Senter Continues to Use False Information to Assure the Faithful

When dinosaur fossils like this one are tested, they contain carbon-14 in significant quantities, which is not possible if they are millions of years old.
Three years ago, a reader sent me an article written by Philip J. Senter and published by the The American Biology Teacher. In it, Dr. Senter used a series of false statements to assure the Faithful that carbon-14 in dinosaur fossils is not a challenge to the dogma that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. I wrote a reply but didn’t think much more about it, since Senter’s arguments were so poor.

Well, a reader let me know that Senter had replied to my article (scroll down a bit to get to his reply). Not surprisingly, it is filled with many more false statements. For example, in his original article, he claimed that bone mineral (which is often used to find carbon-14 in dinosaur fossils) is more easily contaminated than the organic remains, like collagen, so bone mineral should never be used. In fact, he stated, “bone mineral is usually useless for radiocarbon dating.”

When I showed how egregiously false that statement is, he decided to backpedal. In his reply, he now claims:

“Fossil bone mineral (i.e., bone mineral older than 10,000 years old) is usually useless for radiocarbon dating.”

Of course, this is also a completely false statement, as anyone with a cursory knowledge of the relevant literature should know. In this article, for example, the researchers indicate that the collagen in their whale fossil (which they think is more than 30,000 years old) was not useful for carbon dating, so they used the date from bone mineral (bioapatite). They claim:

Because the dates obtained were so disparate relative to the age for the sediment outcrop/coquina – this is to say the bones were younger than the deposit – it was decided to date all elements using bioapatite, which is better preserved in bone that has undergone a long period of immersion in the marine environment. The range of AMS-RC ages (Table 1) for the bioapatite portion of the bones are consistent with the burial sediment ages of 32-44,000 YBP obtained using AMS, OSL, U-Th and AAR ages for sediment and wood/shell inclusions (Garrison et al., 2008, table 3).

This is common in the literature. In some cases, bone minerals are considered better preserved than collagen, so they are considered the better source for radiocarbon dates, even for fossils that are supposed to be well over 10,000 years old.

In my original article, I used this reference, to show that bone minerals in fossils give a very similar carbon-14 age as the collagen in the fossil. Senter’s second claim is that the research is bad because even the collagen is contaminated with more recent carbon. However, the same author later published another paper comparing collagen and bone mineral carbon-14 dates for fossils that were supposed to be between 17,000 and 40,000 years old. Once again, the dates were very similar. Yes, the bone mineral dates were systematically lower, but only by 13-23%. In the end, that kind of error cannot accomplish what Senter needs it to accomplish: causing a bone that is supposed to be millions of years old to read as only tens of thousands of years old. More importantly, if the first paper is so wrong (as Senter contends), how did this second paper (which uses essentially the same technique) make it past peer review? The fact is, we know that bone minerals and collagen often yield very similar carbon-14 dates.

This relates to Senter’s third claim, which is also false. He says that an article he originally referenced shows that bone mineral consistently dates younger than collagen does. In his reply, he claims that I say the article doesn’t show this. I didn’t say that at all. I simply correctly pointed out that this isn’t always the case, and cited a study that shows in some cases (including the first study I linked above), the bone mineral dates are older.

Senter’s next false claim also shows he is unfamiliar with the literature. In my original reply, I wrote that many fossils have been carbon-14 dated using both the collagen and bone minerals, and in general, the results are similar. I used this reference to support my correct statement. In Senter’s reply, he claims:

The reference that Wile cites (Miller et al. 2019) is currently the only study in which the “collagen fraction” of dinosaur bone has been separated from the mineral fraction and subjected to radiocarbon dating.

He then attempts to cast doubt on the study. Of course, anyone with a cursory knowledge of the literature would know that the Miller et al. study is far from the only one that compares radiocarbon dates in collagen and bone material for fossils that are supposedly older than 10,000 years (Senter’s new age limit for using bone minerals). Indeed, I have already given two other references in this article that do exactly the same thing, and both of them predate Senter’s reply! They don’t use dinosaur bones, but they give ages that are on the same order as those in the Miller et. al. report. I do hope that more studies are done specifically on dinosaur bones, but the point is that whether or not one uses bone minerals or collagen, there are significant amounts of carbon-14 in dinosaur fossils.

Senter’s fifth claim is also false. In my original reply, I said that the exterior of the bone should be subject to more carbon-14 contamination than the interior, and Miller’s study shows that there is more carbon-14 inside the bone than outside. He claims that, based on his experience, fossil bones are often cracked, so the interior is just as exposed as the exterior. Yes, fossils are often cracked, and that makes the interior more vulnerable to contamination than if it weren’t cracked, but it is still not more vulnerable than the exterior! After all, a crack has less surface area than the entire surface of the bone! Thus, if the detected carbon-14 were the result of contamination, there should still be a decrease from exterior to interior, and the data show no such decrease.

While not explicitly false, Senter’s sixth statement is dubious at best. He originally claimed that uranium in fossils could turn carbon-13 and carbon-12 into carbon-14, causing the fossil to read abnormally young. I cited a study that showed such reactions produce an infinitesimal amount of carbon-14 and cannot explain the large amounts of carbon-14 found in dinosaur bones. Senter now claims that this study is for oil fields, which have a lower amount of uranium contamination than that of many fossils. Thus, the effect for fossils should be higher. However, he cannot support that with a study, because there have been no studies done on this. Based on my experience with nuclear reactions, there is no way uranium contamination can produce enough carbon-14 to explain what is found in dinosaur bones. Without a study to indicate otherwise, I see this as a highly dubious argument.

Senter’s seventh claim is that all his statements come from the references he gave, so if I am arguing with him, I am arguing with his references. This, of course, is also false. As I showed in my original article and in this one, Senter either makes false statements about his references or is unaware of other references that contradict the ones he gives. I am using the whole of the scientific literature on this topic to show that he is wrong.

Senter’s closing thoughts say that he is a Christian but doesn’t have a problem with an ancient earth. I think he assumes that I am a young-earth creationist solely because of my views on the Bible. Once again, however, that is utterly false. I have said many times on this blog that I have no theological problem with an old earth (here, here, and here, for example). However, being both a scientist and a Christian allows me to be open-minded on the age of the earth, because God could have created over billions of years or 6 solar days. Thus, I can look at the data objectively, and an objective look at the data leads me to believe that the earth is young.

Unfortunately, it seems that Dr. Senter is the one who is dogmatically committed to a specific age of the earth. In his reply, he says:

…God’s revelation through nature (as a scientist who is a Christian might call it) unequivocally reveals that the earth is billions of years old and that the bodies of all organisms evolved over billions of years from that of a single-celled common ancestor.

Since he has this dogmatic view, it is not surprising that he must attempt to explain away the carbon-14 found in dinosaur fossils. Since my view is less dogma-driven, I can evaluate the data without feeling the need to explain it away. Now of course, Dr. Senter has every right to cling to his dogma. Who knows? The dogma might even be right. I just wish he wouldn’t continue to promulgate misinformation in his fervent desire to follow it.

NOTE: Based on an email, I reworked the discussion of the Miller et. al. study to make my point more clear.

Science Roots: A Great Companion For Studying Biology

Biology is a vocabulary-driven science, especially in the introductory classes that are required for high school and early college. In the biology course I co-wrote with Dr. Paul Madtes, for example, students are required to learn more than 15 new vocabulary words every two weeks. More importantly, the later vocabulary words require that they remember the definitions of the earlier vocabulary words, so they must keep all of those definitions in mind throughout the entire course. Needless to say, this can be a serious challenge for some students, especially those who don’t memorize things easily.

Is there a way to help students with this potentially daunting task? There is. Most science terms have their roots in Latin or ancient Greek, and those roots appear over and over again in different vocabulary words. If you learn one root word, you end up having insight into multiple scientific terms. Consider the Greek root hypo, which means “under” or “below.” It is used in biological terms like hypodermis (under the dermis), hypothermia (below-normal body temperature), hypoglycemic (below-normal blood sugar), and hypotonic (below-normal solute concentration). Now consider the Greek root hyper, which means “over” or “more than.” With that information, you know what hyperthermia, hyperglycemic, and hypertonic mean. Of course, this isn’t perfect, because there is no hyperdermis. Instead, we have an epidermis, which uses the Greek root epi, meaning “on top of” or “over.” Nevertheless, knowledge of specific Latin and Greek words can really help you master biological language. In fact, it can help you better master the English language in general, since many everyday English words use these same roots.

Of course, the best way to do this is to learn Latin and Greek early in life. That’s why schools used to require all their students to learn Latin at a minimum. Nowadays, unfortunately, schools are focused on producing obedient, subservient workers instead of educated citizens. As a result, only private classical schools continue to require Latin of all their students. Nevertheless, you can still make use of Latin and Greek roots, even if you don’t know the languages. That’s the aim of Science Roots by Nancy Paula Hasseler (2nd edition revised by Stephen J. Nichols).

Students who use this book will make study card for each root, its meaning, and its source language (Greek or Latin). Underneath that, the student will write biology vocabulary words that use the root. The words are written emphasizing the root. Here is an example, which comes from the book’s introduction:

How will the student know when to make a card and when to add words to it? Well, since it is being published by the same company that publishes Discovering Design with Biology (the book I co-wrote with Dr. Paul Madtes), Science Roots is designed for the student to make and add to the cards when they come to the vocabulary words in that biology book. I already encourage students to make notecards for each vocabulary word, so using Science Roots doesn’t produce a lot more work for the students. They need to make notecards anyway, so why not make this kind? It will have additional information on it, and more importantly, it will help them see the connections between the words that they are learning.

If students use Science Roots along with (or before) Discovering Design with Biology, they will not only have a deeper understanding of the language of biology, but they will probably also have an easier time learning all those words!

Christianity and Science: Partners in the Search for Truth Part 1

An artist’s conception of Roger Bacon performing an experiment.
Roger Bacon was the father of the modern scientific method, and it is no coincidence that he was also a devout Christian. Most of the great scientists of the past were Christians, and their motivation for studying the natural world was to learn more about God. Indeed, Roger Bacon claimed that a good scientist should rely on Divine inspirations to help him understand the world around him. If you would like to learn more, read my post on Memoria College’s blog.

Christianity and Science: Partners in the Search for Truth Part 1: Roger Bacon Lays Out the Scientific Method

Interesting Exercise with Artificial Intelligence Writing

(click image for credit)
With a new school year coming up, I decided to play with ChatGPT a bit to see if I could notice any patterns that might help me recognize when students use it to “help” them with their writing assignments. I know there are tools that help you do this, but they are not as reliable as I would like them to be. This is because you can ask ChatGPT (and other AI programs) to write in a particular style, which can often “humanize” the writing to a point where even the tools can’t recognize the writing as being generated by a computer program.

For example, I asked ChatGPT to write an explanation of Newton’s Second Law, with an example problem, in the style of Dr. Jay L. Wile (that’s me). Here is what I got. First, I was gratified to see what ChatGPT wrote before giving me the essay:

Dr. Jay L. Wile, known for his clear and accessible explanations in science, would likely present Newton’s Second Law in a straightforward and educational manner.

It also ended with a nice statement:

Dr. Jay L. Wile’s explanations often include practical examples and clear step-by-step problem-solving methods to help students grasp complex concepts effectively.

However, if I look at the essay, I don’t see a lot of my style in it. It does have a less-than-formal tone, which is typical of me, but that’s about it. Interestingly enough, when I put this essay (minus the parts quoted above) into two programs designed to detect whether or not the essay was written by AI, Grammarly’s tool said only 12% of it was AI-generated, while Phrasly said it was 50% AI-generated. Both were wrong, because it was 100% AI-generated.

Since I was struck by the fact that ChatGPT added notes about how I write, I wondered if it would recognize other scientific authors. So I asked ChatGPT to write the same essay, but in the style of other authors. Some were authors of homeschool science material, while others were authors of well-known university physics texts. Of the six authors I tried, it added statements about only one, Dr. Raymond A. Serway. It mentioned his organized, methodical style, which I agree with (I used his text in my calculus-based physics courses when I taught it at the university level).

Even though ChatGPT didn’t add statements about the other 5 authors, the style of each essay was slightly different. I don’t know if ChatGPT didn’t recognize those authors and just used different writing styles or recognized them but didn’t add statements about their writing. On a whim, I decided to ask it to write the same essay in the style of an author who doesn’t write about science, Andrew Pudewa. I got his permission to share what it came up with. I am familiar with Andrew’s work, and once again, I don’t see a lot of his style in this essay. Nevertheless, note that it did add a comment about his writing style:

Andrew Pudewa, the founder of the Institute for Excellence in Writing, is known for his clear, engaging explanations that make complex ideas accessible…This style of explanation emphasizes clarity and relatability, making complex concepts more understandable and engaging.

I would agree with that assessment.

Now, of course, ChatGPT is free, so I am sure there are better AI tools out there. Nevertheless, based on this little test, I am not very impressed with AI writing. At the same time, however, I would say that AI seems to be accurate when it comes to evaluating an author’s style when it decides to add an evaluation.

Perspectives on the Historical Adam and Eve: Four Views

In my opinion, one of the best ways to think deeply about an issue is to read about it from different points of view. Generally, I have to do that by reading many books by different authors on the same topic. In that situation, however, I don’t get to experience any interaction between the authors. That’s what makes a book like Perspectives on the Historical Adam and Eve: Four Views so valuable.

In this book, you have four “heavy hitters” in Modern Christianity, each weighing in with his view on the historical Adam. Dr. Kenton Sparks attempts to persuade the reader that the Genesis narrative is not intended to be taken as history, so Adam and Eve did not exist as progenitors of the human race. Instead, the process of evolution produced the human race the way God intended it to. In his mind, this doesn’t take away from the spiritual importance of the story, nor does it affect any of the important issues in Christian Theology. This is often called the “non-historical view of Adam.”

On the other end of the spectrum, Dr. Marcus Ross argues that the Genesis account is a historical narrative, that Adam and Eve really did exist (only thousands of years ago), and they gave rise to the human race. This is often called the “young-earth creationist” (YEC) view.

In between these two ends of the spectrum are Dr. Andrew Loke and Dr. William Lane Craig. Like Dr. Sparks, they both believe that evolution produced the physical form of human beings, but those physical forms were not human, because they did not have God’s image. God chose two of those non-humans-with-human-form, gave them his image, and named them Adam and Eve. Thus, Adam and Eve were real people who God miraculously turned from “animals” into human beings.

The difference between these two scholars is how Adam and Eve produced the human race. Dr. Loke champions the view put forth by Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass, that Adam and Eve existed along with the non-humans-with-human-form. Adam and Eve interbred with them, and all members of the modern human race can be traced genealogically back to Adam and Eve, because all non-humans-with-human-form that had no trace of Adam and Eve’s genes ended up going extinct. This is often called the “genealogical Adam” view.

Dr. Craig, on the other hand, thinks that if you go far enough back into the geological record (perhaps 750,000 years ago), you can find the physical form of human beings. When God gave two of them His image, they became fundamentally different from the entities that evolution produced. Thus, they did not interbreed with any non-humans. I wrote about his view after reading his book. This is often called the “mytho-historical Adam” view, because he believes that the Genesis account is a myth that is built around truly historical individuals.

Why do these views exist? Because mainstream genetics claims (I think incorrectly) that it is impossible for the human race’s genetic diversity to be explained in terms of one man and one woman who gave rise to the human race a few thousand years ago. Sparks, Loke, and Craig attempt to interpret Scripture in that light. Ross does not, because he doesn’t think the mainstream view of human genetics is correct on that point.

The book starts with an introduction, and then it is followed with each scholar giving his view. The other scholars’ objections to that view are then given, and then the original scholar offers his rejoinder to the critics. This is incredibly helpful, because it is easier to see the strengths and weaknesses in each of the main essays.

For example, Sparks’s essay states that the best Mesopotamian and Egyptian scholars in the ancient world thought the earth was covered by a solid dome. However, as Craig points out, this is “not merely unjustified but demonstrably false,” and he gives a reference that allows the reader to see why. This is important, because that demonstrably false idea leads some to incorrectly claim that Jewish theologians in the ancient world believed the same thing. In Craig’s essay, he claims that YECs must assume plate tectonics separated the continents after the Flood to explain the distribution of organisms on the planet. In Ross’s objection, he writes, “I have never once encountered a creation geologist who holds this view…” and gives a reference to show that YECs believe plate tectonics separated the continents during the Flood.

To my sincere delight, there was no rancor in the book. Each scholar shows respect to the others and finds some way to praise the others despite their different views. This was both edifying and encouraging. In the end, I thought Dr. Ross’s case was the strongest, but then again, it’s most similar to my view. Nevertheless, reading this book allows a person to see why intelligent, sincere Christians can hold different views on this vitally-important subject.

I will end with a passage from the Afterword, which appears after all the essays and arguments. It is written by Dr. Swamidass, who originated the view championed by Loke. He noted that at a dinner which followed the colloquium in which all these views were debated, Ross was accompanied by several who supported his view. He and his supporters invited Sparks (the one they had the most disagreement with) to join them at their table. The result was a lively conversation that was nevertheless full of love and affection. As Swamidass says:

I left young-earth creationism many years ago. Still, I cannot help but wish that Marcus’s tribe will grow. This type of creationism is far greater than fundamentalism. And if this is what YEC becomes, we would all be better for it.

I could not agree more. As a YEC, I can say that I am saddened by many of my fellow YECs who use insults and invectives to ward off the “heretics.” I have always seen Dr. Ross as someone set apart from that, and I think the YEC movement is better for it. I am encouraged that others are learning to follow his example.

My Review of Exploring Creation With Physical Science, 4th Edition

I wrote the first two editions of Exploring Creation With Physical Science, but the publisher used a different author (Vicki Dincher) to make changes for a third edition. As I noted on this blog, there were many serious scientific errors in that third edition, and the discussion of some topics was very confusing. I assume a lot of people agreed with that assessment, because after only four years, the author significantly revamped the course to produce the fourth edition.

When I heard that the fourth edition was coming out, I hoped that the author had corrected the serious scientific errors that I pointed out in my full review of the third edition. Fortunately, some of them were. For example, the author no longer states that we measure heat with degrees Celsius. That’s good, since heat is a form of energy. Thus, it needs to be measured with an energy unit, not a temperature unit.

However, the author still doesn’t define temperature properly. In the third edition, she said it was a measure of the heat energy in a substance, which is wrong. In this edition, she leaves out “heat” and says it is a measure of the energy in a substance. That’s better, but still not correct. The proper definition of temperature states it is a measure of the energy of random motion in the molecules of a substance. This is important, because a ball sitting on the floor has less energy than a ball sitting on a desk, but if they have been in the same room for a long time, both balls have the same temperature. Thus, temperature is not a measure of the energy in an object.

While some of the major errors have been fixed, many of them have not. For example, the author still incorrectly informs the students that the works of the Greek philosophers were lost when the West Latinized, and they weren’t “rediscovered” until the Renaissance. That is blatantly false. Greek classics became influential once again beginning in about the 10th century, and they were debated vigorously throughout the rest of the Middle Ages. Similarly, both editions still misinform the students about acceleration. The author says negative acceleration means an object is slowing down. That is simply not true. Since acceleration and velocity are both vectors, they can be either positive or negative depending on direction. If the velocity’s direction makes it negative, then a negative acceleration indicates that the object is speeding up!

Other issues are partly fixed. For example, in the third edition, the author refers to all metric units as SI units. They are not. There is only one SI unit for each measured quantity. For example, while you can use many metric units to measure mass (grams, milligrams, micrograms, etc.), there is only one SI unit: kilograms. She has mostly fixed this, but not completely. On page 19, she says, “If you wanted to measure the length of something small, the only unit you could use in the English system would be the inch. However, if you used SI units, you would have all sorts of options for which unit to use.” That’s false. There is only one SI unit for length: the meter. Thus, that would be your only choice in SI units.

So if the author didn’t fix all the errors in the third edition, what is the point of having a fourth edition? I am not sure. The biggest difference between the editions is that the fourth edition has many sections called “advanced concepts.” They are set apart from the rest of the chapter, and the introduction to the book says that students are encouraged to read through the advanced concepts, but unless the students are on the “advanced track” they don’t need to worry about answering questions about those concepts on the study guides and tests.

While I don’t have a problem with that in principle, most of these “advanced concepts” are not advanced at all. They belong in a standard physical science course. For example, in this edition, the definition of a scientific model is an advanced concept. Additional “advanced concepts” are the distinction between heterogeneous and homogeneous solutions, the definitions of sublimation and deposition, the description of isotopes, how to deal with squares in mathematical equations, the difference between charging by condition and induction, and how series circuits are different from parallel circuits. As near as I can tell, the author went through topics that weren’t explained very well and simply made them “advanced concepts” that the students could skip. In my view, this is simply dumbing down the course.

Before I received this new edition, I was hoping that the author had fixed the many problems of the previous edition so that I could recommend it. Unfortunately, I cannot. If you are forced to use this course because of a co-op that you are in, please encourage your student to thoroughly cover everything, even the “advanced concepts.” It will be difficult, since they aren’t explained well, but if the student doesn’t do this, I would say that the level of the course is, at best, seventh grade.

The High Priests of Science Are Counting on the Public’s Short Memory

A protest in 2013, which highlighted how climate change was supposedly destroying the polar bear population (click image for credit)

Will Rogers once said, “The short memories of the American voters is what keeps our politicians in office.” The High Priests of Science are well aware of the public’s short memory. In fact, they count on it. Consider, for example, the picture above. It was a common sight 10-15 years ago. The credulous costumed characters in the picture were terribly worried about the plight of polar bears, which they believed were being driven to extinction because climate change (aka global warming) was melting all the ice in the Arctic. Without that ice, the polar bears would have no habitat, and they would all die.

Why don’t we see lots of protests featuring polar bears anymore? Because even the High Priests of Science can no longer deny the fact that polar bears are thriving. Studies show that polar bear populations have more than doubled since 1960. It turns out that polar bears were on the decline because of hunting, not climate change. Now that the hunting of polar bears has been heavily regulated, the animals are once again healthy and plentiful. The High Priests of Science are counting on you to forget their false statements regarding polar bears and climate change/global warming so that they can continue to promote their propaganda.

Now remember, the polar bears were supposedly threatened by the loss of sea ice in the Arctic. The High Priests of Science have continually predicted that the Arctic would eventually be ice free in the summer. In 2008, for example, Dr. James Hansen told the U.S. Congress that in 5-10 years, the Arctic would be ice-free in the summer. Well, it has been 16 years since his testimony, and there is still a lot of ice in the Arctic, even in the summer. Other scientists have predicted ice-free Arctic summers by 2015, 2013, and 2012. The High Priests hope you have forgotten those predictions now that they claim it will happen by 2030, or perhaps 2067.

Of course, those aren’t the only things the High Priests are hoping you’ve forgotten. The Great Barrier Reef is another. In 2012, a study predicted that if we did not reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, the central and southern regions of the Great Barrier Reef would see such a decline that only 5-10% would be covered with coral. Two years later, The Guardian published an obituary for the reef. Ten years later, however, the amount of coral in the northern and central regions of the Great Barrier Reef is at an all-time high, and the southern region is very close to an all-time high. Once again, the High Priests of Science hope you will forget about those predictions.

And then, of course, there is sea level. Sea levels have been rising steadily since the mid 1800s, because that is when the earth started recovering from The Little Ice Age, a time when the earth was unusually cold. Despite the fact that at least a large portion of the rise in sea levels seems to be a result of natural fluctuations in the earth’s temperature, the High Priests of Science have predicted that climate change will accelerate it, leading to all sorts of catastrophes. The East Coast’s beaches were supposed to be gone by 2020, the Maldives were supposed to be underwater by 2018, and New York and Washington were supposed to be covered by the ocean in the year 2000. Of course, none of that happened, but the High Priests are counting on you to forget those predictions so they can make new ones.

The next time you hear a dire prediction about what will happen because of climate change/global warming, remember that those High Priests of Science have been making such predictions for a very long time, and they are constantly being proven wrong.

A Schedule for Using Discovering Design With Chemistry in Classical Conversations

The cover of my chemistry book
As some of you may be aware, I am not a fan of the third edition of Exploring Creation With Chemistry (ECC). Others have also taken a dim view of ECC (see here, here, and here). Because I couldn’t recommend ECC to homeschoolers, I wrote a new chemistry course, whose front cover is pictured on the left.

Not everyone seems to agree with my view of ECC, since there are some homeschooling organizations that still use it. One of those organizations is Classical Conversations (CC). Over the years, I have had many CC mothers tell me that while the CC classes use ECC, they are using Discovering Design With Chemistry at home so that their students can learn chemistry more completely. However, it can be difficult, because the two books cover topics in a different order. Therefore, I have come up with a guide that allows you to synchronize my chemistry course to the CC schedule.

If you would like to use my chemistry course and be synchronized to the CC schedule, click here.

Dark Oxygen

Polymetallic nodules at the bottom of the ocean

From a young age, students are taught that photosynthesis uses sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water to produce oxygen. On land, photosynthesis is carried out by plants, while in water, it is carried out by various single-celled organisms as well as by multicellular algae. Although there are some other natural processes that produce oxygen (such as the breakdown of ozone by ultraviolet rays), the amount produced is so small that it has no relevance to biological organisms. Thus, photosynthesis produces the vast majority of all oxygen on the planet. At least, that’s what we thought! Now thanks to a study by a multinational group of scientists, we know that there is at least one other natural process that produces a significant amount of oxygen, and it happens on the sea floor.

The story starts in 2013, when the researchers were studying an area of the Pacific Ocean called the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. It spans depths of 12,000 to 18,000 feet, so there is no natural light that reaches it. However, there are many polymetallic nodules that contain important metals like copper, nickel, cobalt, etc. As a result, there are those who would like to mine the nodules to collect those metals.

The scientists were studying the area by dropping a contraption onto the sea floor that pushes a cylinder down into the sediments so as to isolate a section of the water. The cylinder has instruments to measure different aspects of what’s going on in this isolated area, including the oxygen level. Since there is no natural light down there, no photosynthesis can take place. However, there are organisms at those depths that use oxygen. It has always been thought that this oxygen is brought down from shallow waters by ocean currents. Thus, the scientists expected the oxygen levels within the isolated area to decrease, which is what happens in most experiments like this one. However, in this experiment, they saw the oxygen levels rise. Since that didn’t make sense, they wrote it off as a malfunctioning oxygen sensor.

In 2021 and 2022, more studies were done, and once again, oxygen levels were seen to rise. Thus, they decided it probably wasn’t a problem with the oxygen sensors. They confirmed the rise in oxygen with another method, and concluded that there must be some process that is actually generating oxygen. Since the polymetallic nodules had a small electrical potential (0.95 volts), they thought that perhaps electricity from the nodules is breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen. However, it actually takes 1.5 volts for that to happen, so they thought that perhaps the potentials could add together in roughly the same way voltages add when you string batteries together in series.

They decided to recreate the situation in a small lab on the ship, using sediments and nodules from the seafloor. They found that oxygen would be produced in the lab for a while, but then production would stop. This implies that there is a power source on the seafloor that keeps the process going.

But is this a significant source of oxygen? Yes! In the isolated cylinders, for example, oxygen concentration rose to a level that is higher than what is typically found in surface waters, where all sorts of photosynthesis is going on. In the end, then, it’s possible that deep-sea organisms are not just using oxygen that is transported down from the surface. Instead, there might be a plentiful supply of oxygen being generated for them on parts of the sea floor!

This is not only an exciting discovery that might end up overturning scientific “facts” that have been taught for generations, but it also a reminder of what happens when you allow your preconceptions to color the science you are doing. Remember, these researchers first saw this source of oxygen 11 years ago, but they wrote it off as an error, since the production of oxygen on the dark seafloor was considered “impossible.” It’s very hard for scientists to rid themselves of preconceptions, but for science to advance, we must continue to try.

Coming to Faith Through Dawkins

Years ago, I read Why God Won’t Go Away by double-Doctor Alister McGrath (retired professor of Science and Religion at Oxford University). He ends the book with a story about a young man who credits atheist Richard Dawkins for turning him to Christianity. I still count it as the best ending to any nonfiction book that I have read. The next year, I read another account in which an agnostic became a Christian and once again, Richard Dawkins was instrumental in her faith journey. Well, it turns out these aren’t isolated incidents. I recently completed Coming to Faith Through Dawkins, a collection of 12 essays from a variety of people who all see Richard Dawkins as an important part of their faith journey.

The authors of these essays are from all walks of life and hail from various countries. Two of them have science PhDs, one has a PhD in history, another a PhD in philosophy. Others include an engineer, a theologian, and an artist/writer. Three are from the U.S., three are from South Africa, two are from Australia, two are from England, one is from Egypt, and one is from Hungary. Two of them have been featured on this blog (here and here).

While I highly recommend each essay, I want to concentrate on the one I found the most interesting (and entertaining): the essay by Johan Erasmus. Growing up in South Africa, he said that he was a Christian by default, but by age 10, he started asking questions. In his community, such questions were discouraged, so he started struggling with his faith. However, a perceptive teacher gave him a book with essays by C.S. Lewis. Unfortunately, it was hard for him to read, since it was in English, and his first language was Afrikaans. He writes:

I remember thinking to myself that if I believed one day, it would probably be because of him. Imagine my surprise, then, when I was told at church camp at the end of high school that his Chronicles of Narnia was basically satanic. It turns out, the one guy who was making me hold on to my faith (if only by a thread) was supposedly in cahoots with the devil! An odd strategy for the Prince of Darkness. It seemed unfair to me (and still does, as a matter of fact), that Satan wrote the best books and songs and made the best movies.

Because of his questions and his uncertain faith, he decided to go to university to study theology. However, that didn’t work out as planned. As he writes:

…in order to be accepted by the school of theology, a student is questioned by a panel of professors. One question stood out: Why do you want to study theology? My answer was, “I want to know if it is true.” This, by the way, is the wrong answer. After a minute of awkward silence, one of the professors managed to correct the error and said with authority, “Brother, you don’t study theology to gain faith; you have faith and then you study theology.” Everyone in the room agreed that I was in the wrong place. Luckily for me, the humanities department was far less selective.

While at university, he became acquainted with the works of the New Atheists, including The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. This led him to consider himself an atheist. He tried to discuss atheist arguments with his friends, but most of them didn’t have the ability (or interest) to engage. However, he ended up finding a woman who was back in South Africa after studying theology in the U.S., and when he discussed the works of the New Atheists with her, she said:

You seriously need to get yourself some better atheists…If you are going to be an atheist, at least do it because you were convinced by the likes of Michael Ruse, Thomas Nagel, or Nietzche, but I am going to be insulted if those guys [Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris] put the nail in your Christian coffin.

I couldn’t agree more. The arguments of the New Atheists are simplistic and come mostly from a place of ignorance. As a former atheist myself whose role model was Antony Flew, I find their reasoning insults the reader’s intelligence (with the notable exception of some of Daniel Dennett’s work). This woman put him on a path to find some seriously intelligent discussions of the existence of God, and he ended up becoming a Christian.

Erasmus’s journey from the simplistic nonsense of Dawkins (and Kent Hovind as well) to a serious intellectual analysis of worldviews led him to offer this insightful advice:

Christians as a whole, and the apologetics community in particular, will do well to respect the fact that there are brilliant minds, past and present, who ended up on the side of atheism. You would be a fool to call a Graham Oppy or a John Gray deluded atheists.

Once again, Eramus’s story is only one of 12, all of which are worth reading. When I finished the book, I wondered whether or not Dawkins had seen it and what he thought of it. As I was considering this, I recalled a quote from C.S. Lewis that sums up what Dawkins should learn from the book:

For you will certainly carry out God’s purpose, however you act, but it makes a difference to you whether you serve like Judas or like John. (C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, Touchstone 1996, p. 99)