The Ginkgo Petrified Forest

Harold G. Coffin
Geoscience Research Institute

---

Along the western edge of the Columbia River Plateau, next to the Cascade Mountains, a unique state park has been created. The Ginkgo Petrified Forest State Park, located in the State of Washington, is found in a panorama of hills and plains gashed by dry canyons and watercourses. The dark basalt that underlies the whole area shows up starkly in the cliffs along the many abandoned water channels. Although the water that rushed through long ago is mostly gone now, the story told by the remains is a fantastic one that speaks of major flooding and erosion by broken glacial dams and swollen rivers draining from the margins of the continental glacier.
Before we describe the Park in greater detail, an explanation of the name is needed. Ginkgo is an unusual type of tree, sometimes called the Maidenhair tree. Its leaves, which resemble a partly opened Chinese folding fan, are completely diagnostic.
Fossil Ginkgo leaves have been found in several places in the world; the wood itself is rare. Many different species and varieties lived in the past, but only one representative still remains — truly a living fossil! Since botanists discovered live Ginkgo trees in China, the trees have been planted in many parts of the world. Because petrified wood of the Ginkgo tree has been found near the area of the State Park, it seemed appropriate to name the Park after this tree. Some pieces of cut-and-polished Ginkgo wood can be seen in the Park museum. But the country around the Park is a treasure house of petrified wood. Collectors have been combing the hills for many years, and wood is still being found in the gulleys and gulches of these barren slopes.
The Park encompasses several hundred acres where no collecting is permitted. Its annex several miles west of the main park area has walking trails along the hillside to a number of petrified trees buried in the basalt but showing no appearance of being burned. How can this be? No one knows for sure; perhaps the explanation is that the trees were submerged in water. The basalt cooled so rapidly that the wood did not burn.
The most remarkable feature of this Park, however, is the great variety of trees and plants represented. Nowhere else in the world are so many kinds of petrified wood found in so small an area. An examination of the approximately 200 species reveals another unusual fact: these trees and plants are not those expected from one climatic zone. They range all the way from tropical jungle trees to trees found today in the northern plains of Canada and Alaska. Some of the tropical trees are teak, breadfruit, cinnamon, and gum. Others more common to temperate zones and cold climates are redwood, fir, cottonwood, and spruce. Note these interesting plants: Chinese walnut, magnolia, madrona, sassafras, mahogany, yew, and witch hazel. Further, this great variety of plants is not all found growing in one part of the world today, but is scattered on different continents.
The explanation presented in the Park museum is that these trees grew in a broad altitudinal range. According to the present interpretation, the trees from high mountains, those from intermediate hills, and those from tropical lowlands all were washed together into low swamps and lakes by streams and rivers. Thus trees of great variety were mixed together in the basalt beds of Ginkgo Petrified Forest State Park.
The region now varies in elevation from about 1000 feet to 3000 feet above sea level. A number of miles to the west, the Cascade Mountains rise several thousand feet higher. Presently the area experiences cold winters and hot summers. Rainfall is light. The number of indigenous tree species is somewhat limited. If all these many kinds of fossil trees lived together originally in this area, the range in elevation must previously have been much greater than it is now, and the lower areas must have experienced tropical growing conditions.
This interpretation is not entirely satisfactory. There is no place in the world today where so great a variety of tree species grows in such close proximity. The length and diameter of the petrified logs would require more than small streams to move such trees down to the lowlands. Several streams currently flow from the Cascade Mountains into the Columbia. Two of them, the Yakima and the Wenatchee, are of moderate size, but are not able to transport large trees many miles. Especially in the upper reaches, the streams are too small to float such trees. There are no evidences in the basalt beds of large ancient river courses, nor are there extensive deposits of sedimentary material which should accompany a broad river. Petrified driftwood is often found; occasionally an upright petrified tree is seen. These are interpreted as having floated in a lake until they sank to the bottom and were eventually buried by lava.
The great variety of trees from widely varying climatic conditions buried in ash, cinders, and basalt is strongly suggestive of catastrophic conditions as described in the book of Genesis in the Bible. Apparently trees from extensive geographical and climatic areas floated together and were trapped and buried by the volcanic materials. The absence of burning of the wood might indicate rapid cooling by water. The volcanic material is often in the form of pillow basalts which are understood to be produced when volcanic matter flows under water.
Although much has yet to be learned about this amazing petrified forest, a flood interpretation appears to be as scientifically reasonable as that now portrayed by the museum. In these dry coulees and semi-deserts of eastern Washington, a glimpse of the preflood forests and the dynamic processes that buried them has been exposed. It tells a story more of catastrophism than of uniformity.

---

© 1974 All contents copyright Geoscience Research Institute. All rights reserved.

Examining Radiohalos

R. H. Brown, H. G. Coffin, L. J. Gibson, A. A. Roth, and C. L. Webster

Geoscience Research Institute

Origins 15(1):32-38 (1988).

LITERATURE REVIEW

CREATION'S TINY MYSTERY. 1988. R. V. Gentry. 2nd ed. Earth Science Associates, Knoxville,Tennessee.

---

This book is an account of Robert Gentry's efforts to defend creation, particularly his model of creation. The author has spent many years studying and promoting pleochroic halos [microscopic rings in rocks formed by radioactive decay in the center of the ring] as evidence of instantaneous creation. His hard work and commitment are commendable.
The first edition of Creation's Tiny Mystery was published in 1986. The second edition (1988) is essentially the same as the first, but contains additional material concerning exchanges between the author and various individuals who have challenged his interpretation of the data he has collected. The book is published in paperback and contains eleven color plates of radiohalos. For the purpose of discussion, it can be divided into three parts.
The first four chapters of the book are an autobiographic account of how Gentry became involved in the investigation of radiohalos, together with a description of the kind of data he found. The remaining eleven chapters are largely reports of reactions of various individuals to Gentry's interpretation of his data. The last third of the book is an appendix containing a collection from Gentry's published papers and some correspondence relating to his discoveries. After a brief commentary on each of these sections, this review will evaluate Gentry's conclusions in some detail.
The first four chapters, together with the color plates of radiohalos, are the most interesting and useful part of the book. The way in which radiohalos are formed is explained, and the author's view of their significance is outlined. Anyone interested in radiohalos — and in Gentry's views — would benefit from reading these chapters.
The remaining eleven chapters are largely a record of Gentry's efforts to promote his views, along with his concern over their nonacceptance. Several chapters are devoted to the 1981 Arkansas evolution/creation trial, at which Gentry testified in support of creationism. This material is largely of historical interest. Gentry claims that his creationistic beliefs have resulted in discrimination against him; but the reader may be unable to tell whether this discrimination has been due to his philosophical beliefs or to his methods of promoting them. An example is seen in his challenge to the National Academy of Sciences that is reproduced on pp. 196-198, 322-324 of Creation's Tiny Mystery. The president of the Academy is to be commended for his restrained response.
The appendix contains copies of several of Gentry's published papers which present the technical details of his investigation of radiohalos. Most of these papers are in readily available sources, but it will be helpful to some readers to have them so conveniently accessible. The appendix also contains records of some of Gentry's exchanges with various individuals who have questioned his conclusions.
It is regrettable that the author did not expend more effort in organizing and presenting the evidence and the basis for his interpretation of that evidence. Those who are interested in the validity of Gentry's interpretations will find material of substance primarily in the first four chapters, the radiohalo catalogue, and the copies of his published papers. The remainder of the book is more polemic than many readers would wish, and contributes little to an understanding of Gentry's creation model. His model of earth history is partially described, especially on pp. 184-185 and 280-281. He proposes at least three "singularities" (short periods of time in which God supernaturally intervened in natural processes). These are the ex nihilo creation of Earth and the Milky Way galaxy, the fall of man, and the Noachian flood. Between these singularities, Gentry believes, natural laws continued in operation as they do today. During these singularities, the operations of natural law were superseded. In particular, the rates of radioactive decay for uranium and some other kinds of atoms were accelerated; however, the poloniurn decay rates were not altered.
Gentry's conclusions seem to be based on two propositions which he believes are supported by the evidence from radiohalos The first of these is his belief that rocks containing halos, especially granites, are rocks that were directly created by God, presumably during the Genesis creation week. Gentry's second proposition is that poloniurn radiohalos were created in the rocks as evidence that the rocks did not form naturally, but were created. The basis for the first proposition seems to be that when granite is melted and then allowed to cool, it does not reform with the same crystal structure, but instead cools to form rhyolite. This suggests to Gentry that granite cannot form naturally, but must be the result of supernatural activity. Both propositions will be evaluated in the succeeding paragraphs of this review.
Before proceeding, it should be pointed out that belief in ex nihilo creation, the fall of man, and the Noachian flood does not rest on the acceptance or rejection of the thesis presented. If Gentry is wrong in his understanding of the evidence, the validity of biblical creationism is not in jeopardy. Biblical creationism is supported by many other kinds of evidence.
The key to understanding the technical aspects of many problems is the dividing of that problem into as many known parts as possible, thereby isolating the unknown parts for further study. Such a division of the "mystery" of the poloniurn pleochroic halos results in several known aspects and very few unknown aspects.
The basic "tiny mystery" of the halos is as follows:

There exists in the biotite (mica) of some granites and some pegmatites certain pleochroic halos identified as arising from the radioactive decay of three polonium isotopes. The specific isotopes of polonium are Po-210, Po-214 and Po-218. Gentry's observations have suggested that these halos are independent of other radioactive elements, i.e., are not derived from the systematic radioactive decay of U-238. The "mystery" is: If these poloniurn halos are independent of U-238, how did they get into the mica within solid granite when the polonium half-lives may be only 138 days, 3 minutes or 164 millionths of a second?! (Poloniurn halos are also found in the hydrothermal mineral fluorite, although less frequently than in mica.)

Seven principal questions need to be answered in attempting to understand this "mystery":

1. How are the halos formed?
2. How are the halos identified as poloniurn halos?
3. Where are the halos found?
4. How did the halos get into the micas or fluorite?
5. Where did these halos form?
6. Are there other halos present in the micas in addition to those produced by polonium?
7. If the initial independence from a uranium-source assumption is incorrect, what happens to the "mystery"?

On the question of halo formation, Gentry and other scientists are in agreement. Pleochroic halos are the result of crystal lattice damage due to the impact of alpha particles from radioactive decay occurring at the center of the halo.
Halo identification is achieved through the measurement of the halo diameter. The size of the halo and the half-life of the isotope producing it are related. Assuming that the half-life of the parent isotope has remained constant throughout the formation of the halo, the initial energy of the alpha particles that produced the halos can be determined, and hence the parent radioactive isotope identified. In making this identification, Gentry assumes, as do other scientists, a constancy of radioactive decay rate for polonium. However, Gentry also wants to invoke periods of time that "... may have been accompanied by an increased, nonuniform radioactive decay rate" (p. 134). If there were periods of nonuniform decay rates, identification of any pleochroic halo from its ring diameter would be questionable at best! All available data indicate that halo ring diameter increases with increase in decay rate. Either the rates remain constant or they do not. Evidence from other sources (1) suggests that the decay rates have remained constant for all radioactive isotopes. Several problems arise when one attempts to invoke increased decay rates while at the same time keeping the halo diameters constant! Such inconsistency cannot be considered as a satisfactory argument.
Questions 3 and 4 are the areas in which there is some of the most open contention between Gentry and other scientists, creationists and non-creationists alike. Throughout Creation's Tiny Mystery, Gentry claims that primordial poloniurn halos are found only in Precambrian granites, pegmatites and possibly some flood rocks. Moreover, Gentry claims that these polonium halos are the "fingerprints of the Creator" and can therefore have no other origin. On the other hand, Gentry recognizes that the polonium halos in coalified wood are of secondary origin, i.e., due to transport into the wood of polonium derived from uranium, rather than arising by instantaneous fiat creation.
A careful examination of some of the geologic settings where polonium halos are found reveals that at least some of the minerals containing the poloniurn halos are not found in primordial Precambrian granites (2,3,4). More will be said about the geologic setting later.
Irrefutable laboratory evidence as to the geochemical processes involved in polonium halo formation is lacking. However, a systematic study of the geologic and geochemical data strongly suggests one or more transport models for the emplacement of polonium halos in biotite, fluorite and other minerals. The polonium or polonium precursors, in the form of aqueous solutions, are transported into the minerals along crystal lattice planes, cracks and conduits. Gentry's "spectacle halo" (p. 218, Plate 9-B) is an excellent example for solution transport along conduits.
One of the best papers addressing transport mechanisms for poloniurn halos is that of Meier and Hecker (5). They suggest that polonium halos are associated with uranium deposits either by hydrothermal processes or supergene (downward enrichment) processes. Without invoking unknown processes, Meier and Hecker — and others — can account for the polonium isotopic pattern and abundances as well as the geochemical and geologic setting in which the polonium halos are found.
The question as to when the pleochroic halos formed in the rocks — or more basic yet, when did the rocks that contain the pleochroic halos form? — evokes open confrontation between the position that Gentry adopts and the views held by the majority of the scientific community. In Creation's Tiny Mystery, Gentry repeatedly states (pp. 25, 36, 65, 66, 98, 117, 153, 184) that the Precambrian granites represent the primordial creation rocks. Part of the reason for this statement is the presence of pleochroic halos found in them. However, Wakefield (6) and Wilkerson (7) challenge this interpretation, pointing out that the localities where the pleochroic halos are found represent secondary rocks, specifically dikes of granite and even calcite veins that intrude older rocks; hence, they are at least secondary in origin. Wise (8), who has reviewed the literature on the localities where pleochroic halos have been reported, indicates that a majority (15 out of 22) appear to come from veins or dikes (pegmatites), and hence represent secondary and not primary rocks.
Without entering into the argument as to the absolute age of the rocks (either primary or secondary), it would be safe to state that the majority of halo-containing minerals are younger than the host rock and therefore do not represent primordial material.
The presence of non-polonium pleochroic halos found near polonium halos in biotite, fluorite or other minerals weakens Gentry's case even further. This is especially true when Gentry must invoke a nonuniform increased radioactive decay rate to account for the presence of U-238, Th-232 and Sm-146 halos, while leaving untouched the polonium decay rates! Gentry must invoke a nonuniform rate increase for some of the halos, because at present the half-lives of these other halo-producing isotopes are on the order of hundreds of millions to thousands of millions of years!
If Gentry's independence assumption (polonium halos formed from polonium which was not produced by the radioactive parent U-238) is found to be incorrect, or even found to be strongly questionable, his whole contention that pleochroic halos are evidence of ex nihilo creation becomes suspect. The fact that the polonium isotopes involved in halo formation in the rocks are only those which are daughter products of systematic uranium and thorium decay forces one to suspect immediately that they are derived from uranium rather than a special creation. There are 19 other polonium isotopes, not derived from uranium and thorium, and literally hundreds of independent, non-polonium halo-producing isotopes that could give stronger evidence for instantaneous creation of the granite or other rocks.
No review would be complete without addressing Gentry's challenge to evolution. In Creation's Tiny Mystery, the author states that he will consider his thesis ("evidence for creation", p. 72) essentially falsified if a single hand-sized specimen of granite is synthesized in the laboratory (pp. 65, 72, 98, 117,120, 123, 128, 129ff, 183, 191, 194). Probably the author derived this challenge from his belief that the pleochroic halos found in granite represent "God's fingerprints" and thus instantaneous creation. There are several problems with this falsification-of-creation test.

1. The ability to synthesize granite in the laboratory may have little to do with creation. The argument is basically a non sequitur. Whether we can or cannot synthesize certain rocks or minerals in the laboratory seems to reflect mainly the sophistication of our laboratory procedures. One could likewise say that the synthesis of a one-kilogram (2.2 pound) diamond would disprove creation. But such an argument would not be taken seriously.
2. We can now synthesize many substances that could not be produced artificially in the past. This fact should evoke caution regarding risking belief in creation on whether or not a hand-sized specimen of granite can be synthesized. In the past we were unable to synthesize diamonds or opals, but we can now. Over a century ago, some individuals believed that organic compounds could only be created by God, but many thousands of them have been synthesized since then! In addition, all the basic minerals found in granite have already been synthesized in the laboratory (9,10,11,12). It seems risky to pose a challenge to evolution on the basis of whether or not a hand-sized piece of granite is synthesized, since none of us can predict the future developments of science.
3. It appears that in a number of instances, granite has formed as the result of natural processes. This seems to be the case when granite penetrates (in the form of veins or dikes) older rocks, some of which contain fossils. Obviously the granite was formed after the intruded rocks. Granite filling cracks in fossil-bearing rocks suggests a natural formation of granite rather than evidence for creation. Even more convincing for a naturalistic origin of granite is the discovery within granite of shells of a number of fossil species of brachiopods (13). One could hardly argue that God would place fossils in granite He was creating.

Creation's Tiny Mystery represents an interesting approach at a synthesis of science and the Bible; however, the argumentation presented has some serious problems. These include:

1. The inconsistent use of radioactive disintegration rates;
2. The fact that polonium halos appear to be derived from uranium;
3. The evidence for the origin of polonium halos by aqueous transport; and
4. The fact that polonium halos are found in secondary rocks.

Because of these and other problems, readers of Creation's Tiny Mystery should be cautious in accepting its argumentation and claims of evidence for ex nihilo creation.

REFERENCES

1. Naudet, R. 1974. Les reacteurs naturels d'OKLO Bilan des etudes au ler mai 1974, B.I.S.T Commissariat a I'Energie Atomique No. 193, June 1974, pp. 7-45.
2. Wakefield, J. R. 1988. Gentry's tiny mystery — unsupported by geology. Creation/Evolution XXII (Vol. 8, No. 1), pp. 13-33.
3. Wakefield, J. R. 1988. The geology of Gentry's "tiny mystery". Journal of Geological Education 36:161-175.
4. Wise, K. P. In press. Gentry's mystery considered: theological and scientific concerns. Creation Research Society Quarterly
5. Meier, H. and W. Hecker. 1976. Radioactive halos as possible indicators for geochemical processes in magmatites. Geochemical Journal 10:185-195.
6. See references 2 and 3 above.
7. Wilkerson, G. (1988 manuscript submitted for publication.) Poloniurn radio-haloes do not prove fiat creation.
8. See reference 4 above.
9. Winkler, H. G. F and H. von Platen. 1958. Experimentelle Gesteinsmetamorphose — II. Bildung von anatektischen granitischen Schmelzen bei der Metamorphose von NaCl — führenden kalkfreien Tonen. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 15:91-112.
10. Jahns, R. H. and C. W. Burnham. 1958. Experimental studies of pegmatite genesis: melting and crystallization of granite and pegmatite. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 69:1592-1593.
11. Mustart, D. A. 1969. Hydrothermal synthesis of large single crystals of albite and potassium feldspar. EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 50:675.
12. Swanson, S. E., J. A. Whitney and W. C. Luth. 1972. Growth of large quartz and feldspar crystals from synthetic granitic liquids. EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 53:1127.
13. Malakhova, N. R and L. N. Ovchinnikov. 1970. A find of fossils in granite of the central Urals. USSR Academy of Sciences, Doklady, Earth Science Section 188:33-35.

© 1988 All contents copyright Geoscience Research Institute. All rights reserved.

Cloud of Starlings on Ot Moor

Philosophical Systems

Conrad D. Clausen

Assistant Professor of Biology
Loma Linda University

---

Two philosophical systems — rationalism and empiricism — established as methods for arriving at truth have vied for favor during the past 2500 years. Sense perception is the ultimate authority in empiricism. Reasoning is mainly inductive and knowledge is conceived of as probable but not certain (1). Rationalism, on the other hand, maintains that there is a special domain of knowledge acquired by means of a capacity called reason and this knowledge is inaccessible through sense perceptions. Reality transcends observable phenomena and empirically obtained knowledge is only a poor substitute for the reality obtainable by mental vision alone. In rationalism mathematics is considered the ideal form of knowledge and reason is the ultimate authority. Reasoning is deductive and knowledge is conceived of as certain (2).
According to the internationally known science philosopher Hans Reichenbach, rationalism is the philosophy of a man dissatisfied with sense experience and who wishes something beyond. It is the emotional bias toward a world of imagination on which religion has thrived (3). Whether or not his criticism of rationalism as a psychological crutch of philosophers disgruntled with life is valid, his reluctance in placing ultimate authority in human reason is warranted. Never are the conclusions of rationalism superior to the axioms and postulates on which they are based (4). Fallacious conclusions in rationalism may result from untrue premises, imperfections in language (its ambiguousness) (5), fallible human reasoning ability, and defective human attitudes (prejudices, unfairness etc.). Therefore Ellen G. White cautions against speculative philosophies and exaltation of human reasoning above its true value (6). Rationalism, she states, idolizes reason and sets aside the Bible while exalting human wisdom as the source of religious truth (7).
Reason is also recognized as an indispensable tool in empiricism. Reichenbach notes that "Observation informs us about the past and the present; reason foretells the future" (8). It has a predictive function. Empiricism retains the methods of rationalism but verifies its conclusions (predictions) by observation. Basic then to the empiricist philosophy are the two assumptions: 1) sense perceptions are a reliable guide to reality and 2) reality is uniform and consistent. If these assumptions are considered self-evident, empiricism — using a combination of sense perception and reason — represents a more efficient method of arriving at truth. The final authority or test of truth resides in the sense perceptions. The reason — with its predictive functions — serves in a subordinate role. That empiricism is probably the superior of the two philosophical systems in at least a pragmatic or utilitarian sense is indicated by the significant advances in communication, transportation, synthetic intelligence, medical science and agriculture that it has nurtured.

EMPIRICISM: ITS LIMITATIONS AND FAILURES

The weaknesses of empiricism are in three directions: 1) its apparent failure to solve moral and ethical questions, 2) the probabilistic nature of knowledge obtained by the empirical approach and 3) from relying on rationalism in dealing with past and future events and in all interpretation.
The success of empiricism has been ambiguous. While this success in improving the physical and material condition of man has been significant, neither directly (through psychology and the social sciences) or indirectly (as a byproduct of its success in the material world) has it made significant advances in improving man's spiritual (non-material and non-physical) condition (measured in terms of happiness, peace of mind, security, human behavior and interpersonal relations). This may be regarded either as only a temporary failure (advances forthcoming) or as a basic inability of empirical philosophy to tackle this type of problem.
Empiricism contains no absolute statements on the nature of good or bad; therefore empirical conclusions in themselves can only be amoral, always answering questions of "what is?" rather than "what ought to be?" (9). Nonetheless (perhaps unfortunately) scientists commonly use the empirically derived knowledge and the practice (by scientists) of the empirical method as directives for establishing general moral and ethical values (10, 11, 12). These efforts always must start with the assumption that the principles of tolerance, fairness, justice and freedom — as practiced by the scientific community — are desirable and good. From this basis they then show that these principles will lead to the improvement of man's spiritual condition. The failure then is seen not as the failure of empiricism or of its practice but rather the failure of the governments, the statesmen, and the non-scientific community in general to accept the guiding principles of the scientific community as moral directives in everyday life (13).
The probabilistic nature of empiricism derives from the two assumptions on which it is based. The uniformity of nature has been regarded as both the basis of the validity of induction (as a method for arriving at truth) and as a conclusion from applying the inductive method. Ordinarily the uniformity of nature is considered self-evident and is then made the axiom on which the validity of inductive reasoning is established (14). In any case the inductive reasoning of empiricism never leads to certainty. Conclusions can only become more probable (15).
The uncertainty of empirical knowledge also results from the fallibility of sense perception. That this sense perception is not always a reliable guide to reality is demonstrated easily by the occurrence of optical illusions. Perhaps though, a more serious problem involves the misinterpretation of correctly perceived objects or events. The obvious initial interpretation of sense perceptions are often incorrect. Thus the earth does appear flat, matter does appear continuous and the sun does appear to circle the earth. (In fact, regarding the heliocentric system Galileo states: "I cannot express strongly enough my unbounded admiration for the greatness of mind of these men who conceived and held it to be true . . . , in violent opposition to the evidence of their senses" (16).) It is at this stage that the advantage of empiricism is most easily observed, for reinterpretation and verification of sense perception always awaits the next observation — possibly in a form not yet thought of and on instrumentation not yet available. This advantage, though, is ambiguous. Truth is always being approached but never reached. Knowledge is uncertain and theories are unstable. Further observation and improved instrumentation inevitably lead to scientific revolution (17).
Both in the interpretation of sense perceptions and in the extrapolation of present sense observations to historical or future events (a form of interpretation), empiricism relies on reason and the methods of rationalism. In the realm of interpretation, then, empiricism is liable to the same sources of error that occur in rationalism. Interpretation — though a valid scientific pursuit — must be done with appropriate caution and an awareness of its fallibility.

EMPIRICISM: THE SECULARIZATION OF CHRISTIANITY

The schoolmen of the Middle Ages approached truth via the rationalistic philosophy. This fact, though, hardly warrants Reichenbach's conclusion that rationalism is the philosophy of religion, because Luther, as a religious leader of that time, attacked the rationalistic philosophy of schoolmen (7). Both philosophical systems are better considered as either areligious — neither supporting nor denying the validity of Christianity — or more likely as religions in themselves — separate from Christianity. Adulteration of Christianity with the false tenets of either of these "religions" might give Christianity the appearance of depending on or based in one of the respective philosophical systems. It may have been rationalism during the Middle Ages but would probably be empiricism today. Pure Christianity, however, belongs to neither philosophical system. It contains elements of both but goes beyond either.
The religious nature and structure of rationalism and empiricism are well-defined. They have their gods (reason and the sense perception of nature) and their laws (laws of logic and laws of nature). The parallels between the nature and structure of empiricism and Christianity are fully developed by the noted contemporary scientific philosopher Karl Popper (23) and C. F. Weizsacker (18). Weizsacker shows that the religion of scientism (or empiricism, to use our terminology) is a product of the secularization of Christianity. Thus the structure retains the principles of justice, tolerance, honesty, etc. as a basis for the moral action of the scientific community. The concepts of freedom and authority in empiricism (19) are closely allied to but are an adulteration of their Christian counterparts. The function of problems (as unfulfilled expectations) and experience (or experiment) in Christianity find their parallel in empiricism (23), and the nature of scientific discovery can be considered analogous to the nature of conversion — the discovery of God. The Christian structure of empiricism has thus remained more or less intact, but the purpose has shifted from that of seeking spiritual success to the seeking of material success.
Empiricism is a religion in its own right but has borrowed heavily from Christianity. The validity of its existence depends on whether it has made any additional contributions of its own or whether on the contrary it has merely usurped Christian authority and apostatized.

CHRISTIANISM

Christianism refers to the religious system, tenets and practices of Christians. The basis and uniqueness of Christianity is reconciliation with God — the reestablishment of a relationship with God. Here the term christianism is specifically used in referring to a third philosophical system. Although this system places value in both reason and sense perception, it maintains that there exists knowledge that is inaccessible to either human reason or sense perception. Truth is arrived at by utilizing special revelation as well as reason and sense perception. Revelation is considered the ideal form of knowledge and the ultimate authority is God.
Revelation is being told what truth is by someone that has special information. Since it is truth direct from the source of all truth, in a sense, it should be the most efficient method of arriving at truth. Nonetheless in christianism as in the previous philosophical systems there are apparent problems. As in empiricism they come from three sources: 1) apparent failure to improve the spiritual condition of man, 2) assumptions on which christianism is based and 3) the nature of truth as conceived by christianism.
Revealed truth is not of such a nature that it can be readily incorporated. Thus it cannot be obtained by the mere memorization of facts or the committing of certain Biblical passages to memory (although this may be necessary). In christianism truth is conceived of as important only as it becomes impressed on the mind and becomes an integral part of the individual and thereby facilitating change. It requires not only an act of revelation on God's part but a creative act or acts on the part of the receiver.
The assumptions of christianism are: 1) that God exists and 2) that His revelations are trustworthy. To observe their parallel structure the two assumptions of empiricism can be stated here as: 1) uniformity in nature exists and 2) the revelation of nature through sense perception is trustworthy. As faith in inductive reasoning leads to verification of the latter set of assumptions, so faith in the revelation of God leads to the verification of the assumptions of christianism. The conclusions in both cases are based on circular reasoning, and they are not considered in either case as logically foolproof. The attempt here is only to show the parallelism (at this one level) of empiricism and christianism. Progress in either system requires an initial act of faith.
Along with empiricism, christianism is confronted with an apparent failure (actually anticipated by christianism) in its attempts to improve the spiritual condition of men. Christianism has claimed too that it had special power and knowledge in this area. As in empiricism, though, this failure is seen not as a failure of christianism but rather the failure of the world community to accept its principles as directives in everyday life. However, for two reasons, the prognosis for the ultimate success of christianism in areas of moral values and ethics is infinitely more encouraging than it is for empiricism. Christianism provides people with a special power (unavailable in empiricism) for bringing about improvements in their spiritual condition. It also provides an absolute standard of morality. By this provision good and evil in christianism becomes analogous to the true and false of empiricism, thus making the rightness of an action amenable to the experimental method. It is ironic that moral action not amenable to the experimental method in the philosophical system of empiricism (which relies so heavily on the experimental method) becomes experimentally verifiable in christianism (where the ultimate authority is revelation).
While experiment (or experience) does not hold the dominant role in christianism, it does serve important subsidiary functions. Ellen G. White states that the spread of Christianity (in recent times) became most rapid when "Men became dissatisfied with the results of rationalism and realized the necessity of divine revelation and experimental religion" (21). It is each individual's personal responsibility to test for himself the trustworthiness of special revelation through experimental knowledge. Further, the correct understanding of revelation can only be approached through the experimental application of the revealed principles to real-life situations. These two applications of the experimental method lead to growth in faith and action respectively.
In christianism the source of knowledge is a triumvirate of reason, sense perception and special revelation. Final authority resides with infallible revelation. Sanctified reason and sense perception are the tools for correctly applying revealed principles.

SUMMARY

Christianism has the potential for success in improving the spiritual condition of man, and, in addition, it provides a matrix within which to develop the concepts of past, present and future material and physical phenomena. Empirical science finds its proper position only within the context of christianism. Here it functions in the capacity of general revelation. The scientific method (in the restricted sense as used by most scientists) is the application of the general philosophy of christianism to the study of natural phenomena. Viewed in this way it becomes meaningless to speak of applying the scientific method to Christianity, since the scientific method is part of christianism, and it has always been inherent (if not always applied because of emphasis on spiritual values) in the philosophy of christianism.
The use of the scientific method in the context of the philosophical system of christianism has advantages over its use in empiricism. The unity of truth makes the position of the scientific method within a system which encompasses all truth the more reasonable and reliable alternative. Further, revelation provides in christianism a source of information (available for use in the scientific method) unavailable in empiricism. In this context revelation is viewed as a precious source of knowledge to be used to its fullest extent in the pursuit of truth and not as a restriction to freedom. Revelation is an authority (similar but not identical to the general authority of Polanyi) (22) providing guidelines for the most fruitful activity.

REFERENCES

1. Reichenbach, H. 1968. The rise of scientific philosophy. University of California Press, Los Angeles, pp. 75, 76.
2. Ibid., pp. 74, 76, 252, 253.
3. Ibid., pp. 253, 254.
4. Salmon, W. C. 1963. Logic. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 4, 5.
5. Ibid, pp. 102-104.
6. White, E. G. 1942. The ministry of healing. Pacific Press Publishing Association, Mountain View, California, p. 427.
7. White, E. G. 1950. The great controversy between Christ and Satan. Pacific Press Publishing Association, Mountain View, California, p. 193.
8. Reichenbach, p. 80.
9. Ibid., pp. 276-302.
10. Simpson, G. G. 1967. The meaning of evolution. Yale University Press, New Haven, p. 29.
11. Bronowski, J. 1959. Science and human values. Harper and Row, New York. 94 pp.
12. Polanyi, M. 1969. Science, faith, and society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 96 pp.
13. Bronowski, pp. 65-94.
14. Arber, A. 1954. The mind and the eye. Cambridge University Press, London, pp. 83, 84.
15. Salmon, pp. 53-55.
16. Quoted by: Popper, K. R. 1963. Science: problems, aims, responsibilities. Federation Proceedings 22:961-972.
17. Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 210 pp.
18. Weizsacker, C. F. von. 1964. The relevance of science. Harper and Row, New York. 192 pp.
19. Polanyi, p. 59.
20. Ibid., pp. 34, 35.
21. White, E. G. 1950, p. 288.
22. Polanyi, p. 57.
23. Popper, pp. 961-972.

© 1974 All contents copyright Geoscience Research Institute. All rights reserved.

Our little Earth in this Universe...

Solar System Finite Age ?

Clyde L. Webster, Jr.
Geoscience Research Institute

---

The fact that radioactive isotopes are present in the materials from Earth, the Moon, and meteorites strongly suggests that our Solar System has a finite age. Can this age be calculated? Potential minimum and maximum ages for the formation of our Solar System may be obtained through an analysis of radioactive isotope ratios, parent:daughter ratios, and missing radioactive isotopes. For example, uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.47 billion years. Observing the limitations mentioned in the article, Radioisotope Age: Part II, which does not permit age calculations beyond 7-10 half-lives, we may conclude that the presence of uranium-238 in the Solar System implies a maximum age of about 4.5 billion years for its postulated consolidation. This figure is further refined by analyzing the uranium-235:uranium-238 ratio, which implies a maximum age of about 5 billion years.
Using the same method of analyzing parent:daughter ratios, paying attention to cases where daughter isotopes are found and parent isotopes are clearly absent, a minimum age can be obtained for the consolidation of the Solar System as proposed by the scientific community. For example, samarium-146, with a half-life of about 100 million years, is not found in naturally occurring deposits. However, its stable daughter product, neodymium-142, is found there. A 10 half-life calculation would therefore set a minimum age for consolidation of about one billion years. Thus, this process brings us to the interesting conclusion that the radiometric age of the planets, moons, and meteorites of our Solar System may range between one and five billion years.
What are the implications of such an ancient Solar System? How does this impact our view of the Creator? First, it is clear from Scripture that God is Creator of all things and, since He is God, i.e., eternal, the timing for the creation of matter does not really affect our understanding of His nature. It does have an impact on our understanding of the first two verses of Genesis which state:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters (NIV).

Some people believe that "In the beginning" refers to the first day of creation week and they conclude that the entire universe was created very recently. Others believe that the first day of creation week is not actually referred to until Genesis 1, verses 3-5:

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening and there was morning — the first day (NIV).

Either position can be supported from Scripture. What we know and understand at present about isotopes in our Solar System suggest that the inorganic material is old. New information and new interpretations may alter this conclusion in the future. An awareness of these options helps Christians working in the sciences to develop concepts and models about our origins.

© 1996 All contents copyright Geoscience Research Institute. All rights reserved.

Imaginary Mechanisms of Evolution

Virtual Particles

Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, provides this answer.

[From Scientific American]

Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.

But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles. The first test was understood in the late 1940s. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the quanta of the electromagnetic field). Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, since this is allowed by quantum mechanics as described above. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that coincidentally seem to have the same energy. But when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions. That shift was measured by Willis Lamb and the Lamb shift was born, for which a Nobel Prize was eventually awarded.

Quarks are particles much like electrons, but different in that they also interact via the strong force. Two of the lighter quarks, the so-called "up" and "down" quarks, bind together to make up protons and neutrons. The "top" quark is the heaviest of the six types of quarks. In the early 1990s it had been predicted to exist but had not been directly seen in any experiment. At the LEP collider at the European particle physics laboratory CERN, millions of Z bosons--the particles that mediate neutral weak interactions--were produced and their mass was very accurately measured. The Standard Model of particle physics predicts the mass of the Z boson, but the measured value differed a little. This small difference could be explained in terms of the time the Z spent as a virtual top quark if such a top quark had a certain mass. When the top quark mass was directly measured a few years later at the Tevatron collider at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago, the value agreed with that obtained from the virtual particle analysis, providing a dramatic test of our understanding of virtual particles.

Another very good test some readers may want to look up, which we do not have space to describe here, is the Casimir effect, where forces between metal plates in empty space are modified by the presence of virtual particles.

Thus virtual particles are indeed real and have observable effects that physicists have devised ways of measuring. Their properties and consequences are well established and well understood consequences of quantum mechanics.

Star Scale

Astrocytes are rising stars

Astrocytes are rising stars
By Tina Hesman Saey
- [From Science News]

Often-ignored brain cells regulate blood flow and make fMRI possible
access
STAR PLAYERSAstrocytes (blue) and neurons (green) in the visual cortex of a ferret. The cells contain dyes that allow researchers to track calcium levels. When neurons are active, astrocytes respond with increased calcium, which leads nearby capillaries to increase blood flow. This is a previously undiscovered role for astrocytes, once thought to only act as support cells for neurons. James Schummers and Hongbo Yu, Laboratory of Mriganka Sur, MIT.

Star-shaped brain cells called astrocytes are finally getting their chance to shine.

Two groups of researchers — one at MIT, the other at Harvard — have shown that astrocytes get the blood pumping to parts of the brain that are thinking hard. These cells may use blood flow and other tricks to rev up communication between neurons or slow it down, and may even play a role in storing information. The findings indicate that astrocytes are not just supporting actors for neurons; they deserve recognition as true costars.

“Astrocytes are typically forgotten,” says Venkatesh Murthy, leader of the Harvard group, but they “are right in the thick of things.”

Neurons have typically gotten the most attention from researchers because they are the brain cells that do all the thinking. But neurons cohabit the brain with a class of cells called glia, which means “glue” in Greek. Glia outnumber neurons in the human brain by a factor of 10 to one, and astrocytes are the most abundant type of glial cell.

The view of astrocytes has changed slowly over the past decade. Astrocytes were once thought to do little more than hold the brain together and they were largely ignored. In recent years, though, scientists have learned that the star-shaped cells have a hand in guiding connections between neurons and controlling levels of chemical messengers in the brain. But those activities were viewed mainly as supporting roles. Now their central function in controlling blood flow indicates that astrocytes deserve higher billing. Without astrocytes, in fact, one of the most powerful tools of neuroscience — functional MRI — would not be possible.

Functional MRIs rely on the premise that blood flow is coordinated with neuron activity, but the mechanism that links blood flow to activity has been a mystery.

Some scientists suspected that astrocytes may play a role in blood flow because the cells have “end feet” that nestle up against synapses — the places where neurons connect — and other end feet that wrap around capillaries. But no one had proven that astrocytes could actually influence blood flow in living animals.

Working with ferrets, Mriganka Sur and colleagues at MIT used an advanced microscopy technique to measure the response of astrocytes to visual stimuli. The group reported its findings June 20 in Science. Neurons in the visual cortex of ferrets, cats, monkeys, humans and other higher mammals are arranged in columns of cells that respond to objects oriented in the same direction. For instance, one column would respond to the vertical edges of a building, while another close-by column would be stimulated by horizontal lines. Columns tuned to every possible orientation of a line are situated close to each other in what neuroscientists call pinwheel centers.

Sur’s postdoctoral researchers James Schummers and Hongbo Yu used fluorescent dyes to show when neurons and astrocytes become active. Neurons respond in split seconds to visual cues flashed into the eyes of anesthetized animals. About three to four seconds after neurons begin firing, calcium levels in the astrocytes begin to rise, a cue that the cell is active and sending signals. Blood flow through capillaries increases following the rise in calcium.

Murthy and his colleagues got similar results with neurons and astrocytes in the odor-sensing centers in the olfactory bulbs of mice. That study appeared June 26 in Neuron.

An astrocyte listens in to the chemical conversation between neurons, soaking up neurotransmitters such as glutamate, the researchers showed. Astrocytes actually use two pathways to respond to glutamate: The cells have receptors for glutamate on the end that nestles next to the synapse, and the cells can also take up the neurotransmitter in another way, the researchers found.

The glia are not just passively eavesdropping. They also regulate levels of neurotransmitters in the synapse, send signals to capillaries to increase blood flow to oxygen-hungry neurons and participate in gathering information, says Frank Kirchhoff, a neuroscientist at the Max Planck Institute of Experimental Medicine in Göttingen, Germany. The two studies demonstrate that astrocytes are involved in signaling in the brain, he says.

Astrocytes not only listen in on neuronal conversations and report to the blood vessels, they also talk back to the neurons, the research demonstrates. Blocking the ability of the astrocyte to respond to glutamate caused neurons to get even more excited.

“That is direct evidence that an astrocyte is not just a pretty face sitting around soaking up [neurotransmitters], but that it also plays a role in computation,” Sur says.

Each astrocyte seems to be intimately associated with a single neuron or a small number of neurons, Sur says. That was a surprise because previous research on slices of brain suggested that astrocytes work together in vast networks. Sur doesn’t rule out the possibility that astrocytes coordinate with each other, but he speculates that they usually act locally — chatting with nearby neuron partners and blood cells within a 10- to 20-micrometer area. Performing similar experiments in wakeful animals might help answer the question, Kirchhoff suggests, because anesthetics may dampen the glial cells’ responses.

Astrocytes are pickier about responding to visual signals than neurons are, the MIT group found. The cells seem to have higher standards than neurons for the amount of stimulus they consider exciting. The researchers don’t yet know whether astrocytes slow blood flow to calm over-excited neurons, or if increasing the blood supply allows neurons to work harder. And the code of calcium signaling within the astrocytes also needs to be worked out, Kirchhoff says.

Some diseases may be caused or complicated by defects in astrocyte function, Murthy says. His team is exploring whether the astrocytes’ ability to control blood flow breaks down with age. The new discoveries will probably force researchers to rethink brain networks to include astrocytes, Sur adds.

“It’s not often that a whole new function for a class of cells is revealed,” Sur says. “It’s like when we first began to understand synaptic transmission 50 years ago. The whole field is open.”

What do you think?

Well, it's a highly known fact in these days that, as scientists, we are besieged by a lot conjectures and assumptions that attempt to explain certain phenomena which some consider supernatural while others look for a satisfactory explanation. However, analyzing the situation more deeply, we can reach certain conclusions without any real necessity of being besieged by preconceived thoughts or previously conceptualized facts.
It is my hope that here, we can discuss many points of view, including their respective influences and bases and then, reach conclusions based on research and study rather than in other preconceived sources like the famous "banking concept of education", in which we repeat the facts that others have taught us without asking why. Therefore, feel free to comment on what you want, because, if we look for the answer, surely, it will appear.

Did you know?