They are starting with a conclusion - that the Bible is 100 percent accurate - and gathering evidence to support that idea. True science, they say, actively looks for problems with a hypothesis. And over the years, a tremendous amount of research has been conducted specifically to find major flaws in the theories about evolution and the age of Earth. The fundamental principles of both have held up.
Is this any different than evolutionists starting with their conclusion that there is no intelligent designer/creator? No, it isn't!
If true science actually looks for problems with a hypothesis, then evolution is not a science. Evolutionists simply ignore the problems and major flaws.
"The evidence is overwhelming," said Skip Pierce, the chairman of the biology department at the University of South Florida. "These theories are essentially established fact."
Implying that a theory is a fact is intellectually dishonest. If evolution was a fact, why call it a theory? any honest evolutionists would admit that their 'theory' includes a considerable amount of speculation; because it does.
Described most famously by Charles Darwin in 1859, the basics of evolution are fairly simple. The theory holds that all life evolved from earlier, generally more primitive forms.
Speculation.
Organisms survived based on how well-suited they were to their environment. Beneficial traits passed on from parents - genetic variations in speed, size or eyesight - gave some offspring an advantage over competitors. Those offspring - with their unique inherited traits - stood a better chance of surviving and reproducing.
No ider/creationists disputes this.
Darwin suggested that over millions of years those incremental changes reach a point of no return. At some stage, the organism changes so much, it can no longer breed within the species.
suggested = speculated
If its inherited differences are adaptive, it can evolve into a new species.
"If" involves speculation. It has never been observed. At best, evolutionists say it is predictable in the future. If that is not speculation, thee must be a new definition of speculation of which I am unaware.