A reviewer replies to Bartelt.

There is certainly controversy with all dating techniques, not just from the creationist’s point of view, but from the scientific interpretation of events that may be closely spaced in time. Students need to be aware that systematic errors often far exceed statistical ones. Howard is right that a good understanding of the chemistry, or at least the history of the chemistry, is important to interpret a date. Bartelt trivializes this argument while admitting that a closed system is required and downplaying Dalrymple’s conclusion that “the K–Ar method does not work on all rocks and minerals under all geologic conditions”.

Bartelt criticizes Howard for not revealing any effects that might change the ⁴⁰K:⁴⁰Ar ratio and then provides an example herself that initial ⁴⁰Ar might be present. In fact, the ratio assumes normal ⁴⁰K abundance and no significant ⁴⁰Ar production by cosmic rays. Howard’s mention of problems with the ⁴⁰K–⁴⁰Ca method is less useful, but if this method is used in some cases then his criticism is still valid. I do agree with Bartelt that Howard’s concern with oxidation states and ⁴⁰Ar as a minor product of the reaction are overstated and could have been removed from the paper.

Bartelt idealizes the situation in her first false analogy by assuming that the grocery store is locked. This is the crux of the problem with K–Ar dating, and students should be skeptical that this has always been true irrespective of expert arguments. Howard’s argument that using multiple dating methods may lead to similar problems as K–Ar should not be dismissed. All dating methods are subject to error based on the chemical history of the sample. Radiocarbon dating is notoriously incorrect, and if a sample is not always closed, then similar errors may occur in more than one method. Moreover, researchers are more likely to report values that agree and reject values that disagree.

Students should be taught to be very critical of established analytical procedures. Results should be analyzed with an eye on whether they are reasonable, not only precise. A Ming vase dated to 700,000 B.C.E. would make no sense, no matter how careful the measurement seems. Howard’s intentions may be clear to Bartelt, but I don’t think that he crossed the line with his arguments. Bartelt’s concerns are shared by many of us, but are we going to reject this paper on the basis of our perception of the author’s intentions? It is not the job of the Journal of Chemical Education to create a litmus test for what papers might or might not have hidden intelligent design meanings. I think that Howard did a good job to cast doubt on the accuracy of K–Ar dating, but if he was motivated by intelligent design he did a poor job of dismissing the validity of K–Ar dating. I don’t believe in intelligent design, but neither do I religiously believe in K–Ar dating. This paper will stimulate students, but nobody’s opinion about intelligent design will be changed.

See also the author's reply, and the reply of another reviewer of Howard's article.