Defending Young-Earth Creationism Scientifically

[JonDarbyXIII]

It really does boil down to that, doesn't it. Having a PhD obviously doesn't protect against that, especially since 1. very shady institutions give out PhDs and 2. it is a well-known fact that parts of the YEC community send drones to renowned institutions for the express purpose of using their reputation for their causes.

That and the fact that most of the 'renowned sciencists' on the side of the creationists are mathematicians and psychologists (there was even one prolific author who turned out to be a dentist). It is almost impossible to find a creationist who is a biologist, and anthropologist, etc.

Anything approaching scientific in the Young Earth camp is not so much about scientifically proving a young earth as it is about trying to poke holes in what the rest of the world recognizes as true. In practice, this means quote mining to show scientist are either wrong or unsure, and trying to explain away evidence with ideas like, "god put the fossils in the ground to test our faith." Other than the Bible itself, I haven't ever seen any evidence of a young earth, only stupid attempts to explain away the evidence of an ancient earth. It's Christian apologetics applied to science.

When I was talking to this particular person, he started out trying to use scientific arguments, but they all seem to be prepackaged responses. When I gave him examples showing how this was invalid, he kept deferring back to the argument that 'science is wrong all the time' to show that the Bible was the better source. It's odd that they distrust science so much, yet at the same time they have that longing to have their ideas in the category of valid science.