1

My experience with Creation Scientists is that they will give a barrage of up to several dozen alleged scientific findings (live example available on request). The literary genre of an individual finding is usually one sentence:

According to standard timing, _________ took place ________ billions [or other geological timeframe, like hundreds of millions of years] of years ago. However, according to _______ improved criteria, it couldn't have taken place more than _______ thousand years ago.

Is there a standard debunking that provides some sort of lookup between young-earth finding and standard debunking?

Side note for the curious:

I didn't mention my immediate motivating source; it was for a book of mine that's gotten extremely harsh reviews and still sells.

The description on Amazon reads,

Q: How many admirers of "Blessed Seraphim Rose" does it take to perform a fair, impartial, honest, and accurate scientific study of the age of the universe?

A: No one knows. (It's never been tried!)

Whether my title would interest anyone here is anyone's guess; possibly it wouldn't interest anyone. For the curious, though, I would mention that the book is a religious critique of a school that has as one signature trait an incorporation of Creation "Science." It doesn't really address whether Creation "Science" is good or bad for science, but it raises loud alarms for whether Creation "Science" is good or bad for religion.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .