One ostensibe philosophical complication with radio-carbon dating would be that if one were to assume non-uniform rates of isotope decay, the assumption - in order to maintain that the samples in question are actually younger than they appear - would be that decay rates were FASTER years ago. (I'll explain why this is philosophically problematic real soon).
It is as if we were looking at a tub of a dozen eggs that has come from the warehouse. Mr. Chicken, my co-worker, has established that eggs break exactly at a rate of one per week. We peer into the styrofoam tub and confirm that 8 eggs are broken. Mr. Chicken interjects, "Ah-hah! The tub left the warehouse 8 weeks ago!"
But I, who we will call The Ghost, interrupt him: "But, Mr. Chicken, eggs break more slowly now than they used to. Four of those eggs may have indeed broken within the last 4 weeks, but the other 4 were broken at a time when the break-rate was a whopping 2 a week. The tub left the warehouse 6 weeks ago....not 8 weeks ago."
Carrying the metaphor over into isotope decay rates, we would have to maintain that isotopes decay (assuming that a deceleration of isotope decay rates were uniform across ALL isotopes of any kind) more slowly now than they used to.
The philosophical problem is this: Since the Creationist Worldview (or at least a large segment of it) maintains that life in this universe has corrupted and decayed since the time of the Fall, it would not make sense to stipulate that things decay (including isotopes) more slowly NOW than they did at the beginning. To make the viewpoint consistent, the exact OPPOSITE would have to be the case: as a result of the curse of death and decay that the fallen world has come under, we would have to say that the rate of decay of things (including isotopes) is getting FASTER, not slower.
But, this is only an "ostensible" problem because of the wording involved. We use a word like "decay" to apply to isotopes merely out of semantic convenience. The word "decay" has loaded metaphysical connotations. But just because a mass of elements emits a set number of alpha-particles, resulting in a mass of newer, lighter elements, we need not call such a situation a "decay" in the more evasive metaphysical/spiritual sense. It could very well be that the strictly physical "decay" of isotopes somehow conduces to some sort of "building-up" in a more spiritual sense, whatever this may mean ultimately.
Incidentally, is there actual evidence that isotope decay-rates are slower now than they were, say, in the 1940's? This is my question.
*Caveat: more speculative monologue now ensues*
Also, incidentally - which would really come to the same question - is there any evidence that the speed of light is slower now than it was any number of years ago? A faster speed of "light" (or, which is the same thing, speed of physical causality) would result in a faster weak nuclear force field effect (i.e. an insufficiently fast neutron entering the weak nuclear field of an atom would be "spit out" out of the field that much more quickly because the increased rate of the causal relations between the field and the unwelcome neutron would outbalance the inertia of the mass of that neutron). Also, the tension that co-relates the strong field, the weak field, and the electro-magnetic field within the atom such that an atom of a given element has a decay-rate of "x" - this tension would be "resolved" more quickly with a faster rate of physical causality (i.e. speed of light), resulting in a quicker decay rate.
Sorry about that last paragraph. More knowledgeable physicists are welcome to debunk me (please do so, in fact: I want my inner spiritual tension between faith and unbelief resolved more quickly).
™ Version 4.2
