Do young earth creationists really think that a century of geologic research is fraud?

Question

The economic and technological growth of the last century arguably rests on the exploitation of coal and oil. Geologic research has been fueled primarily by that industry, along with major engineering projects like dams and tunnels. Oil companies that pay billions for research demand functional theory and accurate knowledge. Bad information can cost millions of dollars in drilling dry wells. Bad geologic consulting for engineering project can cost lives.

So I wonder if young-earth creationists really see modern geology as some sort of mass delusion, and if, how? Geologists assert unequivocally that the earth is around 4.6 billion y.o., yet some creationists wave off decades of detailed stratigraphic research with the "Great Deluge." If a flood could explain complex global stratigraphy better than libraries of funded research, one would think that Exxon, Mobile, and GE would be employing creationists instead. Thoughts?

Best answer will be awarded to a good creationist response.

For those who don't understand, the term "young earth creationism" refers to belief in an earth created less than 10,000 years ago. It does not not refer to youth who believe in creationism.

Please restrict your answers to young-earth creationism. I know that many, if not most, creationists accept a wide variety of scientific information about the age and development of the earth. I am concerned with the thoughts of those who either ignore or reject academic and professional geology out of hand. Thank you to those who have answered the question directly!

Answer 1

No, the gelologists could be right (even though they are just guessing, they weren't there)... however its all about the time continuum isn't it?
God is in eternity therefore when He made the universe He did so in His own time. He might have taken the millions of years that the geologists said to make the universe and this world.
So that would make us both right.
The creationists don't deny it might have taken million of years (one day in God's time could be as long as He wants it to be). They do get ticked off when the scientists say that the whole universe and everything is in its place because it just happened that way.
It's not the time factor its all about the denial of a Creator.

Answer 2

Creationists have no complaint with science (or at least they shouldn't).

Modern geology, relating to technological research - where to drill for oil, dig for coal, mine for diamonds, etc... is a proven, verifiable science.

What creationists take issue with is the age of earth assumption, that does not necessarily flow out of the observations noted in the field. Geology does not prove a 4.5 billion year old earth. Secular geology allows for an interpretation of evidence, based on assumptions, that supports a 4.5 billion year old earth. Creation geology allows for allows for an interpretation of evidence, based on assumptions, that supports a 6000 year old earth.

In both cases the science remains the same, the observations remain the same, and as far as exploration for resources is concerned, the predictive capabilty of either theory works. A parallel is weather prediction - we don't know for sure how it works, we observe it - and based on past observations, we can reasonably accurately predict what the future weather will be.

There are alternatives to the complexity cited. One of the base assumptions in science is that given multiple explanations for a phenomenon (say stratigraphy), the most likely answer is the simplest. Yet in the case of evolution/creation, when the simplest answer is not acceptable, a more complicated solution must be found.

Recall the solar system models of 500 years ago - complicated intertwined circles and paths of planets, sun, moon, stars - even then there were problems with retrograde motion. Then once the unthinkable was presented - that the sun was the center of the solar system and not the earth, everything became easily explainable. Yet leading scientists of the (notably Tycho) fought against Copernicus's theory.

The church, which had also blindly followed the science opposed such an idea. They chose instead to support the geocentric ideas proposed centuries earlier by great church leaders such as Aristotle and Ptolemy. Oh wait, they were atheists.

Perhaps, rather than invent massive libraries of supporting documentation and research to explain something simple, we should consider that the simplest answer is the most likely. There are still many observed anomolies. Anomolies that creation science addresses, or is researching for more information - where secular science is at a loss.

Finally - there are those with no scientific background in both creation and evolution camps who are confident their theory has been proven. In reality, niether has. An honest look at the science will show that neither could be proven by science - they are world views.

But that doesn't keep us from using the modern technology to further our understanding, or to use the predictive capabilities of either approach to find oil or coal. There are many creationists working in the field of geologic research - finding those resources and furthering our scientific understanding.

It's not the science that's the problem, it's the bias we apply to the observations to prove what we want rather than allowing the observations to show us.

Answer 3

After reading your additional details I am more confused, but I will give this answer.

I do not see geologic research as a problem, but the application in understanding how it came to be is the problem.

There are examples of trees that extend through coal seams (meaning it lived while the coal was being formed around it for millions of years), also there have been a number of man made artifacts found in coal deposits (as well as in other rock layers). Also coal seams split and converge.

Those little plastic containers that have the white and black sand in them produce many different layers each time it is use. If you take a hand full of dirt and put it in the container it will separate into layers also.

Answer 4

No i do not. Did you know that not all creationists defy science. To me the laws of science show that there is too much order in the universe for it to be an accident? I also wonder why some anti-creationists have the audacity to assume what I believe without asking me but i guess that is just evidence that ignorance and prejudice are human traits with no ideological boundaries.

Answer 5

The entire thesis is based on a number of untested, and essentially untestable hypotheses. For instance, if you understand that before the flood the carbon 14 ratio was, say 9 times as great, then run the same tests, you will get entirely different results, which also will not be verifiable, bucause your understanding is not verifiable. Since it is not verifiable, it is not science.

Answer 6

Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson quickly became a best selling underground classic, with over 200,000 copies sold and translations in more than 13 languages. This massive work spawned waves of resistance and wonder amongst the scientific community, with over 900 pages of well-documented evidence suggesting that modern man did not evolve from ape man, but instead has co-existed with apes for millions of years!

Michael Cremo lectures to academic, popular, and scientific audiences audiences around the world in a continuing challenge to Darwinian evolution.

Micheal Cremo and the co-author Richard L. Thompson have provided 900 pages of evidence in "The Hidden History of the Human Race" disproving apes produced man. Then Michael A. Cremo wrote the sequel "HUMAN DEVOLUTION: A VEDIC ALTERNATIVE TO DARWIN'S THEORY" to the above book,

Michael Cremo is a member of the History of Science Society, the World Archeological Congress, the Philosophy of Science Association, the European Association of Archaeologists and associate member of the Bhaktivedanta Institute specializing in history and philosophy of science.

Both Michael Cremo and Richard L.Thompson after their huge work have concluded that their work was due to the grace of God

Answer 7

I would say most young creationists hold with both ideas of creationism and evolution. And I also think that most know that without the benefit of the science we have now, and the way of expressing things that we have now, that people in that time interpreted he things they were shown or saw in a different way. Concepts such as geology, evolution of species, even time itself.

Answer 8

The ones that answered by and large avoided the question but reading between the lines I'd say yes-they think geologists, biologists and ecologists are either liars or useless at their job.

Answer 9

All of Science is simply Satanic Fraud. Do you really think God is limited by human physics or human chemistry. Can there really be an equal and opposite reaction to God. If one believes the bible one is forced to conclude that all of human science is simply Satan's lies.

Answer 10

Sorry about the misunderstanding, but you said, "Do young earth creationists" in your question and not "creationism."

Anyway, I do believe that the earth was created within that time frame, as opposed to being millions or billions of years old.