Science in Public Schools

Ned's right ... you promised evidence for something, and all you came up with was unsupported allegations that something else is wrong. Not only that ... the allegations you came up with are old chestnuts. We've seen 'em all hundreds of times before, and they don't get any better with age. Excellent discussions are available in many places, especially An Index to Creationist Claims. But, in case you are interested in learning ... Evolutionis indeed a theory, about the highest distinction that any scientific idea can achieve. See Claim CA201Claim CC200Well, that's not quite correct, so they shouldn't be taught that; but they are taught that evolution is not a constant-rate process. So what? Sorry, the only jury that is still out on human evolution is comprised of those who refuse to consider the evidence. Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human EvolutionThere are some differences of opinion and some open questions. The consensus of those who have studied and evaluated the evidence is that humans and apes evolved from a common ancester, and so on all the way back to one common ancestor (or maybe a few common ancestors) of all life. Some details are still under investigation. The fact that horses evolved from a "fox-like" creature is not questioned by those who honetly study and evaluate the evidence. Horse Evolution. He said that displays that show the evolution of the horse as a stright and continuous line of changes are incorrect. He did not say that horse evolution itself is questionable. Quote: Niles Eldredge. All the evidence indicates that they don't. Sorry, just 'tain't so. Polonium Halo FAQsThey shouldn't be told that they are proven facts ... but they should be told that they are the only scientific explanationst that fit all the data, are as well-supported and understod as any scientific theory, and can be treated as facts for all practical purposes. And that's the truth!¹------------¹Edith Ann, 1972

Er, the halos are almost certainly caused by radioactivity; just not polonium radioactivity from polonium trapped in place when the rocks formed. There's lots of hypotheses about how they do form, and there may be several different processes operating. From "Polonium Haloes" Refuted:

quote:

---

Both Joly (1917) and Gentry (1992) discounted the possibility that beta particles may play a role in coloration changes within minerals; however, neither author gives a basis for this rejection beyond the erroneous statement that beta particle energies are too low to have any affect. High energy beta particles have the well documented ability to break molecular bonds. Combinations of alpha and beta decay particles, beta particles alone, or some completely non-radioactive process may be the cause of the observed mineral discoloration haloes. ...

​

An alternative possibility is explored by Brawley (1992) and Collins (1997). They note that many concentric ring haloes line up along visible fractures within the host mica. Such fractures are very common in mica crystals. Micro-fractures could provide conduits for the rapid movement and concentration of radon-222, a gaseous daughter product of uranium-238 which forms part way along the decay chain leading to polonium. Radon-222, itself an alpha emitter, has a half life of 3.82 days and is continuously produced in the decay of the parent uranium. Migration of radon along fractures with hold-up points at tiny structural traps would result in exactly the same concentric ring pattern assigned by Gentry to polonium alone (because polonium is a daughter isotope of radon decay). A distinct radon halo will not necessarily be identified s the radon alpha decay energy is very close to that of polonium-210 and the two ring structures commonly cannot be distinguished (Moazed, et al., 1973). ...

​

To reconcile his presumed young age for the Earth with reported isotopic age dates for rocks around the world, Gentry (1992) argues that radioactive decay rates have varied over time. He is forced to conclude that decay rates for polonium have remained constant while those of dozens of other radioactive isotopes were many orders of magnitude greater 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. This of course gives rise to several major inconsistencies ...

​

Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.

---