In my daily poking around in the reddit.com hivemind, I occasionally find something of true brilliance and usefulness. One such item showed up in my feed this evening; a response to the all-too-common attacks on geological dating techniques (much more frequent than the dating techniques of geologists) levied by proponents of Young Earth Creationism. This set of links, along with a few suggested laboratories for teaching children springs from one of my almae matres, Indiana University.
Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is more or less predicated on the old geological interpretation of catastrophism, basically saying that most, if not all, of the geological phenomena and strata we now see were laid down in the Genesis flood. It is easy to see the appeal of this idea if one is trying to accommodate the literal Genesis account into the natural evidence. It is not a new idea, stemming in part from Cuvier (Although his viewpoint was far from a supernatural one, and his work was greatly amended and altered by Jameson to indicate support for a flood event origin). The problem with it is two-fold. First off, as scientists (and, for that matter, intelligent human beings), our hackles should be raised instinctively by the thought of tailoring our evidence to a specific conclusion, rather than the other way around. Secondly, the vast evidence simply does not support catastrophism, especially a flood-based viewpoint of it. Even William Buckland, a proponent of flood-theory who sought it as evidence of the genesis account, eventually abandoned it when the evidence didn't support it.
So, why do YEC's like Ken Hamm want this so badly? It's a clear assault on Evolutionary biology. If we can show a possibility that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and all the strata and geology that we now see occurred suddenly, then there simply isn't enough time for the mechanisms of natural evolution to occur. That's what the argument is. Pity for them that the rocks don't support their point of view.
