radioactive Carbon. The scientific literature however is full of studies on ancient materials, which have documented significant quantities of C-14 far in excess of the AMS threshold, even when extreme pre-treatment methods are applied to exclude any modern contamination.The recent study is a case in point.

The RATE team obtained 10 samples of coal from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank maintained at Penn State University. The large original samples in the energy bank had been carefully collected from recently exposed surfaces in active mines. They were placed in argon gas in specially sealed containers to prevent contamination. Later these samples were divided into smaller amounts, also sealed in non-reactive argon gas.

The RATE team selected ten samples from geographically widely dispersed sources, of which three were said to be of Eocene age (about 40 million years), three of Cretaceous age (about 100 my), and four of Pennsylvanian age (about 300 my). These samples were then analyzed for C-14 at one of the foremost AMS laboratories in the world. Obviously none of these samples should have contained any C-14. Nevertheless they all did.

The highest measured level was 0.46 pmc for a Pennsylvanian age coal and the lowest was 0.10 pmc for a Cretaceous specimen. These measurements suggested ages of 40,000 to 60,000 years for samples which secular scientists would date at 40 million to 350 million years. In similar studies, strenuous attempts by secular scientists have been conducted to eliminate any modern contamination, but in paper after paper, these people have had to admit that such values are “intrinsic to the samples” or real.

Many readers will realize that estimates such as 60,000 years are far older than a conservative young earth model would suggest. The RATE authors however consider various assumptions about likely C-14 levels on the early earth. For example, they assume that C-14 levels were initially near zero and that these steadily increased as time passed. By the time of the flood, when huge amounts of organic material were buried, the C-14 level in the atmosphere may well still have been much lower than our modern values. Thus the starting values of radioactive Carbon in these organic materials may have been much lower than modern observations would suggest. It would then require a much shorter period of decay to reach the values we observe today in these coal samples. Thus the real time interval could be much shorter than 60,000 years.

One further interesting observation is that the average values for the three coal samples are all close together: 0.26 pmc for Eocene samples, 0.21 for Cretaceous, and 0.27 pmc for Pennsylvanian. These values were all obtained by a world class laboratory. The data suggest that these samples were all buried about the same time. The indication is that huge depths of sedimentary rock were deposited in a single event — presumably the flood of Noah.

The RATE team has more studies, all with hard data and theoretical models, and all are consistent with a young earth model. Observers who are already committed to long ages, may choose to ignore these studies. The data however merit serious consideration. Now, more than ever, people who think that science has “proved” the earth to be ancient, should pause to read these papers. Discussion and criticism are fine and are appreciated. Ignoring these studies is not fine. Make no mistake, the creationists are developing a powerful paradigm / model.

While all the above issues are interesting and relevant, there are a number of reasons for our interest in fossils. Firstly, fossils reveal to us the former existence of communities of organisms many of which are quite unfamiliar to us. Nevertheless, most are members of groupings of organisms that we know today. Anyway these fossils provide hints concerning the richness and variety of the creation. Besides that, most people (especially children), are at least mildly interested in dinosaurs – creatures that we know about only from fossils. Some people are totally fascinated. It would be a pity to abandon these people so that only secular, evolutionary discussions of the topic are available to them. Thus we stock a number of books which deal with fossils, many of which are for children.

There is another reason as well for our interest in fossils. For many years and even today, some secular individuals have declared that fossils prove evolution true and disprove the Bible. A blatant example of wild statements about the significance of fossils, for example, comes from best-selling author Simon Winchester. His earlier book The Professor and the Madman, the story of the development of the English Oxford Dictionary, first brought this author to popular attention.

Then in a new book published in 2001, he related the story of William Smith, who used the occurrences of fossil beds in England to develop the idea of the geological column. Certainly Mr. Winchester is well suited to write on the topic. He studied geology in England, at Oxford University. However he seems to have grandiose ideas about the significance of his subject. In the prologue to his book on the geological column (entitled The Map that Changed the World), Mr. Winchester makes some pointed remarks: “It is a map that laid the foundations of a field of study that culminated in the work of Charles Darwin. It is a map … that allowed human beings to start at last to stagger out from the fogs of religious dogma, and to come to understand something certain about their own origins — … It is a map that had an importance, symbolic and real, for the development of one of the great fundamental fields of study — geology — which arguably like physics and mathematics, is a field of learning and endeavour that underpins all knowledge, all understanding” (p. xvi).

Evidently some people, based on the study of fossils, claim all religious faith has been rendered obsolete. Winchester, in his book, specifically mocks Christians who believe that the early chapters of Genesis are literally true. A review of this book in the National Post (August 18/01) complains about this author’s anti-religious bigotry, but nevertheless remarks that “… it should be a social duty to mock public figures who still believe the world is 6000 years old.” What other identifiable group, if any, is it O.K. to mock these days?

In the face of such attitudes, the victims of this ridicule obviously need good contrary information. As a matter of fact, the fossils fit the young earth model rather nicely. We think many people want to know that fact. Thus we sell many children’s books on fossils and some adult books such as Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe ($24.75) and Completing the Picture ($12.95).

Children’s books include D is for Dinosaur ($18.00 for grades K-1 or younger); Fossils, Hard Facts from the Earth and Fossils, Frogs, Fish and Friends (both $6.25 for upper elementary grades) and The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible ($22.99 for elementary grades) as well as Dinosaurs by Design ($18.50) and Dry Bones and other Fossils ($19.99) for grades 6-8.

Another book for junior high readers is The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved ($16.50) while Origin of Life: Evolution/Creation ($7.75) provides two model discussion of various issues including fossils. Finally there is an adult account about an expedition to collect unfossilized dinosaur bones. See The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure ($15.00). Obviously there is lots of food for thought. Enjoy!

Few Christians in science today are as qualified as Kurt Wise to talk about origins theory. His field of expertise is fossils and he obtained his Ph.D. in this discipline from Harvard University. His research director was none other than arch-evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould who well understood that Wise was a creationist. After graduation Dr Wise accepted a position in a small Christian college in Tennessee. There he has encouraged a nucleus of like-minded scientists to cooperate on highly technical research of relevance to creation. He does not appreciate superficial efforts. Indeed he has made himself unpopular in some circles through his insistence on high standards in scientific research and in the drawing of conclusions. Thus one might expect his new book to deal with science but it only lightly touches on the issue. What this book does is to provide a Scriptural defense of the creationist position.

Not only does the author discuss in detail exactly what the Bible tells us about the Creation, but he also discusses the importance of these statements. For a start, he points out that “if the Bible is the preserved issuance from the mouth of God and carries some of the attributes of God in its basic essence, then it seems only natural to give it authority over any claim of man.” (p. 20) This of course includes any claims of modern scientists. Having established that the Bible is the standard by which to evaluate any question, Dr. Wise then goes on to examine the issue of evidence from the natural world. Here too, he declares, that the Bible is the standard. Thus he remarks: “The Bible is not reliable because evidence exists that it is, evidence exists that it is because the Bible is reliable.” (p. 26)

Dr. Wise next anticipates the reader who might well, in response, ask what value there is in making observations and collecting evidence from nature. He replies that there is much value, not the least of which is that God wants us to study His Creation. Following Scriptural defense of this argument, he next launches into a discussion of the “Great Synthesis”. In that the “Great Divorce” is the pursuit of knowledge without recourse to God’s revelation, the Great Synthesis is an attempt to “focus on God once again and base all our academic disciplines on God and His truths.” (p. 27) This objective, of course, includes science. Indeed, declares Dr. Wise, it is a fact that study of nature can only be justified in terms of a Biblical worldview. Of the three necessary presuppositions that must be true if science is to be pursued, none can be proved but are based on the word of God. The presuppositions are that the physical world exists, that information about it can be known, and should be known. On this issue Dr. Wise declares: ” The doctrine of the Creator (that God created the physical world so that all people everywhere through all time could come to know Him through it) is the foundation for all the presuppositions of science. Science, then, is founded upon presuppositions that are themselves founded on the truth of Scripture — and thus on the nature of God. Outside of Scripture there is no known foundation or justification for the presuppositions of science.” (p. 35)

Having established that God wants us to study His Creation, and the primacy of Scripture over all interpretation of the evidence, Dr. Wise then proceeds to discuss the Creation week, the implications of the fall of Adam, the Flood and the march of history since. Plenty of scientific issues are connected with past history. One issue of special concern to most people is the age of the universe and of earth itself. The author’s initial statement that a face-value examination of the creation suggests an ancient universe, will certainly surprise many readers. However he is not actually saying that the universe bears witness to an old age. As we read on, he clarifies this remark. His point is that such conclusions are based on a superficial reading of the evidence and are in fact not justified on several counts. Thus he declares: “Although there are many different indicators that the universe is old, each one struggles with data that does not seem to fit. Because God created things with the appearance of age, some of the excessive, apparent age is due to the nature of the initial creation.” (p. 70) The whole issue, the author has already told us, boils down to belief in God’s word. He earlier wrote concerning God: “He provides sufficient ambiguity in the creation for humans to conclude erroneously a history that never actually happened — if they so choose. This is apparently because God requires faith of us (Heb. 11:3). At the same time, however, God does provide truth and gives us reason to believe it. In each of the above examples, God does tell us the truth.” (p. 60 italics his).

As Dr. Wise moves briskly though a wide variety of disciplines in connection with a discussion of the creation week, he shares with us some interesting insights into God’s character. It is his contention, for example, that God loves variety. We see this, he says, not only in the great diversity of form among heavenly bodies but also among living creatures. Furthermore and perhaps even more interestingly, God reveals His love of communication. Not only do we see this in the structure of the genetic code, but the whole universe bears similar witness in that so many aspects can be described in mathematical terms (a language). Dr. Wise concludes his chapter on the heavens with the words: “because God created all things by His Word (John 1:1-3; Heb. 11:3), evidence of language was created throughout the creation (such as the mathematical precision of the universe and the mathematical nature of the natural laws), …. The universal presence of language in the structure of the universe suggests that the cause of the beginning of the universe may be a communicator.” (p. 91)

Beyond the creation week Dr. Wise turns his attention to events in the Garden of Eden. Based on Scripture he argues that God cursed all nature, including the whole universe, as a consequence of Adam’s fall into sin. Furthermore, all the evil that we see here in nature, stems from this corruption of God’s very good creation. As Dr. Wise remarks: “The young-age creation model suggests that these biological evils of death, disease, struggle for survival, poisons, thorns, and carnivory were all a consequence of man’s sin. Other theistic models of origins are forced by their time lines to claim that all these things preceded man’s sin and are part of the world the way God created it. Since this seems to strain the conventional understanding of goodness and mercy, the young age creation model for the origin of biological natural evil is more consistent with the nature of God as revealed in Scripture.” (p. 166) The author also discusses not only Scripture but also probable geological ramifications of the Flood. The modern theory of plate tectonics for example, is taught to every school age child in geography or earth science courses. This theory requires millions of years to work, but catastrophic plate tectonics (connected to the Flood) achieves the same or better results within a short time frame.

Dr. Wise wrote this book to encourage us to fight untruth and error and that most emphatically includes evolution. Certainly not every creationist will agree with all his interpretations of the scientific details. For example, I personally think he could be a little more critical of appearances of age and of diversification of whales. Nevertheless his overall message is excellent. It was his objective, with this book, to reach a much wider audience than the scientifically literate. While not everyone enjoys the details of science, everyone can nevertheless appreciate the discussion of Scripture. In addition, the details from nature are discussed in such general terms in this book that most people should obtain some insights from these sections. Faith, Form, and Time is recommended for anyone studying or teaching Scripture or science, as well as for anyone who enjoys learning about these disciplines. That should include most of us.