Spangler: I understand that you once worked as nuclear weapons analyst in the defense industry. How did you become interested in the age of the earth?
Gentry: We all experience new insights at times upon rereading familiar material. About twenty years ago I saw for the first time that the fourth commandment stated rather clearly that the earth and all that is in it was created in six literal days, which, according to Biblical chronology, seemed to me to have been only several thousand years ago. The view of modern science, that the earth has slowly evolved over billions of years, was one I had learned well in college, and it had succeeded in washing away my belief in Genesis. But now when I found that Genesis was reiterated in the fourth commandment, the matter entered a moral context I had not previously considered.
Spangler: So you embarked on a private research venture in an attempt to resolve the issue for yourself. Where did you start?
Gentry: In science the age of various rocks is computed by radioactive dating techniques on the basic assumption that "element A" changes, or decays, into "element B" at a uniform rate. Many decades ago scientists studied radioactive halos (radiohalos), which are microscopic colored ring patterns in rocks, because they were considered proof of uniform decay. I was unconvinced these studies were conclusive, so I began a study of radiohalos for myself. After a few years I had found some interesting things that I could present before the national meeting of the American Geophysical Union and also publish in a well-known scientific journal.
Spangler: Why didn't you publish them in a religious journal rather than a scientific one?
Gentry: I thought it only fair that my results be subjected to the most critical scientific scrutiny before publishing them elsewhere.
Spangler: I know that some of your more recent studies deal with the fossil record and the Noachian flood, but in this brief interview could you tell me just what you have found that pertains to Creation itself?
Gentry: Well, I have found that radio halos in general cannot be used to prove a uniform radioactive decay rate, because that crucial assumption is in fact unprovable. The result in itself would have richly repaid all the years of microscope work that were needed to find the necessary radio halos. But I experienced a far greater satisfaction when it occurred to me one day that a certain class of polonium radiohalos, thought to be of little significance by earlier investigators, appeared to be evidence that a large fraction of earth's basement rocks, the so-called Precambrian granites, had formed very rapidly.1
Spangler: Later you will have to explain more about Precambrian granites, but it seems to me that what you are talking about has some enormous implications. How have other scientists reacted to your results?
Gentry: In 1973, two physicists and a geologist published a rather hostile scientific report that attempted to discredit my work by pointing out that the existence of certain polonium radiohalos in granites "would cause apparently insuperable geological problems" to the theory that the earth had evolved over billions of years. 2
Spangler: Their report must have raised a lot of questions about your work.
Gentry: Actually, it was one of the best things that could have happened. It showed that other scientists also realized that the occurrence of polonium radio halos in such rocks did not fit the accepted evolutionary framework of earth history; hence their conclusion that they just couldn't exist. Their report later enabled me to publish new and more convincing evidence to support my previous deductions. 3
Spangler: Now, before we proceed further, tell me something of how modern science views the history of the earth so that I can understand the significance of the Precambrian granites and why rapid formation of these particular rocks would dispute conventional geology.
Gentry: All right. In brief, the earth is viewed as a tiny part of the evolution of the universe, which modem science postulates began at the so-called big-bang a hypothesized giant primeval explosion that supposedly occurred some 17 billion years ago. In other words, in order to get things started, scientists have to suspend the very foundational cause-and-effect relationship that undergirds all of modern science, for their theory offers no physical cause for the big-bang, nor any conventional explanation of the origin of the source material. At any rate, however, the big-bang supposedly provided matter for stars to form, and certain stars, when they later exploded as super-novae, provided matter for the earth to form.
Spangler: Stop right there for a moment. I'm no scientist, but common sense tells me that matter just doesn't condense even out of ordinary explosion. So how could the kind of gigantic explosion you have described ever give birth to massive stars? And in the same vein, how could expanding gas from supemovae ever reaccumulate to form planets? And what about the galaxies how are they explained and why do they occur in such different configurations?
Gentry: The truth is that despite years of study by many competent scientists, there are still no demonstrable scientifically defensible explanations to these questions you have raised. In this respect two well-known astronomers have said, " 'If stars did not exist, it would be very easy to prove this is what we expect'" 4 and, "We do not have an adequate theory of star formation (some people say we have none at all), but we can learn a lot by looking." 5
Spangler: So scientists apparently believe if they just keep on looking, all the monumental difficulties associated with explaining the origin of stars, galaxies, and planets in terms of the big-bang theory will eventually be solved! But tell me, hasn't the solar system been explained?
Gentry: A recently published authoritative review of planetary theories concludes that "Science is nowhere close to a satisfactory explanation of our planetary system." And within the book itself are quotes from a distinguished astronomer who after three decades of study remarked: "Almost everywhere we look in the solar system we are faced by unsolved problems.
If we had a reliable theory of the origin of planets, if we knew of some mechanism consistent with the laws of physics, so that we understood how planets form, then clearly we could make use of it to estimate the probability that other stars have attendant planets." 6
Spangler: All this leaves me with the impression that one has to have faith to believe that the big-bang began things, that the stars formed by chance, that the galaxies evolved by accident, and that the solar system just somehow developed. In any event, let's move on to the point where the earth presumably comes into the picture. Remember, I still want you to explain just how the polonium radiohalos in the Precambrian granites dispute conventional geology.
Gentry: According to one popular view, a "protoearth" first condensed out of the gases of a solar nebula and was subsequently heated to a near-molten condition about 4.5 billion years ago by gravitational contraction and radioactivity. In this scenario, different types of crustal rocks are presumed to have slowly crystallized as the earth gradually cooled over vast periods of time. Supposedly, the high temperatures associated with the formation of these rocks were sufficient to obliterate the fossil record of any embryonic life forms that had begun to evolve during this Precambrian period.
Spangler: I can see now the implications of your research more clearly. If I understand what you are saying, evolutionists would hold that Precambrian granites formed over hundreds of millions of years as the earth's crust cooled, whereas the evidence from certain polonium radiohalos suggests these same rocks crystallized or formed very rapidly, within just a few minutes at the most. It's no wonder some of your fellow scientists could hardly believe the evidence you reported. Tell me, have you presented these findings in scientific meetings, and if so, what has been the response?
Gentry: In 1978, I was one of five invited speakers at the Symposium on Time and the Age of the Earth, held at Louisiana State University. The convener of that symposium, Dr. Ray Kazmann, subsequently published an account of the meetings in the September, 1978, issue of Geotimes and in the January 9, 1979, issue of EOS (Transactions, American Geophysical Union). Both journals have wide circulation among geologists, geochemists, and geophysicists. In fact, a very prominent scientist subsequently published a letter in the May 29, 1979, issue of EOS, stating that my results implied the earth had formed in just a few hours, which, in his opinion was complete absurdity.
Spangler: So there was no question that scientists again understood the implications of your results. Did you have an opportunity to respond to that letter?
Gentry: Yes, in the same issue of EOS I countered that my results were evidence that the Precambrian granites had been created by fiat, which is really just another way of saying that the billions of years required by the big-bang model could be replaced by a few minutes of divine creation.
Spangler: Was that the end of it?
Gentry: Not quite. Another well-known scientist published a critical review of my work in the August 14, 1979, issue of EOS without informing me that my research was under attack. My work was badly represented. Fortunately I was finally given opportunity to correct the errors. My rebuttal was published in the July 1, 1980, issue of EOS, but only over the objections of several scientists within the geological community.
Spangler: I thought scientists were supposed to be open and objective in their appraisal of data.
Gentry: I think that generally they are, but in my particular case reviewers in the geological sciences have on several occasions attempted to suppress or censor publication of the evidence that questions the big-bang scenario.
Spangler: Just a side thought, I know many of our readers would like to know whether this evidence for Creation has any bearing on the age of the earth and the gap theory. Could you elaborate on this?
Gentry: This is a very important question, and, in my opinion, we must let both science and Scripture complement each other in order to arrive at a consistent answer.
First, we need to realize that historically the primary motivation for proposing the earlier versions of the gap theory was a desire to harmonize Genesis with the vast time periods demanded by uniformitarian geology. Now just as science has changed its conception of the cosmos over the past century, so has the gap theory, with all its numerous variations, been modified to incorporate these changes. All such theories have one thing in common they do not stand alone. They are essentially dependent on the prevailing uniformitarian view of the cosmos (at present, the big-bang theory) and hence are almost continually being modified to harmonize with that view. This means that all such theories are alike in picturing the Precambrian granites as having been formed by slow evolutionary processes over eons of time. So if it is granted-,that the polonium radiohalos contradict the big-bang scenario of a slowly cooling earth by providing evidence for fiat creation of those granites, that same evidence must also contradict all other theories based on the same premise.
Moreover, if the Precambrian granites are, in fact, rocks that were created rather than rocks which evolved, then the time when they were created is, in my opinion, clearly specified in Exodus 20:11 as being within that six-day period when God made the earth and all that in them is. (See also Gen. 2:1, 4.) Concerning how long ago that six-day period was, I believe that length of time can be determined only by scriptural chronology.
Spangler: We have covered a lot of territory, and some of our readers may not have understood the significance of every detail. Do you have any last words to clarify this issue?
Gentry: Well, your readers ought to understand that this interview contains only the barest outline of the phenomenon that I see as scientific evidence that God left His fingerprints in earth's primordial rocks when during Creation week He spoke the Planet Earth into existence out of nothing (see Gen. 1:1, 2; Ex. 20:11; Ps. 33:6, 9; Heb. 11:3). Also I am genuinely interested in knowing the truth regarding these things and would welcome response from readers, particularly those who might have demonstrable evidence contradicting my studies.
Notes:
1 Robert V. Gentry, Science 160, 1228(1968); 173, 727 (1971).
2 C. Moazed et al., Science 180, 1272 (1973).
3 Robert V. Gentry, Science 184, 62 (1974);Namre252, 564 (1974); Science 194, 315 (1976).
4Quoted in L. H. Aller and D. B. McLaughlin, Stellar Structure Chicago; University of Chicago Press, 1965), p. 577.
5 Virginia Trimble, American Scientists 65, 79 (1977).
6 Stanley L. Jaki, Planets and Planetarians: A History of Theories of the Origin of the Planetary Systems (New York: Halsted Press, 1978). See cover jacket for first quote and page 246 for the other two quotes.
