Have you ever heard that there are more than 40 ways to date materials using radioactivity?
I see that no one wants to argue that ID is science. I guess Dr. Behe capsized the canoe when he admitted, under oath, that ID is no different than astrology.
Many of which also have nothing to do with dating fossils, and the rest of which suffer from similar problems of reliability, similar to those which plague potassium-argon dating.
I see that no one wants to argue that ID is science.
Neither ID nor evolution are "science" as the term is typically understood. Science relies upon observation. By their very nature, both ID and evolution make claims that are not directly observable, hence neither is "science" under the commonly understood definitions of that term. Both rely upon circumstantial evidences which are interpreted on the basis of the philosophical or theological presuppositions of the interpreter.
I guess Dr. Behe capsized the canoe when he admitted, under oath, that ID is no different than astrology.
Two can play that game....
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.", "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism", R.R. West, The Compass, Vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216
Or how about this,
"Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the number do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better ... 'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments."No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.", R.E. Lee, Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, p. 29