Much of the information presented in this section is based upon the Stuiver and Polach (1977) paper "Discussion: Reporting of C14 data". A copy of this paper may be found in the Radiocarbon Home Page
The Oxalic acid standard was made from a crop of 1955 sugar beet. There were 1000 lbs made. The isotopic ratio of HOx I is -19.3 per mille with respect to (wrt) the PBD standard belemnite (Mann, 1983). The Oxalic acid standard which was developed is no longer commercially available. Another standard, Oxalic Acid II was prepared when stocks of HOx 1 began to dwindle. The Oxalic acid II standard (HOx 2; N.I.S.T designation SRM 4990 C) was made from a crop of 1977 French beet molasses. In the early 1980's, a group of 12 laboratories measured the ratios of the two standards. The ratio of the activity of Oxalic acid II to 1 is 1.2933±0.001 (the weighted mean) (Mann, 1983). The isotopic ratio of HOx II is -17.8 per mille. There are other secondary radiocarbon standards, the most common is ANU (Australian National University) sucrose. The ratio of the activity of sucrose with 0.95 Ox was first measured by Polach at 1.5007±0.0052 (Polach, 1976b:122). Later inter-laboratory measurements put the ratio at 1.5081 (Currie and Polach, 1980).
According to Stuiver and Polach (1977), all laboratories should report their results either directly related to NBS Oxalic acid or indirectly using a sub-standard which is related to it.
In an earlier section we mentioned that the limit of the technique is about 55-60 000 years. Obviously, the limit of the method differs between laboratories dependent upon the extent to which background levels of radioactivity can be reduced. Amongst accelerator laboratories there has been mooted the theoretical possibility of extended range dating to 75 000 yr +, at present this seems difficult to attain because of the problems in accurately differentiating between ions that mimic the mass and charge characteristics of the C14 atom. Beukens (1994) for instance has stated that this means the limit of the range for his Isotrace laboratory is 60 000 yr which is very similar to the conventional range.
Where -8033 represents the mean lifetime of 14C (Stuiver and Polach, 1977). Aon is the activity in counts per minute of the modern standard, Asn is the equivalent cpm for the sample. 'ln' represents the natural logarithm.
Three further terms are sometimes given with reported radiocarbon dates. d14C, D14C and deltaC13.
D14C represents the 'normalized' value of d14C. 'Normalized' means that the activity is scaled in relation to fractionation of the sample, or its deltaC13 value. All D14C values are normalized to the base value of -25.0 per mille with respect to the standard carbonate (VPDB). D14C is calculated using:
This value can then be used to calculate the CRA using the equation given above.
Where Aabs is the absolute international standard activity, 1/8267 is the lifetime based on the new half life (5730 yr), Y = the year of measurement of the appropriate standard. This is an expression of the ratio of the net modern activity against the residual normalised activity of the sample, expressed as a percentage and it represents the proportion of radiocarbon atoms in the sample compared to that present in the year 1950 AD. Thus, %Modern becomes a useful term in describing radiocarbon measurements for the past 45 years when, due to the influx of artificial radiocarbon into the atmosphere as a result of nuclear bomb testing the 'age' calculation becomes a 'future' calculation.
If the sample approaches D14C = -1000 per mille within 2 standard deviations, it is considered to be indistinguishable from the laboratory background, ie, not able to be separated with confidence from the laboratory countrates which result from a sample which contains no radionuclide. In this instance, a minimum age is calculated. An example of a minimum age is >55, 000 yr or >50, 000 yr (Gupta and Polach, 1985).
Should the activity of the sample be indistinguishable from the background activity at 1 standard deviation, it is released as background.
Samples whose age falls between modern and background and are given finite ages.Standard errors released with each radiocarbon assay (see below) are usually rounded by convention (Stuiver and Polach, 1977). Again, not all laboratories subscibe to these conventions, some do not round up ages.
To: Article: A Further Reply to Dr. Henke
From: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/henke2.html by Dr. Dave Plaisted.
A Further Reply to Dr. Henke
In November, 1999 Dr. Kevin R. Henke responded to my articles at
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/henke.html
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/harland.html
in an article entitled MORE YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONIST MISCONCEPTIONS ON
RADIOMETRIC DATING. This article was posted to the talk.origins
newsgroup and e-mailed to me personally. I thank Dr. Henke for the
considerable effort he put into his reply. This is my further
reply.
The root question is whether radiometric (that is, isotopic) dating is
reliable, especially on fossil-bearing rocks. Dates for
fossil-bearing strata obtained by radiometric dating are commonly in
the hundreds of millions of year range, while a literal reading of the
Bible implies that life has only existed on earth for six to ten
thousand years. Actually, the title of Dr. Henke's article is
misleading, because my main concern is not the age of the earth but
the age of life, as Dr. Henke should have known from reading my
previous articles. In this response to Dr. Henke's article I discuss
the questions of concordances between different dating methods, the
properties of various minerals and how they are used in dating, excess
argon, mixings and isochrons, possible changes in decay rates, and a
few other items of less significance.
Concordances Between Different Dating Methods
Harland et al (1990) gives 700-odd dates on which the geological time
scale is based. Dr. Henke has carefully examined this list and found
28 instances in which different dating methods from the same location
agree. There are also a few others that he did not explicitly
mention. I appreciate his thoroughness. However, about 30
concordances among a list of over 700 dates, selected from a larger
sample of unknown size by a process having unknown statistical
properties, is not very impressive. In fact, one can explain some
concordances on the basis of randomness. We know that there are at
least four common dating methods, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, U-Pb, and Ar-Ar. Each
method can be used on individual minerals or on whole rocks, and can
be used to measure a simple daughter-to-parent ratio or can be used as
an isochron. This gives us probably sixteen different methods in all,
not counting Pb-Pb dating and fission track dating. If we assume that
there are at least 10 samples (or collections of samples) from each
area on the average that are datable by each method, we can obtain at
least 160 dates from each location. Let's say 100 for simplicity.
Among these there are about 5,000 pairs of dates, most of them between
different methods, and just on the basis of chance we would expect
many of these pairs to agree fairly closely. In fact, it would not be
surprising to find pairs that agree with any expected age of the
geological formation. In addition to this, geologists often select
minerals and methods of dating (such as magnetic separation) to
increase the chance that the different methods will agree, as I
indicated in my last response to Dr. Henke.
For the sake of a simple probability analysis, suppose that the K-Ar
dates for formations are generally taken as their accepted ages, and
that the other methods have random values uniformly distributed
between 0 and 600 million years on phanerozoic formations. This does
not imply that the K-Ar dates are correct. If we define a concordance
as an agreement of two dates to within ten percent, then the expected
number of concordances is about five percent of the total number of
dates, and most of these concordances will be between different
methods. The observed number of concordances in Harland et al (1990)
is about 30 out of over 700 dates, or somewhat under five percent.
Although these probability assumptions are overly simplified, this
shows that the observed number of concordances between different
methods on the phanerozoic is not inconsistent with a random
distribution of the non-K-Ar dates.
One should also remember that concordant dates can all be inherited
from an earlier event. If a concordance does not agree with
expectations, this can be explained as a later heating event or as an
inheritance from an older event, so it does not upset the dating
scheme. Woodmorappe (The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods,
Institute for Creation Research, 1999, p. 30) references a couple of
studies indicating that discordances among different dating methods
are much more common than concordances.
The situation on the phanerozoic (Cambrian strata and above) is
qualitatively much different than on meteorites, and possibly on some
old rocks on earth, where concordances are very common. Therefore,
conclusions about the reliability of radiometric dating should not be
extrapolated from meteorites or older rocks on earth to the
phanerozoic.
It's also interesting that the geological time scale is based on less
than 800 dates. This undermines the often-quoted argument that
hundreds of thousands of dates have been measured and there are only a
few percent of them that do not agree with the expected dates. We are
here dealing with a sample of less than 800 dates, not hundreds of
thousands.
How the Properties of Minerals Affect Dating Methods
Dr. Henke states that the properties of various minerals are known and
used by geologists in determining which radiometric dates are
reliable. However, glauconies are considered one of the more
unreliable minerals for dating by Faure (1986, p. 71) and others, and
dates from glauconies make up a considerable portion of the dates
listed in Harland et al (1990). Even "good" minerals for K-Ar dating
such as biotite are only considered by Faure (1986, p. 71) to be
"often reliable." Faure (1986, p. 72) lists some minerals as often
containing excess argon, while others do so only rarely. Dickin
(1995, p. 248) states that excess argon can collect in "crystal
dislocations and defect structures." Since all crystals can have
defects and dislocations, all minerals can have excess argon. Thus a
date from an unreliable mineral can be accepted if it is in agreement
with expectations, and a date from a reliable mineral cannot always be
trusted. Besides the problem of excess argon, it can always be argued
that the date was inherited from an earlier event, or reset by a later
event. It can also be argued that the sample is a xenolith or a
xenocryst. I also gave a number of quotations in my last reply to
Dr. Henke indicating that minerals are chosen not for their a priori
properties, but because they give dates that are in line with
expectations. Thus the properties of a mineral play only a minor role
in whether the date measured is accepted or not.
Dr. Henke cites the Eldora quartz monzonite stock (Faure, 1986,
p. 69-70) which reveals the temperatures at which various minerals
lose argon. This is interesting, but does not deal with the
propensity of these minerals to incorporate excess argon when they
form, or to adsorb it after they cool.
Excess Argon
Excess (or inherited) argon is argon that did not result from
radioactive decay of potassium, and can lead to incorrect K-Ar dates.
This argon can either have been present when the mineral formed, or
have entered later. Excess argon can make K-Ar dates too old by an
arbitrary amount. In order to reliably date rocks, this must be taken
into account. The question is whether excess argon can always be
detected. In reality, no method appears to be foolproof for detecting
excess argon, and no one can say for sure whether argon present in a
sample is excess or radiogenic. The tests used to detect excess argon
(the spectrum test and isochrons) can all have problems.
Dr. Henke mentions a statement of Dalrymple (1984) that excess argon
is rarely found in volcanoes that erupted in historic times. I gave a
reference to the contrary. It would be appropriate to give the
evidence on which Dalrymple bases his statement. Furthermore, the
number of volcanoes having excess argon today is not necessarily the
same as it was in the past.
Dr. Henke states that the flow of argon is primarily out of a rock
rather than into it, precluding the possibility of excess argon. At
high temperatures, argon will indeed flow from a rock containing much
argon to a rock containing little argon. At low temperatures, the
reverse is clearly true, because essentially no diffusion of argon
occurs at low temperatures, but argon still accumulates on the surface
of rocks. In fact, the longer the rock is exposeed, the more argon it
can accumulate, and this argon can become so firmly embedded in the
rock that it cannot be removed even by baking in a vacuum, according
to references I gave in my last reply.
Dr. Henke cites a reference that shale often has more argon near the
surface than lower down, attempting to discredit my proposal for
excess argon as coming from the mantle. But wherever excess argon
comes from, it can be removed by heat, so the properties of shale have
no bearing on the question.
Dickin (1995, p. 250) states that argon is not preferentially
incorporated into any mineral at the time of formation. This implies
that it can appear in any mineral, and that any mineral can have
excess argon.
Dr. Henke also mentions a so-called "3-dimensional test" for excess
argon. I read Faure (1986) and Dickin (1995) and am not sure what
test this is referring to. Furthermore, if there were a foolproof
test for excess argon, then Faure and Dickin would have been sure to
mention it.
A possible source of excess argon is argon that diffuses up from the
mantle of the earth. Dr. Henke belittles this concern and implies
that it is mainly a concern of creationists: "Like Slusher (1981) and
other creationists, Dr. Plaisted has an overriding concern that 40Ar
rises from the mantle, routinely migrates into a wide variety of
minerals, and fools geologists by producing K-Ar dates that are too
old." This is not just a concern of creationists, but is mentioned in
Faure (1986, pp. 72, 79) as a possible source of excess argon.
Excess Argon and Cooling Lava
Dr. Henke asserts that as lava or magma cools, it cracks, permitting
the flow of argon, so that argon from the center of the lava or magma
will have time to escape, since the center takes longer to cool. He
implies that this eliminates the problem of excess argon. He also
states that sediment is highly permeable to argon, also removing the
problem of excess argon.
However, we know that cool rocks permit much less diffusion of argon
than hot ones. Even if the rock has cracks, most of the surface area
of cooling lava will be covered by cool rock, which will obstruct the
flow of argon. So it is only reasonable to assume that argon will
tend to be trapped inside in many cases and give K-Ar ages that are
too old. Besides, if Dr. Henke's scenario were valid, then we should
never have a problem with excess argon, but in fact it is very common,
even according to geologists. Dr. Henke asserts that "excess argon in
plutonic rocks is rare," citing Harland et al (1990, p. 75) who state
that "excess Ar in intrusive rocks is rare." However, Dickin (1995,
p. 250) says that excess argon "may be a particular problem in
plutonic rocks." Of course, whether argon in a rock is excess or not
is largely a matter of interpretation, and no one can say for sure
where the argon came from. If excess argon is never a problem, then
why do geologists use isochrons and the 3-dimensional test and the
spectrum test to attempt to detect it? Finally, if argon diffuses
through sediment so easily, then this is not a problem, because
it would explain how argon rising from the mantle could enter cooling
lava and magma and give K-Ar ages that are much too old.
Dr. Henke questions the relevance of the fact that ancient lava flows
were often flat. I discussed this before, and will not repeat myself
here. He also questions how I know that ancient lava flows were often
flat. For constructing a geological time scale, one needs lava flows
that are narrowly bounded in time, which implies that they are bounded
above by a flat layer of sediment. I also don't recall seeing
volcano-shaped lava flows in the midst of sediment, though they may
exist.
Mixings and Isochrons
I asserted that mixings often create isochrons having no age
significance, but Dr. Henke, citing Dalrymple (1984), disputes this.
Dalrymple states that mixing processes are unlikely in magma.
However, Faure (1986, p. 141) mentions that mixings can occur as magma
rises through the earth, Dickin (1995, pp. 43-35) discusses mixings in
the mantle. Faure (1986, p. 147) also discusses how mixings can
produce isochrons having no age significance. He states that mixings
are an important geological phenomenon. Geologists themselves often
suggest that spurious isochrons are caused by mixings. Dr. Henke
repeats an argument of Dalrymple (1984) that isochrons produced by
mixings should tend to have a negative slope as often as a positive
slope. However, it is easy to imagine the probability distribution
being biased so that isochrons with a positive slope are preferred to
those with a negative slope. There are also a number of mixing
processes that can create isochrons with a positive but not a negative
slope, as I will indicate. Dalrymple (1984) attempts to explain away
the fact that many published isochrons have correlations suggesting
mixings, saying that such correlations do not prove a mixing. But it
is difficult to imagine probability distributions that would cause so
many isochrons to have such correlations, unless they were indeed
caused by mixings. I also did not see Dalrymple's arguments about
mixings repeated in Faure (1986) or Dickin (1995).
Here is a mixing process that can create K-Ar isochrons. Suppose that
we have lava with uniform potassium and argon 40 concentrations, and
considerable excess argon 40, but very little argon 36. Then suppose
that some argon 36 and argon 40 from the atmosphere enters the lava,
more in some places than others. This will produce a nice K-Ar
isochron, but the age will be meaningless, and much too large. Such
an isochron may have a correlation suggesting a mixing, but this does
not matter, as isochrons having such correlations are routinely
accepted as valid by geologists. This process can produce isochrons
with a positive, but not a negative, slope. The assumptions of this
process also seem natural in lava which does not cool slowly, as one
would expect the concentration of potassium to be relatively
uniform.
Here is another process that can only create isochrons with a positive
slope. Suppose we have two sources, both having the same percentage
of Sr88. One source also has substantial Rb87 and Sr87 and the other
source has very little of either. Then a mixing will produce an
isochron giving an age equal to the daughter-to-parent age of the
first source. In this way, daughter to parent ages can be converted
to isochrons. Therefore any process that can disturb
daughter-to-parent ages can also lead to isochrons giving false
ages.
Woodmorappe (1999, p. 70) gives references stating that even if an
isochron does not have a mixing correlation, it can still be caused by
a more complex mixing process.
It is also of note that isochrons cannot always be done; I imagine
that it is difficult to do them on glauconies, for example. And the
points may not line up as required in an isochron.
Devitrified Glass
Dr. Henke disputes a quotation I gave concerning devitrified glass.
If one reads the quote, the assumption of Evernden et al is that the
K-Ar date of the devitrified glass gives the date of the
devitrification, but not necessarily the date of the lava flow. When
devitrification occurs, glass can lose argon. Evernden et al were
puzzled because the K-Ar date of the devitrified glass was young even
though it appeared that the devitrification occurred at the same time
as the lava flow. Here is a case where a young, possibly correct date
is rejected by geologists due to long-age presuppositions.
Radiation and Decay Rates
I considered the possibility that radiation, specifically neutrinos,
could influence decay rates. Dr. Henke asks how radiation could reset
radiometric clocks. It should be obvious from my articles that if
decay rates were increased rapidly, then radiometric dates would
rapidly become very old, resetting the clocks. Dr. Henke states that
since so few neutrinos interact with matter, it is unlikely that they
could influence decay rates. I admit that this seems strange.
However, such a prodigious number of neutrinos are produced that they
might influence decay rates even if only a small percentage of them
interact. To determine whether this could happen requires a detailed
calculation. Complicating the matter are 1) that the physics of
neutrinos is still not completely understood and 2) the radiation from
supernovae and black holes is not isotropic, but concentrated in
narrow beams, based on recent observations. This makes it more
difficult to estimate the amount and energy of the radiation produced,
and also means that if the solar system were in one of these
high-intensity beams of radiation, the intensity of radiation would be
greatly increased. Such radiation would not necessarily sterilize the
earth, as Dr. Henke suggests, but it might heat it up and lead to
volcano eruptions and steam escaping from the earth, precipitating the
Flood. But such radiation might indeed destroy life. It need not be
neutrinos that produce such effects, but could be other kinds of
radiation, such as gamma rays. It would only be necessary for
radiation to increase decay rates near the surface of the earth, since
fossils are mostly found in sedimentary rock, and all sedimentary rock
was once near the surface. At this point, we don't have enough
information to know whether radiation from a nearby supernova could
have produced such a catastrophe, but the possibility is worth
considering.
I suggested that such a supernova might have increased radiometric
dates by about 600 million years and produced the observed one percent
discrepancy in dates observed in meteorites. This would invalidate
dates on the phanerozoic. Dr. Henke states that a one percent
discrepancy on the phanerozoic is not significant, but this comment is
irrelevant to my point.
The following comment by Keith Wanser, a creationist physicist, quoted
in Creation Ex Nihilo 21(4) p. 40 is significant:
Actually, it turns out that when you get the nucleus "excited",
decay is going to be much quicker, making things look vastly "older".
People have been talking recently about magnetic stars giving off
big bursts of gamma rays; there are all sorts of ways that radiometric
"clocks" could have been reset catastrophically, during the Flood, for
example.
Concerning the possibility that a change in the speed of light could
have affected decay rates, Dr. Henke says that any such change would
have been small. However, some (non-creationist) cosmologists are
proposing very large changes in the speed of light. Dr. Henke also
says that observations of distant supernovae show that rates of decay
have not changed. This is not conclusive, however, because there is
reason to believe that the speed of light and decay rates would change
by the same amount. Since a slowdown in light would make distant
objects appear in slow motion (think about it), the decay rate would
not appear to have changed.
The Use of the Literature
Dr. Henke suggests I read Odin's two volume survey of radiometric
dating. This would serve little purpose, since Harland et al (1990)
used all the dates from Odin that they could. It is true that this
might indicate which dates were obtained by isochrons. However, it
would have taken only a little space for Harland et al to have
included this information, and would have saved the reader
considerable effort. This is after all part of the purpose of a book,
to save the reader from chasing down many separate references.
Dr. Henke suggests that I read still more references. I have already
read a number of the most central books about this topic without
finding the pot at the end of the rainbow that would show that
radiomatric dating is valid on the phanerozoic. How many more should
I read, and to what purpose? It would aid this exchange if Dr. Henke
would be more careful to read my responses and not misunderstand or
misrepresent them in his subsequent replies.
Finally, I recommend Woodmorappe (1999) as a good source of quotations
from the geological literature about problems with radiometric
dating.
Minor Matters
Dr. Henke states, "Dr. Plaisted continues to cite erroneous and
insulting claims from Slusher (1981, p. 38) that scientists tend to
`fudge' the K-Ar branching ratio." This is completely false. I
managed to determine the true situation about the branching factor
from Harland et al (1990), since Dr. Henke's previous reply did not
completely settle the issue in my mind. In my previous response, I
acknowledged that the true value of the branching factor has been
known and used since the mid-fifties. Even Dalrymple did not refer to
Slusher's statement about this in as severe terms as Dr. Henke did.
Slusher was using an outdated reference, which is an understandable
mistake.
Dr. Henke asserts that Slusher's claim that there is far too much
argon 40 to be produced by decay of potassium 40 in 4.5 billion years,
is based on an erroneous branching factor. This cannot be true,
because the branching factor error would only change the amount of
argon 40 generated by a factor of about 1.5. I already discussed the
situation concerning this claim in my previous response to
Dr. Henke.
Dr. Henke misunderstands my use of the one percent discrepancy in
meteorite dates. He states, "However, doing the math, we see that a
1% error for a 550 million year old Cambrian rock is 5.5 million years
and not 45-50 million years." I encourage Dr. Henke and others to
read my previous reply to see my comments on this matter.
Dr. Henke states, "it takes up to about 1 million years for glaucony
to transformation to glauconite (Faure, 1986, p. 78)." This statement
is probably based on assumptions from radiometric dating, which is
itself at issue in this discussion.
Dr. Henke states, "Dr. Plaisted is concerned that minor heating or
groundwater interactions may somehow add or remove argon and mess up
K-Ar dates without leaving any other chemical or mineralogical
changes." In fact, it is not only I that am concerned, as the
following quotation from my previous response shows: "Faure (1986,
p. 123) verifies that modest increases in temperature of one or two
hundred degrees centigrade can have drastic effects on radiometric
dates without any observable changes in the rocks. Faure (1986,
p. 69) mentions specifically that heating can cause argon loss without
any other physical or chemical changes in the rock."
Concerning errors in K-Ar dating due to atmospheric argon, Dr. Henke
states, "Dr. Plaisted omits the next critical sentence in Dickin
(1995, p. 247), which indicates that these errors are NOT a problem
for old and/or K-rich samples." Unfortunately, I could not determine
exactly how much atmospheric argon can be deposited on or in a rock in
various lengths of time. Unless we know this, we cannot decide how
old a rock has to be for this not to be a problem. But geologists are
sufficiently concerned about it to try to account for atmospheric
argon whenever K-Ar dates are measured.
Concerning a statement I quoted from Harland et al (1990), Dr. Henke
responds
In response to this consistency between fossils and
radiometric dating, all Dr. Plaisted can do is accuse Harland et al.
(1990) of "circular reasoning" based on the old fallacious creationist
mantra: "rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks."
Actually, I have accepted the reality of the geological sequence, and
so I found this statement from Harland et al to be rather curious.
The statement from Harland et al follows:
Biologic evolutionary history, especially for Phanerozoic time, has given
us not only the principal means of time-correlation but the basis of the
unique progressive traditional stratigraphic scale.
This statement does make me wonder whether the creationist claim of
circular reasoning has some validity. Probably what is meant is
simply that there appears to be a regular progression of life forms
which can be of use in dating, independently of whether evolution is
true.
Dr. Henke states, "Therefore, the following quotation by Dr. Plaisted
from somewhere in Harland et al. (1990) (see
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/harland.html ), which Dr. Plaisted
calls a `bombshell,' is really a dud: ... " Unfortunately, Dr. Henke
omitted the part of the quotation that I considered a bombshell, thus
completely misrepresenting me and attempting as often is the case to
make me look ridiculous.
Another example of Dr. Henke's ridicule is the quotation "Of course,
geochronologists don't scan the surface of mineral grains looking for
argon "dust bunnies" in cracks to vacuum up. The samples are baked
under a vacuum (Dickin, 1995, p. 246)." But I gave a quotation that
baking under a vacuum is not always able to remove atmospheric
argon.
Conclusion
Dr. Henke's replies have been useful for me as prompts to examine the
literature more closely. However, on checking the literature, I found
that many of his points are not valid. In addition, it appears that
Dr. Henke does all he can to heap abuse on me and other creationists,
attempting to make creationism appear in the worst possible light.
There are also some cases in which my earlier replies are
misunderstood or misrepresented. But I think that anyone who has the
stamina to read through our exchange will learn a lot about the
subject.
Back to home page.
7 Posted on 11/24/1999 09:32:27 PST by Marathon
To: Article: Most Texans Want Prayer, Creation In School
The Dallas Morning News, November 21, 1999, Sunday, Pg. 41A
HEADLINE: Most back student-led prayers;
Poll also finds majority of Texans want creationism taught
SOURCE: Austin Bureau of The Dallas Morning News
BYLINE: Terrence Stutz
DATELINE: AUSTIN
AUSTIN Most Texans support studentled prayers at athletic events and
also want to see creationism taught in the public schools, a new poll shows.
The latest Texas Poll indicated that 82 percent of Texans believe
students should be allowed to lead prayers over public address systems
before football games and other sporting events.
The telephone survey results come as the U.S. Supreme Court agreed
this past week to decide whether such public prayers are legal. A federal
appeals court, ruling in a Texas case, has banned the practice.
On another contentious issue affecting schools, nearly twothirds of
poll respondents 64 percent said creationism should be taught in public
schools along with evolution.
Less than a third, however, supported the notion that only the
biblical account of the creation of man should be taught in schools.
Evolution the generally accepted theory that man evolved from lower
life forms is taught in science classes in Texas. Under a U.S. Supreme
Court ruling, states cannot require that creationism be taught, although
teachers are free to discuss the subject with their students.
Religious and social conservative groups said the overwhelming support
for prayer at high school sporting events shows the courts are out of step
with the public.
"These numbers are very much in line with the opinions of people I
talk to every day Democrats as well as Republicans, native Texans and
those who came here by choice," said Cathie Adams, president of the Texas
Eagle Forum.
"When the Supreme Court struck down the right to pray in school, we
saw an obvious result. Now they want to take prayer away in another arena,"
she said.
"How far are they going to take this? Where is it going to stop? Is
the school bus next and the kitchen table after that?" Civil liberties
groups, on the other hand, said the court ruling on prayers at football
games has been widely misinterpreted by critics.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a policy in the
Santa Fe, Texas, school district that allowed students to deliver
"messages" or "invocations" before football games. That decision was
appealed by the school district to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"The question is whether students should be compelled to participate
in each other's religion," said Samantha Smoot of the Texas Freedom Network.
"For many Texans, the idea of hearing another religion's god worshiped
over a loudspeaker at a football game would be appalling."
Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of
Church and State, said much of the opposition to the ruling comes from
"forces who didn't like the 1960s decisions on school prayer" and now "want
to chip away at them."
In 1962, the high court prohibited public schools from having
organized prayer, and a year later the court banned the Lord's Prayer and
Bible readings in classrooms.
The Texas Poll was conducted from Oct. 13 to Nov. 1 by the Scripps
Howard Data Center, which questioned 1,000 randomly selected adult Texans.
The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points,
which means that results could vary that much in either direction.
On two other related questions, most respondents said students should
be allowed to participate in prayer while at school (84 percent) and should
be allowed to lead prayers in the locker room before games (87 percent).
"There is a myth that prayer is not permitted in school. Nothing could
be further from the truth. Students pray every day in school," Ms. Smoot
said, noting that the prohibition is on school officials holding organized
prayers.
Regarding the teaching of creationism, even conservative textbook
critics such as Mel Gabler of Longview acknowledge such instruction cannot
be required in public schools under current court rulings.
Mr. Gabler and social conservatives have focused their attention on
trying to ensure that evolution is taught as theory, with students given
the arguments for and against the theory.
"We just want evolution to be taught honestly," said Mr. Gabler, head
of Educational Research Analysts.
"While there is evidence for evolution, there is also strong evidence
against it. Let's show kids both sides and let them make up their own minds."
The problem, he said, is that science books adopted in Texas do not
present both sides as they should under current state curriculum
requirements.
"Occasionally, individual teachers on their own will teach the pros
and cons of creationism, but a large number said they are reluctant to do
it because it can hurt their job evaluations," he said.
Ms. Smoot of the Texas Freedom Network discounted the poll results
showing Texas wants creationism taught in schools.
"The poll reflects Texans' religious beliefs more than their vision of
what should be taught in public schools," she said.
At the very least, she added, the results do not show much support for
removing the topic of evolution from the classroom.
Until 1984, the State Board of Education had a textbook rule that
required equal coverage of all theories about the origin of man, primarily
creationism and evolution.
That rule was declared unconstitutional by the attorney general, and
in 1990, the board approved a massive purchase of science textbooks that
were required to cover evolution but not creationist theories.
The move by the board was heralded by scientists and educators
nationwide because of the dominant influence Texas has on the national
textbook market. Texas remains the largest single purchaser of textbooks in
the United States.
9 Posted on 11/24/1999 09:43:32 PST by Marathon
