Creation Science

Creation Science Rebuttals

Helium Diffusion Dates


Synopsis by Greg Neyman

First Added 4 May 2005


     Dr. Kevin Henke of the University of Kentucky has published a 50-page analysis of young earth creation science attacks upon helium evidences related to the dating of the earth.  This article can be found here (opens a new window, off-site).

     Dr. Russell Humphreys has responded to this article, with a 13 page answer, which seeks to explain the faulty work of Dr. Henke's review.  However, as the information on the right of Henke's article suggests, Humphreys response raises more issues and does not answer the mail.

     I leave the reader to check out the articles if they like.  However, I do wish to point out several features of Humphreys response, which are less than satisfactory.

     First, mouse over the 13 page answer link, and notice the name of the file uses Henke's name, but it is mis-spelled as hanke.  The article itself starts out with a slam, calling him a part-time instructor.  Yes, this was true when written, but it is not relevant to the issue.  It is meant as a slander upon Dr. Henke's credentials.  (If you cannot attack the evidence, attack the giver of the evidence.)

     In the next paragraph, Humphreys states:

I also plan to submit technical details of this reply to the peer-reviewed scientific journal, the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ).

     The CRSQ does not meet the qualifications of a peer-reviewed publication.  The reviewers are all creation scientists who believe in a young earth.  Their bias, which causes them to ignore data contrary to their beliefs (see this article) makes the claim of "peer-review" an empty one.

     Humphreys goes on to state:

     If Henke chooses to sling yet more mud, let him try to do so in a scientific journal.  The RATE helium research has been peer-reviewed and published in several different scientific journals.

     First, it would not be appropriate to publish a young earth rebuttal in a scientific journal.  Young earth creation science is "pseudo-science" and would fail any peer-review by real scientists.  Putting a rebuttal to young earth work in a real scientific journal would give young earth creation science undue attention that it does not deserve.

     As for Henke's work not being peer-reviewed, Humphreys only need check out the last paragraph.  Henke acknowledges eight peer-reviewers, and several others who helped with the manuscript.

     Second, Humphreys claims the RATE work has been peer-reviewed and published in several different scientific journals.  This is not true.  It was reviewed by Humphreys peers, who are themselves young earth creationists, and it was published in two young earth creation science publications.  These publications do not meet the criteria for peer-review, and they would be rejected by the scientific community.

     I challenge Dr. Humphreys to publish RATE's work in a real peer-reviewed publication, such as the publications of the Geological Society of America.

     Dr. Humphreys claims that Henke only found two real errors, and one of those was a mispelling!  A reading of the article by Henke shows this to be a bluff on the part of Humphreys, as Henke brings up some serious issues.  Humphreys is hoping the young earth reader will not delve deeper into the Henke article, so that they will be protected from what they see as contrary evidence (again, see Morton's Demon).

     At the end, Humphreys attacks Henke's motives in writing the article.  It may be true that Henke has left the faith, but this has nothing to do with justifying bad science on the part of Humphreys.  This two-page section amounts to an emotional appeal to young earth creationists to avoid the evidence (i.e. Don't listen to this heathen...again, see Morton's Demon).  Humphreys can't stand on true science, so he appeals to emotions.  This is reminiscent of Jonathan Sarfati's personal attack upon Dr. Hugh Ross in the book Refuting Compromise.  When young earth creationists cannot use evidence to support their cause, they resort to character assassination.

     Although Dr. Henke's spiritual position is unclear, I'm thankful that he is advancing the truth of science, free of any religious bias, and maybe one day young earth creationists will see the truth.  Until that day, young earth creation scientists will continue to be the laughing stock of the scientific world.


Related Articles


Zircon Helps Unveil Early Earth's Geology



    If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while still believing in an old earth.  Click here for more.


    Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism?  Now that we have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life?  If you are a young earth creationism believer, click here.





Related Articles

Chapter 4 - Helium Retention in Zircon Crystals (from the book Thousands...Not Billions



Old Earth Creation Science Articles


To learn more about old earth creationism, see Old Earth Belief, or check out the article Can You Be A Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?  

 Feel free to check out more of this website.  Our goal is to provide rebuttals to the bad science behind young earth creationism, and honor God by properly presenting His creation.