Internal Debates in the Creation Science Community

David Tyler summarizes three flood geology models (*) and ongoing debates. (16 k) (* end-pleiocene, end-cretaceous, end-carboniferous)

In a pair of papers (pages 52-59 & 101-109 in Technical Journal, 2000) Andy McIntosh, Tom Edmondson, and Steve Taylor look at scientific models (vapour canopy, hydroplate, catastrophic plate tectonics) and biblical data, in order to emphasize the value of "an integrated approach" with "a great need to gather scientists from all disciplines [working in teams] to consider the problems that have been rightly brought to the attention of the biblical creationist community" because "experience shows that major research problems require interdisciplinary teams to make progress" and "only as there is greater interaction between the relevant scientific disciplines will some of the unanswered problems of the Biblical Flood models be solved." (30 k and 33 k)

Larry Vardiman describes the post-RATE research plans of ICR in genetics and geology, astronomy and more. (10 k)

Attitudes among young-earth creation scientists span a wide range, from total confidence in their current science to a humble recognition of its many weaknesses.

• In 2005, Kurt Wise & Andrew Snelling describe a change (since the early-1990s) in their own models for the boundary between pre-flood and flood in the Grand Canyon.
• And in 1999, Carl Froede & John Reed examine various creationist stratigraphies and conclude that "all of these approaches fail either because of the time/energy demands of the sedimentary record relative to a short post-Flood history."  They recognize that "both creationist and secular scientists require internal corrections to their models and ideas" and they recommend a major change because "examining the GUC ‘model’ [global uniformitarian stratigraphic column] against the Bible’s presentation of earth history demonstrates the complete failure in unifying these two worldviews."  Therefore they "believe a new approach to creationist stratigraphy [by rejecting the GUC, the Global Uniformitarian Column] is required. ... We hope this will lead to greater productivity as we base our investigations more consciously on Scripture instead of worrying about how to make the Bible work within a [GUC] system based on evolution."

Above, a LINK is page-adding, opening a new page in a new window
Below, a LINK is page-replacing, opening a new page in this window