Re: Wayne State University Religion and Science Conference notes

Bill,
 
Thanks for the interesting summary for those of us not able to attend. One comment and one question below.
 
_______________________________
Charles W. Carrigan, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Geology
Olivet Nazarene Univ., Dept. of Physical Sciences
One University Ave.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
PH: (815) 939-5346
FX: (815) 939-5071
ccarriga@olivet.edu
http://geology.olivet.edu/
 
"To a naturalist nothing is indifferent;
the humble moss that creeps upon the stone
is equally interesting as the lofty pine which so beautifully adorns the valley or the mountain:
but to a naturalist who is reading in the face of the rocks the annals of a former world,
the mossy covering which obstructs his view,
and renders indistinguishable the different species of stone,
is no less than a serious subject of regret."
          - James Hutton
_______________________________

>>> Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> 4/28/2006 7:26 AM >>>
>Professor Baskaran appears to be a Christian believer. He spoke about the
>reliability of the various dating methods geologists use, emphasizing that
>geologists are reluctant to be certain of a date that is not verified by
>multiple means of dating.
 
I have no idea who Baskaran is, but stating that "geologists are reluctant to be certain of a date that is not verified by multiple means of dating" is not the best way of putting it. I don't know any geochronologists who think this way - e.g., "ok, i've dated this rock once, now i've got to date it again by another method before I can have confidence in the data". Geologists rely on numerous dating methods, but one does not have to date a geologic event by multiple means in order to be certain of it. Rather, different methods have different levels of reliability, and the method chosen is dependent on what kinds of materials and questions are being investigated. Further, some skill is required to do this kind of work, and quite frankly, some geochronologists are more skilled at different methods than others. Even more frankness, some geochronologists are really bad, using techniques that should simply not be used (Pb-Pb evaporation on zircon from high-grade terranes comes to mind). Yet this method is still sometimes employed and published in the literature (and then subsequently challenged later by someone else!). Other geochronologists are excellent at what they do, and if they publish a date, you can be sure it is pretty reliable. Often when a rock is dated that has been dated previously, the reason is because either new methods are available that are more reliable than the old, or the new investigators simply doubt the data or methods employed by previous workers for some reason.
 
Some rocks have been dated multiple times by various techniques, and their exact ages are debated. But this really comes down to the size of the error bars that one is willing to live with, which will depend on what questions are being addressed. The goal of a geochronologist is to truly address the confidence (which includes both precision and accuracy) that one can have in a particular date (remember that any date is a mean + a standard error), and this does not require multiple means of dating. I would like to hear the whole talk by Baskaran if at all possible.

 
>Augustine taught that metaphorical or allegorical interpretation should be used
>where literal interpretation is ruled out by science.

Does anyone know where this comes from, and have a direct quote?
 
 
Best Regards,
Charles