|
See also
past
Handiwork
The Age of the World
Before the rise of modern science there was no
reason not to use Old Testament genealogies and other texts as straightforward
historical data to get a date around 4000 B.C. for the world’s creation.
Biblical criticism has since shown that we need not read the texts that way, and
science has found several methods for estimating ages. The earth is now thought
to be about 4.6 billion years old.
How do we know this? One way of getting at the
question not only involves fascinating science but also gives insights into how
scientists and science itself — including its mathematical dimension — work.
The phenomenon of radioactive decay was
discovered at the end of the nineteenth century. Some types of atomic nuclei are
unstable and disintegrate into other types. Half of any sample, large or small,
of a given type of atom will decay in a time characteristic of that atom, called
its half-life. The longer that half-life, the more slowly any given
sample will decay. This is the basis for a number of techniques of radioactive
dating, and I’ll sketch just one here.
Example: Uranium
The element uranium has several isotopes — atoms with the same chemical
properties but different nuclear masses. The most important are U238 and U235.
U238 is by far the most common form on earth today, with 138 atoms of it to one
atom of U235. This is of considerable political and economic importance, because
naturally occurring uranium must be enriched in the rarer form for use in
nuclear weapons and many reactors.
Why is one form of uranium so much rarer than the
other? Both are radioactive (decaying through a series of intermediates to
stable isotopes of lead), and U235 disintegrates more rapidly than U238. The
possibility suggests itself that there’s less U235 today because most of what
was present initially has decayed while more of the U238 is still around.
The half-life of U235 is .7 billion years, while
that of U238 is more than six times longer, 4.5 billion years. For a first
estimate let us assume that when uranium was first formed there were equal
amounts of the two isotopes. Because U238 decays more slowly, let’s first ignore
its decomposition. Then we note that after seven half-lives of U235 its
abundance will have been diminished by a factor of 1/2 to the seventh power, or
1/128. This is close to the current U235/U238 ratio, 1/138. Thus, if our
hypotheses are correct, the earth’s uranium was made something more than 7 x .7
billion years ago. This gives an estimate of 4.9 billion years for the age of
the earth’s uranium.
Careful readers will be critical of several
things I have done here. U238 does decay, and 128 is not equal to 138!
But scientists often begin to attack a problem with a crude “back of the
envelope” calculation. It can give an idea of the size of the effect that we are
looking for and tell us if it’s worth pursuing an idea further. Those who
remember logarithms from algebra class can remedy the two deficiencies in my
estimate and show that the correct result is close to 5.9, rather than 4.9,
billion years.
But there is a more fundamental concern. How do
we know that there were equal amounts of the two isotopes to begin with? The
answer is that we don’t. In fact, there probably was more U235. We now think
that the heavy elements like uranium are formed in stars that explode as
supernovas, distributing the elements that have been built up by fusion
reactions into the interstellar medium to become part of the next generation of
stars and planetary systems. Nuclear theory indicates that about 65 percent more
U235 than U238 would be formed in this way. Our estimate of age then works out
to around 6.5 billion years if only one supernova event contributed. This is the
age of the interstellar material from which the solar system eventually formed.
The solar system itself, including the earth, is somewhat younger.
That result can still be challenged, however.
Maybe our theories of formation of the elements are wrong. Perhaps uranium was
created at some point in the past with a quite different isotopic ratio.
Ah, but here is another intriguing piece of
information to consider. I mentioned that the current U235/U238 ratio is 1/138,
a value fairly uniform over the earth. But at Oklo, in the West African nation
of Gabon, the proportion of U235 to U238 is lower by a small but significant
amount. Investigations of conditions at Oklo and the discovery there of types of
atoms that would result from nuclear fission have led to the conclusion that at
some time in the past there were naturally occurring nuclear reactors! They
would have functioned in a start-and-stop fashion: Groundwater served as a
moderator for neutrons, allowing chain reactions to build up, and operations
would have ceased when heat that was generated boiled the water off. Cooling and
accumulation of more water would allow the cycle to start again. The fission of
some U235 explains why the abundance of that isotope is lower today.
| Belief in the goodness of creation holds
that God is the maker of a world that tells the truth about itself to honest
investigators. |
I said that this happened “at some time in the
past,” but we can be more precise. A reactor of this type would require uranium
to contain something like 3 percent U235, and we can calculate how long ago the
earth’s uranium would have had this composition. The result is that the Oklo
reactors were in operation something more than 1.7 billion years in the past.
A Protest
It is remarkable that such natural reactors existed, as is the fact that at this
point in time we can understand their workings. I wish I could simply present
this as an example of neat science, but not everyone sees it that way. Some
Christians, “young-earth creationists,” are deeply committed to the belief that
the earth is only a few thousand years old and reject the billions of years that
radioactive dating gives. They may claim that decay rates were much higher in
the past, but there is no evidence for this.
Or they may fall back on the “apparent age”
argument: that God created the world only a few thousand years ago with isotopic
abundances adjusted to make it look billions of years old. But the Oklo data
shows that in order to make that work God would also have had to tweak the
isotopic abundances a bit at one site in Africa to make it look as if that place
had an age in between the “true and “apparent” ages of the rest of earth.
There is no strictly scientific or philosophical
way of refuting that argument. Bertrand Russell has pointed out that the world
could have come into existence five minutes ago with all our memories and other
records intact. But this makes God a deceiver, the fabricator of a world full of
illusions. Belief in the goodness of creation holds that God is the maker of a
world that tells the truth about itself to honest investigators.
Cherry Lewis, The Dating Game (Cambridge, 2000),
uses a biography of Arthur Holmes, a pioneer in the field, to tell the story of
radioactive dating of the earth. Alex P. Meshik, “The Workings of an Ancient
Nuclear Reactor,” Scientific American (November 2005), deals with Oklo.
George L. Murphy, an ELCA pastor and
physicist living in Tallmadge, Ohio, is an adjunct faculty member at Trinity
Lutheran Seminary in Columbus and a pastoral associate at St. Paul’s Episcopal
Church in Akron. His e-mail address is
gmurphy@raex.com.
|