Replies

From a creationist point of view, I am always amazed that when I pick up practically any issue of a science periodical (Discover, Science News, etc.) usually several articles either 1)support Young Earth Creationism (missing mass in the universe, etc.); 2)contradict Darwinian evolution; or 3)reveal errors or hoaxes of evolution (like the dinosaur/bird in National Geographic, or the hominid skull that turned out to be female gorilla).

Have you also read articles that contradict Young Earth Creationism? I guess my point is that scientific theories were meant to change and be modified - finding evidence that current theories of evolution are wrong doesn't necessarily mean that the whole concept is wrong (although it's certainly possible) but it could also mean that the theory just needs to be changed a little. Scientific theories allow this type of modification to happen, so articles that poke holes in current scientific beliefs eventually get assimilated and new theories are proposed. Young Earth Creationism, on the other hand, has a core set of unchangable tenets. I have no doubt that you have seen much scientific evidence that supports this belief. My question is have you seen scientific evidence that doesn't support YEC? If so, do you discount the evidence as having to be flawed, or do you change your theory? Or have you never seen scientific evidence that contradicts your beliefs?

Have you also read articles that contradict Young Earth Creationism?...have you never seen scientific evidence that contradicts your beliefs?

Of course I have. There are some things that I still have problems with, but the list is pretty short. The two biggies are the distribution of animal species and orders on the earth (e.g., Australia) and how the heck did light from millions of light years away get here if the earth is less than 10,000 years old? These are two questions that I wish Creationists had better answers for. That's why Setterfield's theory was/is so exciting, despite the continuing problems with it. Otherwise, we're pretty much stuck with the "apparent age" argument, which has its own problems.

My "list" of problems with evolution is much longer however. For instance, from a young earth view, dark matter, solar neutrinos, short period comets, stable planetary rings, unstable galaxies, uniform 3K background radiation, etc., do not pose problems.