Science in Christian Perspective
AND THE UNIVERSE
Delbert Eggenberger
Research Chemist, Amour and Company
From: JASA 3 (March 1951): 1-3.
Suspicion that
the earth was immensely aged was raised by Halley in the early eighteenth
century from a study of salt deposited in the sea. Later in the same century.,
Hutton, basing his conclusion upon the study of geological formations
stated that he could find "no vestige of a beginning!" During the
nineteenth century., estimates of the earth's age were rampant, with virtually
no upper limit. Kelvin,, however., basing his results on studies of
temperature gradients in the earth., assuming it to have started from a molten
ejection from the sun, concluded that the earth must not have been present for
more than 400 million years. He later reduced this figure considerably.
However., the discovery of radioactivity with its continuous generation of
heat in the earth's crust vitiated Kelvins work.
More recent work in several directions has indicated an age of several billion
years. It appears that the ages of the earth and of the universe are of the same
order - at present, no difference can be detected by direct measurement. In this
paper,, methods will be considered under three general headings, namely
terrestrial, solar (referring to extraterrestrial bodies within the system), and
cosmic.
Terrestrial
Radioactivity measurements comprise the most important method of dating the
earth. Details of the method and its limitations may be found in the American
Scientific Affiliation publication entitled "The Ageof the Earth! (1948).
The ages of the oldest undisturbed rocks are given as
about 1.8 x 109 years for Siberian uraninite and 2.0 x 109
years for uraninite from Manitoba. The latter is particularly interesting in
that the rock affords three checks, one with uraninite containing uranium.,
another with monazite containing thorium and a third -with mica containing
rubidium. The ages range from 2.0 to 1.6 billion years. (1),(2). Undisturbed
rock ages provide the lower limit to the earth's age.
It was suggested by H. N. Russell that the age of the earth's crust could be
determined by taking representative values for the quantities of uranium and the
corresponding lead isotope. The assumption is., of course., that lead isotope
206 all came from uranium parentage. This Investigation has been
carried out by several workers. Holmes (3) in studying collected
results found a concentration of values around 3.35 x 109years.
This figures or one only slightly lowers has been verified by others. (4).
(5). Therefore it appears that the age of the earth's crust can be placed
somewhere around 3.5 billion years.
One further support of the age of several billion years has been suggested by
Gamow, (6). Nuclear transformation theory requires that the original
abundance of u235 be about the same as that of u238. 11ith a knowledge Of the
half-lives of each of these Isotopes and the present abundance ratio or 1
to 139, it is Possible to calculate the approximate time of their equal
abundance. This figure is of the order of several billion years.
Solar System
The present state of the moon's motion is that of a spiral of increasing radius.
Calculations by Sir George Darwin Indicated
that the time required for the present state to develop, assuming the
moon had its origin near the earth, would be several billion years. Darwin
evolved a tidal theory of the formation of the moon, which theory has been quite
generally discarded since the work of Jeffries. The latter showed that
frictional energy within the combined body would be so great as to preclude such
destructive resonance as Darwin postulated. However, the possibility that the
lunar satellite originated at or near the earth is at present considered
reasonable.
The ratio of helium to uranium or thorium in meteorites, studied by Paneth and
others (8) gives ages ranging from six million to seven billion years. However
since the smaller ones have the higher helium content it appears they have been
affected by alpha particle bombardment. The upper limit is concluded to be about
three billion years for the Age of meteorites.
Cosmic
Star clusters are plentious throughout our galaxy. Chandrasekhar (9) has shown
that the probability of a starts escape from the gravitational field of the
cluster in time t -- such escape velocity having been attained statistically by
an "evaporation" pr3cess resulting from the buffeting action of the
other stars in the cluster -- to 1 -e -t/to where to
depends on parameters of the cluster. This buffeting results from gravitational
forces acting through a distance, If t =
to.. this probability is 0.63 which may be considered the order of lifetime for
the cluster. to for the Pleiadps is 3 x 109 years. Since
clusters such as Pledades are quite common yet in our galaxy., that figure is
taken as a reasonable average age for the clusters.
The study of binary stars affords another statistical method of estimating the
age of the universe. The influence of an outside star near a binary pair is felt
more by the nearer of the pair. The result of these approaches is an in~ creased
radius of rotation and ellipticity of the orbit. A sufficient
accumulation of such approaches results in a dissolved partnership between the
binary stars. Chandrasekhar (10) has calculated this disruption time for our
galaxy as t = 2.2 x l015 a-3/2, where a is the semi-major
axis in astronomical units (1.5 x 108 km.). Studies of the
distribution of separations between stars of binaries result in the conclusion
that a time of the order of several billion years is correct, Bok (11) has
studied both binaries and clusters and concluded that an age of 3 to 4 billion
years is quite probable.
Paradoxically, while the time-scale calculated by use of the expanding universe
model would be the simplest and most direct, the value found has been somewhat
difficult to reconcile with the others. The figure of 1.64 billion years
obtained by using a simple classical model is considerably lower than the some
three billions demanded by most other methods. Russell suggests that expansion
may have been slower at first because of the smallness of space I then.
Tolman (2) Applied relativistic corrections to the simple model and found that
it produced an even smaller time, 1.24 billion years. He has claimed some
success in expanding the time-scale by assuming the non-homogeneity of matter in
space.
The evidence of the Age of stars while lending some rough support to the general
picture is rather inconclusive.
Another general evtden9e is afforded In the temperature drop of the universe
with time. Jeans demonstrated that the temperature would drop inversely as the
square root of time. Assuming a beginning temperature of 15 x 109 OA
-- necesary for nuclear transformation to occur -- and a present temperature of
50 OA, the time elapsed comes out about three billion years.
Conclusion
It appears, then from our examination of
several independent lines of evidence that the beginning of our present universe
was some three billion years ago. Bishop Ussher, in the seventeenth century,
concluded that the Biblical creation was 4004 B.C. The inclusion of
that date in a large portion of Bibles published since that time has led many to
feel that Biblical and scientific cosmogonies were irreconcilable. The result
has been an unfortunate breach between two groups both of which are in error.
The one group holds that the very old date indicated by the methods of science
is in conflict with the Scriptures and therefore the latter to not the
inspired work of God. The other group., accepting the Bible as the revelation of
God$ holds to a comparatively recent creation In spite of much clear evidence to
the contrary.
It has been shown by Hebraists that the words translated in Authorized and other
versions as "day" could as well be translated some long period of time
and "morning and evening" as "beginning and ending". Also
Obegat" does not necessarily imply A direct eon but may mean a descendant,
The conclusion to be drawn is, that the Scriptures themselves do not teach a
short time-scale but its teachings are quite consistent, and without strained
translations, with a very old date of creation and with long geological
processes.
References
(1) H. N. Russell, Science 92
19 (1940)
(2) R. C. Tolman., Rev. Mod. Phys. 21. 374 U949)
(3) A. Holmes, Nature, Lond. 157, 680 (1946)
______ ,Ibid., 1959, 127 (1947).
______ ,Endeavour 6, 99 (1947)
(4) C. Feste and M. Santangelo, Amn. Geofis 2, 503 (1949)
(5) C. Morelli, Ann. Geofis, 2, 417 (1949)
(6) G. Gamow.. Lecture before physics Club of Chicago) 1949,
(8) W. J. Arrol, R. B. Jacobi, and F. A. Paneth., Nature, Lond. 2L9s
235 (1942)
(9) S. Chandrasekhar Astrophys. J. 97, 255 (1943)
_____ ibid. 98, 54(1943)
(10) S. Chandrasekhar, Science 99, 133 (1944)
(11) B. J. Bok, Mon. Not. Royal Astro. Soc. 106, 61 (1946)
(12) P. Ropsiers Arch. des Sciences 22p 89 (1940)