He was even able to get at least one paper included in the Reports of the Committee on Geologic Time (he was on good terms with Professor Lane) and in the There were a few others in the old Creation-Deluge Society (which I joined in 1943) who believed in recent creation, but the next important article—so far as I know—was one by geologist Clifford Burdick, entitled "The Radioactive Time Theory and Recent Trends in Methods of Reckoning Geologic Time." The paper had been written earlier, but was finally published in 1946, in volume 1 of a short-lived journal established by the "old-earthers" who had taken over the Creation-Deluge Society.
It covered much the same ground as Whitney had done, but in more detail and with better documentation.
Therefore, there must be a true and satisfying answer to this troublesome radiometry problem.
The earth young, and the data must confirm this, if they are rightly understood.
The dating of rocks by the radioactive decay of certain minerals is undoubtedly the main argument today for the dogma of an old earth.
But the Bible clearly teaches a recent creation of both the heavens and the earth, so Christians have often tried to reinterpret this doctrine to accommodate the long ages required by radioactive dating.
The Biblical revelation, of course, must be our constraining guide in seeking a firm answer.
My first book, (published in 1946), had briefly questioned the reliability of radioactive dating, but also had allowed for the gap theory.
In this paper, Whitney developed the evidences for a young earth based on: (1) influx of sodium and other chemicals into the ocean; (2) depletion of the land by leaching; (3) sedimentation rates; (4) build-up of helium in the atmosphere; (5) disintegration of comets; (6) influx of meteorites and their nickel-iron contents on the earth; and (7) efflux of water from earth's interior by volcanism. Whitney then added a brief critique of the assumptions in radioactive dating.
He commented on the many discordances in results, the problem of separating "common lead" from radiogenic lead, the possibility that some of the supposed radiogenic elements could have been added either before or after deposition, the possibility of changes in disintegration rates, the possibility of selective leaching, and the many conflicts with previously assumed geologic ages. Whitney published many other papers, as well as two small books, all advocating recent creation and flood geology.
The new edition was published in 1951 by Moody under the title At the university I also took a course on geophysics which included sections on radiometric dating. However, this conference and my later correspondence with John Whitcomb did lead finally to the book, included a 48-page discussion of radiometric dating and its fallacies (as I saw them, at least) with suggested resolutions.
In 1953, I presented a paper at the annual convention of the American Scientific Affiliation (where I first met John Whitcomb), entitled "Biblical Evidence for a Recent Creation and Worldwide Flood." The response to this paper finally disabused me of the idealistic notion that the leading members of the A. The Creation Research Society was formed in 1963 and its quarterly publications have included a few papers critiquing radiometric dating, but these have been relatively few, considering the critical importance of the subject.
For those Christians who believe that Genesis (like the other historical books of the Bible) should be understood as literal history, it has therefore been necessary to show the fallacies in the so-called "scientific proofs" of an old earth.