The 1960 data on dust influx were early measurements taken in Hawaii.
Satellite data were not available then. By 1968, a number of measurements
using a variety of techniques had been made. These new data demonstrated
that the 1960 data were in error by a factor of 100. This summary was
published in a review article in "Science", but I don't have the reference.
I loaned my copy of the article to a friend, and he isn't here today.
Since these data suggested that a much thinner layer layer of dust should
be observed on the moon, it wasn't surprising that was just what they
found, a thin layer. Since by 1968 we knew that the rate of influx was
lower than that thought earlier by the factor of 100, it didn't make much
of a "splash" on the moon or in the newspapers.
I found this review article, during a training session on how to use the
literature data base Dialog. I had read of this argument for a young earth
in the 1974 edition of "Scientific Creationism" and I wanted to check the
literature myself. I was really surprised to find this review article.
Because of this experience, I began to be quite skeptical of the level of
scholarship within the creationist movement. If one of my students made
this type of mistake in an undergraduate paper, I would probably suggest
that they recheck their sources then re-write that section. However, when
I see that type of error in a book written by "an outstanding team of
creationist scientists, educators, and Bible scholars" [taken from the
back cover of the book], I wonder about their scholarly abilities. When
I see and hear the argument continuing to be used, my response is something
like "They are probably nice people and are kind to animals, but they
really don't belong in the discussion. Truth isn't important to them."
Intellectual dishonesty isn't any better than financial dishonesty.
Jim Behnke, Asbury College, Wilmore, KY 40390 jimbeh@ms.uky.edu