Begging

YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISTS BEG FOR MONEY WITHOUT A TRACK RECORD OF SUCCESS

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

May 4, 2014

While recognizing the enormous challenges to Flood geology, Reed and Oard (2009a, p. 16) attempt to argue that actualism also has similar challenges. This attempt to equate the extensive and fatal problems of Flood geology with the generally successful results from actualism is a grossly inaccurate exaggeration. Such a comparison is totally unjustified. Now, contrary to the disinformation in Oard (2009a, p. 113), I never stated in my 1999 essay that science explains “everything.” I certainly recognize that there are plenty of mysteries in the geologic record that need to be solved. However, unlike Flood geology, discoveries in the geologic record repeatedly and fully support biological evolution and actualism. That is, no outcrops have been found that contain contemporaneous human and dinosaur remains. Unlike Flood geology, actualism has rock solid achievements in locating resources and solving environmental problems. Actualism also provides a very coherent, reliable and consistent view of the history of the Earth (for example, see here) and its diverse ancient environments. From actualism, geologists can answer very fundamental questions about the geologic record that young-Earth creationists (YECs) have failed to explain after many years of trying, such as: why don't we find dinosaur fossils with elephant or human remains? Why don't we find trilobites with scleractinian corals even though they both widely lived in ancient tropical seas? How do salt deposits form? How can YECs explain diamictites without ignoring the most recent field evidence (for example, compare: Oard, 2009a with Le Heron et al., 2009)?

So, what material benefits has Flood geology given our society? What indisputable scientific evidence and track record of accomplishments can YECs now offer to any skeptical investors? What scientific evidence about the geologic record has young-Earth creationism explained in detail that actualism cannot? How much gold and oil has been found by using Genesis 1-11 instead of the geologic time scale and stratigraphy? Why do petroleum and mining companies pay geologists so well if they can apply actualism? Young-Earth creationism has never even come close to providing a coherent and consistent model of Earth history and the petroleum and mineral industries know it.

Like most advocates of the paranormal, Reed and Oard (2009a, pp. 15-16) suggest that if they only had enough money and personnel, they might accomplish great things. They believe that more money and personnel might allow YECs to finally develop a viable Flood geology model or perhaps make valuable contributions to resource exploration and environmental geology. Yet, where is the basis for any optimism in YEC “science”? Where is their track record of scientific accomplishments within the YEC framework? After nearly 50 years of organized young-Earth creationism in highly Christianized and wealthy America, the number of PhD and master’s degree members of the Creation Research Society has barely grown over 700. (In 2001, there were about 2.2 million professional scientists in the USA.) In 1964, both young-Earth creationism and continental drift (the predecessor of plate tectonics) were widely ignored or ridiculed by geologists. However, over the next few years, the number of advocates of plate tectonics went from virtually zero to dominating the field of geology. Why has plate tectonics had so much success and not young-Earth creationism? Certainly, positive accomplishments are not just achieved by throwing money at a problem and having wishful thinking. There are plenty of government programs that show that that doesn't work. Although there are certainly remaining challenges with plate tectonic models, plate tectonics proved its validity with diverse scientific evidence from paleontology, geophysics, igneous petrology, geomagnetism, satellite measurements, geochemistry and many other disciplines, all of which confirmed the existence and movement of tectonic plates. Even initial skeptics of plate tectonics recognized that the arguments for and against plate tectonics were ultimately based on science. In contrast, the foundation of young-Earth creationism is religious and even a lot of evangelical Christians find its arguments to be irrational and unnecessary.

Although Reed and Oard (2009a, pp. 15-16) and other YECs complain about a lack of funds and personnel for their research, YECs are not as poor or unsupported as they might think (for some older data on YEC funding, see here). In contrast, the 1997-2007 budgets of the anti-creationist National Center for Science Education (NCSE) were relatively small. Also, polls (such as this one) suggest that roughly 40% of the adult American population still believe in some form of creationism. So, with such a large pool of potential donors and human resources, why can't YECs get all the support that they want? Perhaps, it's because that millions of Americans that profess to believe in young-Earth creationism aren't really convinced enough of it to invest in it. Furthermore, there is little hope that large numbers of individuals will retain their YEC beliefs if they study the geologic record in any detail (for examples of individuals that saw the reality of the geologic record and abandoned their YEC beliefs, see here, here and here).

Oard (2008b, p. 1) readily acknowledges that young-Earth creationism has “hundreds of challenges” from geology. Oard and Reed (2009, p. 8) further admit that YEC arguments for “diluvial geology” have been far less effective with the public than YEC arguments from theology or the life sciences. Not only do Reed and Oard (2009a, p. 16) recognize that there are many challenges to Flood geology, they expect many more to arise in the future. Yet, if there was any truth to Flood geology, shouldn't the pieces of the puzzle soon begin to come together and form a consistent and reliable picture? If Flood geology is a viable option, shouldn't research begin to answer more questions than what are being raised? If Flood geology and other aspects of young-Earth creationism are true, shouldn't they very soon become apparent? Yet, the opposite is occurring. At what point, do advocates of any hypothesis admit that their hypothesis is a failure?

Many YECs view the RATE projects to be their greatest “contribution” to science. However, a close evaluation of RATE shows that a lot of money was wasted on projects that produced very questionable results and outright invalid conclusions (also here). Rather than solving problems, RATE actually created worse problems for young-Earth creationism. For example, instead of invalidating radiometric dating, the accelerated radioactive decay rates proposed by RATE personnel would have created an enormous heat problem that would have sterilized the Earth (also here and here). Clearly, young-Earth creationism and its Flood geology only survive because of their popular, but erroneous, biblical interpretations. YECs are no closer to having “rock solid answers” than they were decades ago. If anything, their “research” continues to raise more problems and enormous questions for them. YECs could avoid all of these unlikely scenarios and worsening problems if they would just discard their outdated biblical interpretations and embrace actualism (reality).

References: (Note: lettering of the years of the references is consistent with the other essays at this website.)

Le Heron, D.P., J. Craig, and J.L. Etienne. 2009. “Ancient Glaciations and Hydrocarbon Accumulations in North Africa and the Middle East”, Earth-Science Reviews, v. 93, pp. 47-76.

Oard, M.J. 2008b. “The Eocene Ice Age - Example of a Geological Challenge,” Creation Matters, v. 13, n. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 1, 6-8.

Oard, M.J. 2009a. “Landslides Win in a Landslide over Ancient 'Ice Ages'“, chapter 7 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 111-123.

Oard, M.J. and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, 272 pp.

Reed, J.K. and M.J. Oard. 2009a. “A Context for the Flood Geology Debate,” chapter 1 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 11-17.