One thing that really bugs me about Creationists and about Young Earth Creationists specifically is that they are under the impression, that their position is somehow validated by science or that it can be validated by science. Because it is not validated by science and it can’t be and therefore needs to be taken on faith. I will demonstrate what criteria would have to be met in order to support their position.
For the purposes of discussion, let’s concede that evolution is completely wrong. What would it take to validate creationism and Young Earth creationism specifically? Well in order to validate Young Earth Creationism which claims that the Earth is 6.000 (in some cases 10.000 ) years old, you need to show how you arrive at that number. Typically Creationists always have arguments to support a Young Earth (although they are flawed, since Creationists only count the hits and ignore the misses completely) but they have yet to provide evidence for a 6.000 year old Earth. If the Earth was 5.000 years old, then their position would be false, if it was 7.000 years their position is wrong. I am not aware of anything that would validate that exact date, even if we concede that they are right and the Earth was young. Dear YECs: In order for your position to be supported by science, you need to get specific and you need to provide evidence for your exact conclusion. Saying “the Earth is young, therefore it’s 6000 years old and the Bible is correct” is a non-sequitur.
The second problem Creationists Old Earth as well as the fringe Young-Earth group face is the following: What mechanism did God use to create ex-nihilo? While I won’t defend evolution in this post, evolution does have a working mechanism: random mutations and natural selection. We have observed, that those 2 mechanisms can give rise to new species and we have observed that those 2 mechanisms allow organisms to gain new traits.
What’s the mechanism by which God created? Saying he poofed the animals and the Earth and the sun into existence from nothing is not good enough. We need to establish how he did it. There needs to a mechanism established, from which we can make predictions of what we should observe in our bodies, in our genome as well as within animals and within the Universe as a whole. Furthermore, Creationism is hopelessly bound by the doctrine of Creation ex-nihilo (from nothing). In other words the Creationist would have to establish, that God created matter and energy from which he made the Earth, the Universe, the Animals and us. It’s not sufficient for the Creationist position to demonstrate that God created from previously existing matter and energy. The Bible says that God created everything (Collosians 1: 16). How can you or any Creationist demonstrate that? You’d have to in order to propose that your case is scientific.
I’ll go one step further though: At best, the Creationist can make a case for Intelligent Design. Not only can he not demonstrate any mechanism by which God created, nor can he demonstrate that God created ex nihilo, he can’t establish that God created period. If evolution is false and Intelligent Design is an alternative, then who says that the Creator/Designer is God? Which ID proponent can offer evidence that it was a deity let alone their deity? I have yet to come across any evidence from any Creationist, that isn’t a version of “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.”
If any Creationist reading this thinks, that he can make a scientific case for Creationism that meets the requirements that I outlined, then be my guest, but unless you can do so your position is NOT supported by science!
Goodbye from yours truly,
Rene von Boenninghausen @Renevelation