He does not accept geology, or radiometric dating, or any part of modern science that might support an old Earth or evolution.
No amount of reason, fact, or logic seems able to shake him from this position.
He described all of this in a post last summer, and I have seen no reason to doubt his word.
This wording does not accurately reflect my position, and if these are my exact words then they ought to be revised, explained, or both. The above mentioned disciplines have a place in science, and they may even lead the observer to deduce an old earth. It would be better to say I question the veracity of deductions based on these methods, and will continue to do so until I am convinced these methods are scientifically accurate. I don't have to take anyone's word for it. Not even Judge Jones's.
And it remains a viable proposition that the presence of organized matter is best explained by intelligent design.