Replies

The lab typically asks the client what age he or she expects the sample to show. The lab then will do 30, 40, 50, or 60 tests until they get the desired number.

Do you have a source for that? I can imagine a lab doing multiple tests to see if they converge on a consistent answer, but you're implying that they'll simply discard 50 tests that don't give the expected answer in favor of one that does. I'd like to see some support for that charge.

As for the expected age issue, here a self-described conservative Christian scientist explains why labs ask how old the client expects the rock to be. It's not as insidious as you think. (Scroll down to the first blue answer.)

Thank you for your link. I've read the exchange in its entirety. I think it was well thought-out from Dr. Berger's viewpoint.

First, the objections to radiometric dating seem to be demanding a mythical “crucial experiment.” Crucial experiments, in which one experiment, by itself, establishes the truth or falsehood of an hypothesis, are not completely unknown, but their mythical, highly celebrated status stems from their rarity. Most scientific statements are based on a preponderance of the evidence; well-established ones are based on an overwhelming convergence of evidence. But (pace Popper) a few contradictory results do not instantly destroy a theory, nor can we expect a single “crucial experiment” to establish one in the presence of contradictory evidence.

I have no doubt that Dr. Berger wrote that with the most altruistic of intentions, and what follows is by no means directed against what he wrote per se but the underlying worldview from whence it stems and to which he must, as an imprimatured scientist, pay due obedience.

Looking at this, I see, "No crucial experiment exists, therefore evolution." IOW, "We don't know, but since we want evolution to be true, we're going to bias all conclusions in that direction, building on the shoulders of giants who have similarly biased their conclusions in that direction over the past 150 years and we'll call this 'preponderance of evidence.' We will give a weighting of zero to the underlying enmity against God motivating this bias, and we will likewise give a weighting of zero to special revelation, since we don't want it to be true and cannot accept it."

Fundamentally, people will believe what they wish to believe, whatever best supports their worldview (good vs. evil, live for God vs. live for myself). They will ridicule others with beliefs that diverge from their own. They will try to frame the debate in a manner favorable to their own conclusions. You do it. I do it. We all do it. None of us gets to pretend we come to the table free of our own internal biases, no matter how subtle. None are neutral in this long ongoing war between good and evil, and we do well to be frank and honest on that front.