The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

been on this BCP master chronology. However, some authors have commented on master chronologies based on other long-lived trees species. These long chronologies have attained even greater significance because they are used to calibrate radiocarbon dating, which began to be used widely in the 1960s to date artifacts of ancient cultures. Therefore the purpose of this paper is to review and discuss this extensive creationist commentary on and analysis of tree-ring data in relation to modeling the biblical history of the earth. REVIEW OF CREATIONIST PUBLICATIONS 1. Initial enthusiasm for dendrochronology Whitcomb and Morris (1961) developed a general model of the Genesis Flood and post-Flood events that provided consilience from diverse lines of evidence. Their treatment of tree rings was limited because no master chronologies older than “Methuselah” had yet been published, and hence, they focused on the ages of living BCP trees as well as sequoias (Whitcomb and Morris 1961, pp. 392-393). They cited the BCP as evidence of the oldest living thing on the earth as not exceeding an age expected for the years since the Flood. They suggested that the uniform age class and vigorous growth of sequoias also pointed to a grove of trees sprouting at the same time without co-occurring parent trees as evidence of post-Flood recovery less than 4,500 years ago. This was also the approach followed by Beasely (1993), who cataloged all of the long-lived species of the world, and Lorey (1994) and Bates (2003), who wrote for popular audiences. 2. Biblical constraints on chronology It became apparent to Whitcomb and Morris (1961, App. II) that, when harmonizing historical chronologies with biblical data, one must be aware of various factors affecting the biblical exegesis. They give a lengthy discussion why it may be appropriate to consider there to be gaps in the biblical chronologies totaling as much as three or four thousand years, bringing Creation to about 10,000 years ago. Aardsma (1990, 1993a, 1993b) uses similar reasoning to biblically justify a Flood date about 14,000 years ago. Brown (1990), in discussing dendrochronology and calibrating carbon-14 dates, summarized the biblical constraints using the assumption of no gaps in the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, as follows. Ussher’s chronology (Creation at 4004 BC and the Flood at 2350 BC) and others similar to it are based on the MT, as is the King James Version and many other modern language translations of the Bible. Gapless interpretations of the MT are the tightest chronologies and most difficult to reconcile with other data. The least restrictive gapless biblical chronologies are those based on the LXX with Creation at about 5600 BC and a Flood date at 3400 BC, which Brown prefers. (He does not discuss the Samaritan Text as it gives intermediate dates.) Brown argues that the Masoretic Jews were motivated to shorten the genealogies. Jews at the beginning of the Christian era believed the Messiah would appear during the sixth millennium since creation. According to the LXX, Jesus was born and taught in the last half of the sixth millennium. By reducing the chronology by 1,500 years, the MT has Jesus appear near the beginning of the fifth millennium. Brown also emphasized that the LXX was the text quoted by the New Testament and was the Bible for the early centuries of the Church. (For further details on the possible ranges of dates, see Hardy and Carter 2014; for further support of the LXX, see Smith 2017). Most young-earth creationist scholars who have addressed the subject (Bates 2003; Humphries inAardsma 1990; Lammerts 1983; Long 1973; Wiant 1977a; Woodmorappe 2001, 2003a, 2003b, 2004) have accepted chronology based on the MT without gaps. Some authors (mostly those of letters in response to articles, e.g., Forgay 1993; Heinze 1995; Taylor 1993; Whitelaw in Aardsma 1990) appear to be emotionally committed to an Ussherian chronology. 3. Critiques of assumptions and general methods of dendrochronology As creationists realized that master tree-ring chronologies had been established, they developed two basic arguments against dendrochronology, in general, and the cross-matched master chronologies, in particular. 1) The counts are inaccurate because there are both missing rings and multiple rings per year (i.e., false rings). 2) Bristlecone pine growth rings are too thin and, thus, too similar to allow accurate cross-matching between wood pieces. The term for growth in which the rings are uniform is “complacent” as opposed to “sensitive,” which indicates the development of distinctive patterns of thin and thick rings. One of the earliest writers to relate dendrochronology to biblical history was Robert H. Brown; he also wrote extensively about radiocarbon dating. Brown (1968) concluded that tree rings established a precise and reliable chronology back to 59 BC but was less confident of earlier dates. He suggested that prior to 59 BC three ring counting possibly overestimates ages by 500 to 1,000 years. Later Brown (1990) related this to complacency and explicitly stated that BCP is not well suited to chronology. Sorenson (1976), Wiant (1977a), Gladwin (1978), and Setterfield (1986) also agree on the issue of complacent growth. Gladwin (1978) also notes that disjunct populations of BCP in southeast California, southwest Utah, and central Arizona do not yield the same ring patterns for the same years. Sorenson (1976) and Setterfield (1986) added the argument that BCP have up to 30% extra false rings and up to 10% missing rings. Sorenson and Gladwin (1978) both were frustrated that the master chronology was the work of one lab (University of Arizona), which would not release its raw data for critical review. Gladwin, who took a workshop at the University of Arizona, discovered there was personal rivalry with researchers at the Carnegie Institution of Washington such that the lab director in Arizona was highly defensive of anyone questioning his work. Based on an earlier critique by Sorenson (1973), Raaflaub (1974) issued a call for interested members of the American Scientific Association to conduct research for publication on tree-ring dating. Armstrong (1976) cited work on Scots pine showing cyclic variation in ring width. He argued that if this is true in trees of unknown age, this could cause errors in cross-matching. In an effort to experimentally generate multiple rings in Rocky Mountain BCP ( Pinus aristata ), Lammerts (1983) raised seedlings in a growth chamber, inducing multi-week drought stress mid- season. The objective was to mimic the climate he assumed to prevail in the White Mountains shortly after the Flood when the climate was warmer and wetter with a longer growing season. In both cases he found that regrowth following drought produced an extra smaller ring. Citing conventional climate models, Lammerts argued that prior to 1200 AD, a “San Francisco rainfall pattern” with winter precipitation and late summer rains characterized the White Mountains. This should have produced two rings per annual increment in the BCP. If this pattern existed between 2350 BC and 1200 AD, then the BCP master chronology (7,100 years known in 1983) would be reduced to 5600 years. Lammerts’ work has been cited by numerous authors (Aardsma 1993a; Beasley 1993; Johns Sanders ◀ Tree-ring data ▶ 2018 ICC 517