Deposition of Hilton Fay Hinderliter - Page 2
51
that the universe was billions of years old. Now that I know there are kinds that give different ages, I see no reason to believe that the earth is necessarily billions of years old.
Q: Can you tell me what methods you are thinking of that gives ages in the billions of years?
A: Radiometric dating, radioactive dating.
Q: Are there any others?
A: I know of some that have been argued as grounds for billions of years ages, such as supposed distances to the stars being billions of light years, but I do not consider those to be — maybe I should say those arguments and dating methods are based on a number of other assumptions which are not testable, not provable.
Q: When you say those dating methods, do you mean the radiometric methods and the notion, of the distance to the stars, or both of them?
A: Both of them.
They both involve unprovable assumptions.
Q: Do you have any other way of calculating the age of the universe that results in billions of
52
years, in addition to the ones you have referred to?
A: Offhand, I don't know of any. There may be other methods that people have advanced, but I would not consider them convincing proof.
Q: Could you tell me now of any other methods that you are aware of as you sit here today?
A: I have heard of methods involving the rate of flow of different chemicals into the oceans. Some give ages in the millions of years and some give ages in the thousands of years. So, there are some of each. (Continued on the next page.)
53
Q: Sir, can you tell me about the ways of calculating age that do not give ages in the billions of years that you are aware of?
A: You want me to describe some?
Q: Please.
A: One would be the scientific evidence bearing on the short period comets, the lifetime of the short period comets; namely, the short period comets revolve in their orbits around the sun and they decrease in luminosity. If one were to extrapolate backwards in time, the rate at which they decrease in luminosity, then any age of the solar system in excess of an age in the order of tens of thousands of years would presuppose that those comets were, at that time, at their earlier times, not — that it is inconceivable that those comets would have had such a nature at such an earlier time.
In other words, they might have been as bright as the sun, for example.
Q: Are there any other methods?
A: I feel there are.
I don't know, that I can quote specific ones. I didn't bring long-hand notes of lists of
54
dating methods, or anything.
Q: Sir, do you consider yourself qualified to give testimony at trial as to any methods for calculating the age of the earth or the age of the universe?
A: Yes.
Q: Which methods, sir?
A: I could speak to the radioactive dating methods, pointing out the assumptions put into them. Perhaps, any other ones that deal with knowledge of physics.
Q: Can you recall what any others which deal with the knowledge of physics might be?
A: One would be the decay of comets.
Q: Are there any others?
A: I can't think of any other particular ones right now.
Q: Doctor, given your awareness of the various evidence and the methods for calculating an age for the earth, do you have a view as to what the age of the earth is, based on all of the presently available evidence?
A: From a scientific standpoint, I have no reason to believe the earth is — I have no more reason to believe that the earth is on the order of thousands
55
of years than I have to believe it is on the order of millions of years.
Q: Does that mean that you do not have an opinion one way or the other? I am not certain I understand you.
A: Yes, right.
I do not feel there is convincing scientific evidence to judge in favor of one or the other.
Q: Is there any range for the age of the earth which you feel that scientific evidence is able to eliminate as a possibility?
A: I don't know if you want to get into philosophy of second-agoers.
From a philosophical standpoint, you cannot prove that the earth was not created five seconds ago, and we have our memory.
That's from a philosophical standpoint. I don't particularly go with that and believe we were created five seconds ago, or anything. I would say, as far as science and history is concerned, I think there is evidence, whether it is scientific evidence or not, that the earth is at least six-thousand years old.
Q: My inquiry was simply whether you
56
believe the evidence supports any limits, and I would be happy to hear that.
A: I believe the earth is at least six- thousand years old, but not based particularly on scientific evidence.
It is based more on historical evidence. I don't think the subject of science can speak to what happened in the past. There is no way to know.
There is no observers before whom history was written, and I question a lot of the assumptions that are made in calculating ages.
Q: Do you believe that scientific evidence sets any upper limit for the age of the earth?
A: No.
Q: Do you know that there is any other evidence relevant to the question of upper or lower limits for the earth's age?
A: I believe there is historical evidence that the earth is at least a certain number of years. It is whatever thousands of years are recorded in history. I do not necessarily accept all the chronologies that are calculated for — like some
57
civilizations, if it was stated that that civilization existed 10,000 B.C., I might question the dating methods as to how that date was ascertained.
Q: Doctor, do you have in mind any particular historical evidence which you do regard as valid or worthy of belief?
A: On the age question?
Q: Yes sir.
A: In the sense of being authoritative, no.
There is historical evidence of many kinds, and I do not have reason to single any one.
Q: Are there any other kinds of evidence, other than scientific or historical, that you think are relevant to the question of the earth's age?
A: I guess none that I would single out.
MR. CLARK: Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) (Short recess taken.)
Q: Doctor, what do you expect to testify about in the area of philosophy of science?
A: I think one area would he as to whether it is scientific to consider the possibility of supernatural events.
58
Q: Is there any other area?
A: I would say general logic or illogic employed in textbook expositions on evolution.
Q: Any others?
A: Those are the only ones I can think of now.
Q: What would you expect to testify about concerning whether or not it is scientific to consider the plausibility of supernatural events?
A: I think I would show, for one thing, it is not a necessary requirement of science in the context of science being taught in public schools and supported by Government agencies, it's not a necessary assumption of science that the possibility of supernatural events be excluded.
Q: Am I correct that you believe that it is scientific to consider the plausibility of supernatural events?
A: Certainly, within the definition of science as implicit in the Act 590.
Q: Sir, would you say that it is a generally accepted definition of science that supernatural events are included?
A: I cannot say that it is generally
59
accepted, no.
Q: Then, would you say that the generally accepted definition of science excludes the possibility of supernatural events?
A: I couldn't really say, but I don't know what the generally accepted view of science is. I have never seen it stated as such.
Q: Do you have any awareness or knowledge about what a generally accepted definition of science is?
A: No, I don't know of any generally accepted definition of science. I have even heard it said that science is what scientists do, considering that the question is what is science. There are people in the profession, not creationists who acknowledge that there is no generally accepted — well, there are people who admit that there is a problem with the definition of science and that's not exactly what I said before, but I think that's the idea.
Q: Doctor, have you had any course work in the philosophy of science?
A: None that I can remember.
60
Q: Have you done any reading in the philosophy of science?
A: Yes.
Q: Could you tell me some of the things that you have read?
A: I have had some exposure to a book by Thomas Kuhn, and I believe the title was The Nature of Scientific Revolutions.
Q: Do you recall any others?
A: None that I could cite by reference. I have read a number of things over the years.
There was one NSFS Chautauqua-type short course, where I read about the philosophy of science. I wrote to the director of that course and asked for materials.
I don't remember specifically what they were. That was one thing where I can remember I sought some materials on the philosophy of science.
Q: Do you recall any other authors whose work you have read about the philosophy of science?
A: I can't recall any now.
Q: Would you recognize any authorities
61
or important workers on the philosophy of science? And, if so, who would they be?
A: I don't know that I would be knowledgeable on who I would consider to be an authority.
I could quote on the former question. I have thought of another philosopher. Carl Popper. And, I have read some of his statements that he made on some discussion relative to those statements.
Q: Were the things of Popper's you have read in things or articles by him or other materials that refer to his work?
A: Other materials that referred to his work. I never read any of his manuscripts.
Relative to a previous question, all the basic physics books have an introductory section on science which contains material on the philosophy of science.
Q: Sir, returning to a question I asked a moment ago, are there any workers or thinkers in the philosophy of science who you would recognize as having made important contributions, or being authorities?
62
A: From what I read, it would seem that Kuhn and Popper were recognized authorities, although I have no personal reason to accept them as authorities or not.
Q: Is there anyone who you would personally recognize as an authority?
A: On the philosophy of science?
Q: Yes.
A: Not necessarily on the philosophy of science.
But, on the subject of philosophy, in general, I know of a philosopher whose opinion I would consider quite authoritative. He might not be recognized by any accepted community but for my personal knowledge of him.
Q: Who is that?
A: Dr. Arthur Kannwesher. He is now retired.
He was formerly a professor of philosophy in the University of Pittsburgh.
Q: Are you aware of any work that Dr. Kannwesher has done in the philosophy of science?
A: No, I am not.
Q: Doctor, have you a definition of
63
science that you personally use?
A: I think I said before that science can be defined different ways for different contexts. So, I don't have any choice. It is valid to say science is knowledge that we gain. In the context of this law, I think science is defined — it's not explicitly stated, but I think it's implicit in the definition in Act 590, Section 4.
You get the idea that science would be knowledge gained by observations made with physical senses. I find that a perfectly valid or acceptable definition of science. (Continued on the next page.)
64
Q: Sir, given that definition, would you say that evolution is a science?
A: Yes.
Q: So, would you say that, by that same definition, creation-science is a science?
A: Yes.
Q: Doctor, I thought that I understood you to say a short while ago that among the things you might expect to say in your testimony about the philosophy of science was that it is scientific to consider the possibility of supernatural events. Is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: Sir, could you tell me whether you are aware of any knowledge gained by observations made with the physical senses that bears on the existence of supernatural events?
A: Yes.
Q: What is that, sir.
A: I think in some of the publications I gave you, if one takes the first and second laws of thermodynamics, which are derived from observations made with the physical senses, one, if one tries to extrapolate the application of those laws backwards in
65
time indefinitely, one arrives at a contradiction. To me, that is, in fact, an argument derived from that definition of science that is an argument that supernatural events have occurred.
Q: What is the contradiction that you arrive at if you extrapolate those two laws backwards in time?
A: The second law of thermodynamics, on which I don't claim to be an authority, but it is generally expressed in textbooks and in courses that I have had and in things I have read by authoritative sources, that given sufficient time, the universe as it behaves now, if it had sufficient time, it would progress to a state known as a "heat death," where energy would exist, matter would exist, but no thermodynamic process would occur.
That is, things at higher temperatures would cool down to intermediate temperatures and things at lower temperatures would warm up to intermediate temperatures and energy would exist, but it would be impossible to construct an engine that could run on energy, because everything would be at a thermal equilibrium. From various writers in astronomy, it
66
is stated, if the universe never breaks this pattern of "running down," eventually, all stars would burn out and there would be no life.
I believe it is a statement that they made, the people I referred to, that life could not exist and everything would be at uniform temperature. In the second law of thermodynamics, if the universe behaved itself in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, with no violation of that law, from the fact that we see the universe is not in a heat death, it must have been brought into being at a prior time, or wound up, that is, ordered. In the opposite sense of the second law of thermodynamics, saying that the orderliness of the universe is always decreasing as a whole. So, if the universe — another way of saying it is that the universe has not always been here for every function as it now functions. If the universe has not always been here for forever, then it must have come here into being or ordered.
That would violate the first law of thermodynamics, which expresses conservation of matter.
67
Either the universe has come into being, which violates the first law, or it must have been ordered sometime in the past. Some event must have happened not now in the scheme of the way things happen. Either way you look at it, something must have violated the first or second laws of thermodynamics.
This is not a deduction based on lack of information. It is a deduction based on knowledge of the ways things are observed to have happened now.
Q: Is the view that you have just expressed. Doctor, consistent with the definition of evolutionscience used in Act 590?
A: Could you rephrase it? Is what I have just said consistent with the definition of evolution-science?
Q: As used in Act 590.
A: What I said about the contradiction about the first and second laws of thermodynamics, I don't understand that and what was about the evolution-science.
Q: Sir, do you regard the contradiction between what you had described as related to the
68
definition of evolution-science?
A: You would not regard it as related to the definition of it.
Q: Do you regard it as relevant to determining the scientific basis or lack of basis for evolution-science?
A: Let me say this. Maybe, this will answer your question in a round-about way. I think the idea that science excludes the supernatural is one of the major means of textbooks used in the public schools — it's one of their major means of portraying evolution as more scientific than creation. Since I found within this exclusion of supernatural events a self-contradiction, I view that as insufficient grounds for portraying evolution-science as superior to creation-science.
Q: Doctor, is it your view that creation- science resorts to supernatural explanations?
A: Within a definition of creation-science in the Act, I think that is apparent. Section 4, Item A-1: "Sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing."
69
I would have to consider that as a supernatural event.
Q: Is it your view, that evolution-science resorts to supernatural explanations?
A: Yes.
In my view, any evolutionary scenario that I have ever heard must, in some way, base its argument or include in its argument some occurrence which I would consider to be a supernatural event. It would not be consistent with the way things happen now.
Q: Are you able to describe an instance of that?
A: Yes.
I think the Big Bang Theory that I have described and descriptions of the presumed Big Bang includes events which are things that are not now able to be studied by scientific processes.
Q: Are you aware of any other instances in which evolution-science resorts to supernatural explanation, aside from the Big Bang?
A: Perhaps, in the question of the origin of life. I have read, and I do not consider
70
myself an authority, but I have read a statistical computation on the probability of life evolving from non-living matter, and given the magnitude of the chance of life evolving by natural process, I would say that, if it did evolve by that means, to go a degree, is belief in supernatural. In other words, if there was essentially no chance of evolving and somebody states it evolved, anyhow, I would consider that, really, reverting to a sort of supernatural-type definition or supernatural-type argument.
Q: Have you ever read work by scientists asserting that it is possible to account for the evolution of life from non-living matter exclusively by resort to natural processes?
A: Isn't that included in the definition of evolution-science?
Or, are you now asking me that question? You are asking if I have ever read anybody that stated that?
Q: Are you aware of work that has been done in which scientists have asserted that life could emerge by non-life, by naturalistic processes?
71
A: I think I have read quite a few of those.
I don't know if I can cite any particular reference at the moment.
Q: Looking at the definition of evolution- science in the Act, as you suggested, is there anything in that Section 4-B that you would regard as resorting to non-naturalistic or supernatural processes?
A: No.
I would say that definition excludes under evolution-science — by that definition, evolution-science would exclude the possibility of supernatural events.
That is what is meant by the term "naturalistic" in Item B-1.
Q: Doctor, can you recall any other instance which you would say that knowledge gained by observations made with the physical senses bears on the possibility of supernatural events in earth history?
A: This would not be an example of some thing where I think observations necessarily prove the supernatural event occurred. But, I can tell you where studies are
72
being done, that could possibly lead to some proof of this supernatural event.
It has to do with what is considered the Shroud of Turin, where scientists studied the Shroud and some of the researchers concluded there are things there beyond explanation and, therefore, they believe it demonstrates that supernatural events have occurred.
But, I do not take any position on that subject, whether I believe it is authentic or whether this proves supernatural events, but one could point to that as a possible subject for study.
There is another example of scientific evidence that is evidence gained by the observations as I included in — not my definition of science, but the definition that I find implicit in this Act to which I consider a valid definition. That is the question of radio-halos as studied by Robert Gentry.
I don't claim to be an authority on that, and he would be more qualified to explain that than myself.
Q: Are there any other instances, sir?
A: I can't think of any others right now.
73
Q: Doctor, do you have any understanding or definition that you would use that distinguishes science from religion?
A: I had said that I do not personally prefer one definition of science over another. It depends on the context of the subject under discussion, in the sense that science could be considered a search for knowledge. And, I think, there is not necessarily any distinction between science as a religion. In other definitions of science, I think there would be distinctions. (Continued on the next page.)
74
Q: Can you give me an instance in which under an accepted definition of science, it would be distinguished from religion?
A: Under one type of definition of science includes the requirement that any scientific theory be falsifiable, and I do not view religious ideas as being falsifiable.
Q: Dr., using the definition that you have just alluded to, that is, science may be defined as a theory that can be falsified, would you say that evolution-science is a science under that definition?
A: I would say that proponents of evolution, of evolutionary theories, do not advance falsifiability criteria; that is, they do not offer any tests whereby they would allow evolution to be falsifiable; however, that does not mean that I do not consider evolution to be falsifiable.
Q: Do you consider evolution to be falsifiable?
A: Personally, yes.
Q: Would you consider creation-science to be falsifiable?
A: Again, as myself being I suppose you would say a proponent of creation, I cannot conceive really. of — I cannot think of anything I can give as a
75
falsifiable test for creationism as such but evolutionists consider creation to be falsifiable. Maybe I should clear up that statement.
Q: I would like to make sure that the record has a clear distinction between your own views and views you attribute to others.
Could you, perhaps, just say clearly whether you regard evolution-science as falsifiable and whether you regard creation-science as falsifiable and then if you have your other things concerning others, you can add to that.
A: Concerning evolution-science, I believe that there is evidence which falsifies evolution. Concerning creation-science, I do not think there is any evidence which falsifies creation. Does that answer your question?
Q: Not entirely. If I understood you, you have said that you believe there is evidence which falsifies evolution-science and you believe there is no evidence which falsifies creation-science?
A: Correct.
Q: I conclude also that you believe that evolution-science is falsifiable, there being evidence that you regard as falsifying-it?
76
A: Yes, but I don't state that evolutionist present their theory as a falsifiable theory. In other words, the things I would say were falsifications of evolution, an evolutionist would explain around it and give some other explanation for that. He would not consider that evidence of falsification of evolution; and I have written to some evolutionists, in particular, Stephen F. Gould, who claims evolution was falsifiable and he could give falsifiable criteria. I wrote to him twice and asked what he was referring to and he has never answered me.
Q: I am still concerned that the record will prove to be not clear.
A: You still have to figure out whether I consider creation falsifiable.
Q: I understood that you said you believe there is evidence which falsifies evolution-science?
A: Correct.
Q: You believe evolution-science is falsifiable, that is, you personally?
A: Right.
Q: And you have said you believe there is no evidence which falsifies creation-science?
77
A: Correct.
Q: That leaves the question: Do you believe creation-science is falsifiable?
A: Not in principle, no.
Q: Why is that, sir?
A: Because I cannot conceive of any kind of experiment whose results could necessarily infer that creation has not occurred.
Q: Dr., do you regard or would you regard evolution-science as a religion?
A: I really am not competent to define what a religion is. Do you want to define "religion" and I can answer it?
Q: I would be interested in the definition of religion that you use, if you, in fact, have one.
A: I would not state that evolution as such is a religion, but I would state that evolution is a necessary basis for certain religions.
Q: Which ones are those?
A: Secular Humanism in particular; Atheism, if you consider that to be a religion.
Q: Are there any others?
A: I think there are others. I think some of the Eastern religions include a basic idea of
78
evolution as necessary for their explanations as to how the world came to be.
Q: Would you regard creation-science as a religion under the same criteria that you used in your response?
A: I said I did not consider evolution as such to be a religion, and parallel to that, I do not consider creation-science itself to be a religion but I recognize that it is similarly a basic tenant of certain religions or required of certain religions.
Q: Dr., I believe you stated earlier that you expected to give testimony within the area of philosophy of science, about logic or illogic as it appears in textbooks on evolution science. Could you describe your expected testimony in that area?
A: I don't necessarily recall everything that would be involved. One aspect would be analyzing a typical textbook, science textbook in the public schools and seeing whether the argument presented is logical or not.
Q: Can you point to any instances in which you think that works on evolution-science or scientific papers on evolution-science are illogical?
79
A: Yes. I believe one of the items I gave you, an article entitled, "Does It Belong Here," it quoted from a scientific textbook, and showed for one thing, in making a case for evolution, there was never any logical demonstration that evolution had occurred. There was merely an assumption that it occurred.
Another thing included was a mention of scientific experiments related to spontaneous generation of life. In particular, it pointed out that Pasteur, by scientific experiments, showed life does not arise spontaneously but it went on then by assumption to state that life had arisen spontaneously.
Q: Could you describe for me how the articles that you have published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly bear on your expected testimony as to the philosophy of science?
A: In one particular detail, I could give a possible example. On the subject of logic, the article about the solar contraction points out the type of logic used in concluding that the sun derives its energy from nuclear fission. My article points out that this deduction that the sun derives its energy from nuclear fission
80
based on or includes as a necessary fact the sun being billions of years old, when, in fact, as I mentioned before, I don't feel there is conclusive evidence that the sun is billions of years old.
Therefore, the argument that the sun must derive its energy from nuclear fission is not necessarily a logical argument because it fails to provide any conclusive evidence that the sun is billions of years old.
Q: Dr., what is your view as to the present state of the scientific evidence on the age of the sun? How old is the sun, given the current state of the evidence?
A: I only know of two ways in the scientific literature concerning the age of the sun, its determination. One would have to do with radioactive dating where other materials in the solar system are dated, which was addressed in previous questions. Another argument from which the age of the sun is deduced is the presumed sequence whereby stars are said to evolve from one state to another. Since that is said to require, for any change in that sequence to occur, vast periods of time is required, many orders of magnitude, longer than a
81
human lifetime or longer than the time science as a human pursuit has existed, since those stages of the evolution of stars are not verifiable by someone observing the passage of a star through any such sequence of events, then I don't consider that dating method for the age of stars to be necessarily valid. That was my second point of what I mentioned as the second means by which the age of the sun is computed.
One other method that is given for dating the sun's age would have to do with theories of formation of the solar system, the entire solar system, not just the sun. I couldn't quote any references but from what I studied, I am not convinced that any of those theories of formation of the solar system can be shown to be proven, demonstrated to be consistent with all known scientific laws. That's the end of my answer.
Q: Dr., is it a fair summary of the testimony you have just given that your work on solar contraction, the article, points up illogical reasoning in evolution scientists because the argument for the method by which the sun's energy is derived depends upon a great age for the sun, and since there is not
82
adequate evidence for that great age, the argument becomes illogical?
A: Correct.
Q: Would you say then that the arguments were illogical if there were, in fact, sound evidences for the great age of the sun?
A: It would depend on your definition of the words "sound evidence." If observations could show by some falsifiable method that the sun was, in fact, billions of years old, then I would consider the aspect of evolution-science dealing with the age of the sun and the mechanism whereby the sun derives its energy, I would consider that as a logical possibility.
Q: Dr., do you regard the method of determining an age for the sun that you referred to earlier as the method of dating other matter in the solar system by radiometric methods, as falsifiable evidence?
A: No, I don't.
Q: Why is that, sir?
A: Because, for one thing, there is no way of determining what, say, the initial isotopic abundance is for a given parent nuclide were, and on falsifiability I cannot remember any radiometric dating theorist making a statement that if such evidence is found,
83
we will discount radiometric dating as scientific or as accurate, would be the better word.
Q: Dr., what is your view as to the mechanism from which the sun's energy is derived?
A: I don't particularly favor one mechanism over another. I might point out, in the abstract to my article entitled something about the shrinking sun, the abstract states or maybe the abstract to the second article entitled, "The Inconsistent Sun," states, I believe, the gravitational collapse is the mechanism whereby the sun derives its energy.
I did not write that abstract. The editor wrote that and I did not necessarily consider gravitational collapse as the correct mechanism. I think it is a possible mechanism. It has not been discounted for any good scientific reason.
Q: Would you say there are any other mechanisms which have also not been discounted for any valid scientific reasons?
A: There are some other ones mentioned in that article. There are some mechanisms mentioned in that article, ones that have historically been considered such as gravitational absorption or meteorites or cometary material from the sun.
84
Offhand, I couldn't say whether I would judge those to be ruled out by scientific evidence or not. There are other theories and I personally, without studying back into it now, I could not state whether other of those theories could be valid possibilities or not.
Q: Dr., would you state that the theory that the sun derives its energy from nuclear fission is a valid scientific theory?
A: I would consider it a valid possibility. Whether its formulation by, say, people that propose such theory, whether its formulation is given in a falsifiable manner, I do not know.
For example, the Neutrino Paradox. The Neutrino Paradox posed a problem for the nuclear fission model of the sun's derivation and I don't — I am not convinced that the nuclear fission theorists approach that Neutrino Paradox as being possibly a falsification of their own theory.
Q: Do you regard the Neutrino Paradox as a falsification of the nuclear fission theory?
A: There would have to be more elaboration on the nuclear fission theory. There is a view, for example, that nuclear fission occurs only at certain
85
times in the sun's life and if such were true, then there could be a paucity of neutrinos.
There could be a paucity of neutrinos flux as compared to the expectations derived from the previous formulation of the nuclear fusion model. So it would be possible to put together a nuclear fusion model that occurs in spurts so that the Neutrino Paradox would not necessarily falsify the nuclear fusion model.
Q: Would you regard the Neutrino Paradox as a falsification of a model of nuclear fusion for the sun, which expected that the nuclear fusion goes on constantly?
A: Not necessarily. As people have done, it is a possibility that some of the assumptions in the "Neutrino Paradox" may themselves not be demonstrable — that is, certain assumed steps in the nuclear fusion cycle may not be what they were theorized as being, and there might possibly be some other decay that could bleed off some isotope or, in fact, recently there have been theories that neutrinos are not stable and if that happened, verifiable by scientific experiment, then the Neutrino Paradox I would not consider to be a falsification of the constant nuclear fusion theory.
86
AFTERNOON SESSION
(Time Noted: 2:20 PM.)
HILTON FAY HINDERLITER,
having been previously duly sworn, was examined, and testified further as follows:
BY MR. WOLFE:
Q: Doctor, would you tell me what you regard as the basis for your qualifications to testify on the philosophy of science?
A: I would say that that has occupied the principal part of my research and the things that I have studied about creation/evolution for a period of perhaps five years, have mainly dealt with the logic of the arguments involved.
I have had courses in philosophy and logic, even though no specific course in the philosophy of science, and a major aspect of what I teach involves logic, logic dealing with science.
Q: Doctor, what would you say is the basis of your qualifications in nuclear physics?
A: There, I have had formal graduate work on that subject and my degree was granted in that area.
Q: Is any of the work that you have done,
87
the research that you have done since your Ph.D. research, been applicable to nuclear physics, rather than the philosophy of science?
A: What I have done since the granting of my Ph.D. has been the type of experimental research that I did in graduate school.
To the extent that I have studied into, you might say, the arguments involved in the presentation of radiometric dates, I think you could say I have pursued the subject of radioactivity or nuclear physics in that sense further than where I left off with my Ph.D. thesis.
Q: Doctor, do you subscribe to any journals in physics?
A: No.
Q: Do you subscribe to any professional journals at all?
A: Just the Creation Research Society Quarterly.
Q: Sir, what testimony do you expect to give about radioactive decay processes and radiometric dating?
A: Basically, I presume I could say that I have no qualms about the theory of radioactivity,
88
half-lifes and such, but the dating methods involve certain assumptions which are not falsifiable or subject to proof or even verification. So, it would be those assumptions that I would question.
Q: What are those assumptions, sir?
A: I believe there are three principal assumptions. One is, in order to calculate an age from mathematic dating, one must know the initial isotopic abundance of the parent nuclides. Another one is the radioactive decay rates have remained constant throughout time, and the third assumption is that no transport phenomena have moved nuclides into the system or out of the system during the time that the radioactive disintegration is to have taken place.
Q: Do you regard all three of the assumptions you have just listed as non-falsifiable?
A: I do not regard them all as non-falsifiable, but I do regard them in their present state of presentation as not being demonstrated to have been necessarily true.
Q: Doctor, would you say that the three
89
assumptions you have listed apply to all the radiometric dating methods with which you are familiar?
A: Yes.
Q: Which methods have you worked with, sir, or made inquiry into?
A: Three methods:
Uranium to lead; potassium to argon; and one that is not referred to as much is rubidium to strontium.
Q: Do you regard those three methods or either of them as capable of giving an accurate estimate of the age of the earth?
A: No.
Q: Why is that, sir?
A: Because any calculation based on them is no more conclusive than the assumptions put into them.
Therefore, when you say "accurate," I assume you mean this is known this is what the age of the earth is.
Q: Doctor, are any of the three assumptions that you listed falsifiable?
A: In principle, I think they could be considered falsifiable.
90
Q: So that is your view as to all three?
A: I am not sure I could say that — guessing of initial isotopic abundances could be worked into some falsifiable statement.
Q: Then, is it correct that it would be your view that the other two assumptions, namely, that radioactive decay rates have been constant through time and what we might call the assumption of the absence of transport phenomena, are both falsifiable?
A: Right. I don't mean that they have been falsified. I mean they are, in principle, falsifiable.
Q: Are you aware of any evidence which you regard as having falsified either of those assumptions?
A: I have read material, that is, literature speaking of transport phenomena, like evidence of transport phenomena having occurred. So, I would say that, in principle, could falsify the general assumption that no transport phenomena have occurred. But, I do not feel that — the things I have read would necessarily falsify the particular
91
calculations based on particular isotopes in certain decay schemes.
Q: Sir, could you describe for me what you mean by the assumption about the initial isotopic abundances of parent nuclides?
A: Yes.
In radioactive disintegration, a parent nuclide disintegrates or, you might say, in a population of parent nuclides, the individual ones disintegrate through time.
And, in order to take a sample at a given time and calculate back to how long or how old that material is, it is necessary to know how much of each isotope there was in the sample to start with.
Q: Could you describe what initial assumption as to beginning isotopic abundances is made for the potassium/argon method?
A: Offhand, I could not quote any numbers or any blanket statements about what the assumptions are.
Q: Do you know what the assumption in that area is for the uranium/lead method?
A: Not the particular details of it, no.
Q: Do you know what the assumption in that
92
area is for rubidium/strontium?
A: No.
Q: Doctor, have you ever worked in a laboratory which could make uranium/lead or potassium— argon or rubidium/strontium age determinations?
A: No.
Q: Is it your view that geochronologists work out accurate methods for these three techniques, if you will allow the three assumptions that you have described?
A: Yes.
Q: Is it your view that geochronologists working either of these three methods are always incapable of demonstrating the absence of transport phenomena as to a particular sample that is being dated?
A: Do I believe they are always incapable of demonstrating the absence of transport phenomena?
Yes.
I think, in principle — personally, I question whether, in principle, one could demonstrate the absence of transport phenomena. I know of no experiment that would prove in a given sample, say, that transport phenomena had not occurred.
93
Maybe those types of things exist, but, at the moment, I cannot think of any.
Q: Would you say that another way of restating this third assumption, that is, the assumption of the absence transport phenomena, — is to say that you must assume that the sample to be dated has remained a closed system as to the parent and daughter nuclides?
A: Either that it has remained a closed system or else you would have to be able to explain to what degree and of what nature transport phenomena have affected that sample.
Q: Are you aware of any techniques used in any one of these three methods which purport to be able to demonstrate as to particular samples that they have, in fact, been closed samples as to the parent and daughter nuclides?
A: I think I have heard of such an analyses.
Q: Do you have any view as to whether these purported analyses of which you have heard are, in fact, capable of doing what they purport to do?
A: Again, I would just personally question in principle whether they could do what they purport to do.
Whether they are self-consistent or not,
94
I am not really competent to judge.
Q: Do you know whether geochronologists who work with any one of these methods are generally of the opinion that there are means of establishing the absence of the transport phenomena as to particular samples to be dated?
A: I couldn't really say if I know what the general view is because I have not been exposed to any publication that makes a statement in that terms, as presenting the general view.
Q: Have you ever discussed radioactive decay processes or the radiometric dating methods, the three you mentioned, with, any scientists who have performed age determinations with any one of these methods?
A: Yes, by correspondence, not orally.
Q: Could you tell me as to which methods and what scientists that is true of?
A: The scientists, in particular, the one I remember is — some of the letters I enclosed were with regard to that.
I had written to Gerald Wasserburg, his laboratory, and I don't remember the address, but it is said to be one of the foremost for the billions
95
of years dating. There are other radioactive dating methods like carbon, which applies to a shorter period of time, but I had written to Wasserburg. There was another part to the question, which I have forgotten.
Q: As to which method did you correspond with Dr. Wasserburg?
A: I think it was on the initial abundance thing.
Q: Do you know whether your letter to Dr. Wasserburg was included in the document production that you gave me earlier today?
A: I don't remember.
MR. WOLFE: Off the record.
(Discussion off the record)
Q: Doctor, I have the letter from you to Dr. Wasserburg, dated February 12, 1980, which you included in the document production this morning. Do you recall whether you had written on any other occasion to Dr. Wasserburg about radiometric dating techniques?
A: I recall at least one other time that I wrote to him.
96
Q: Do you know whether you still have a copy of that other letter that you remember?
A: I'm not sure. I might.
Q: I would request that when you return home, that you would check to see whether you do have a copy of that letter. And, if you do, whether you would be willing to make it available to us through the Attorney General's Office prior to trial.
Q: Doctor, did you ever receive a reply from Dr. Wasserburg to either of your letters?
A: Yes.
(Continued on the next page.)
97
Q: Do you recall the substance of the reply that you received?
A: Generally, he sent me reprints of publications that he had made. I think in the other letter I wrote to him, I sent him copies of some other articles, questioning the isotopic abundance that are used in some of the calculations, and I asked him what do you think of these arguments.
They were not my arguments. They were something I had read elsewhere that questioned the isotopic abundances in uranium/lead. He replied, I think to that, by saying, "What arguments?"
I think that was his reply.
He did not respond to the arguments. He just implied that the arguments were not even worthy of consideration.
Q: Can you recall more clearly what material you had sent to him or the source of the calculations that you sent to him at that time?
A: Yes. I think I still have a copy of those articles.
98
Q: I will make an additional request that if you can locate them when you return home, that you make them available to us before trial, through the Attorney General. Doctor, are you aware of any experiments which have been conducted which sought to determine whether or not radioactive decay rates could be altered by physical conditions?
A: Yes, I am aware of some.
Q: Are you aware of any experiments which indicated that such alteration was possible?
A: I believe, yes. I couldn't quote the reference right now.
Q: Do you recall the substance of that experiment; that is, what condition it was which was capable of altering the constancy of the decay rate?
A: I think it had to do with the electric field in which the decaying nucleus was situated. That is the best I remember.
Q: Do you recall whether that experiment applied to all of the decaying mechanisms or only to one?
A: Do you mean like one particular decay?
99
Q: Yes, sir, as to alpha decay or beta decay.
A: I am not sure. I would assume that it applied only to — as far as the radioactive dating methods go, alpha decay would be the only one that is of interest because it's the long half-life decay.
Q: Sir, is it your understanding that the three methods that we have talked about all proceed by alpha decay?
A: The radioactive decay schemes mentioned include alpha decay.
In any mechanism scheme, there is maybe an alpha decay followed by a beta and/or a gamma and another alpha decay. They all include alphas. That's the long half-life; not carbon dating.
Q: Do you know whether any of the three methods that you have mentioned actually have an electron captured decay scheme?
A: I think some of the uranium-to-lead at least include in the decay scheme an electron capture. I am not sure whether that is crucial
100
in determining the age by that method.
Q: Sir, do you know, if electron captured decay is part of the decay scheme for rubidium-strontium or potassium/argon techniques?
A: Without looking into the case schemes, I couldn't say one way or the other. I seem to remember, though, in potassium/ argon, there is a critical branching ratio, and I think that would involve some type of beta. But, again, I am not sure without looking it up.
Q: I am not certain whether I asked you this a moment ago or not, but, in addition to the one instance that you recalled, are you aware of any other experiment in which change in physical conditions, temperature or pressure or chemical combination or any other, has been able to alter the constancy of radioactive decay rates?
A: No. Without looking it up, I couldn't say.
Q: Doctor, if we were to assume that no experiment had ever been able to alter the rate of alpha decay by changing temperature or pressure or state of chemical combination, would you regard that as
