Obviously, but he can and should draw on the resources of other YECs to
explain it. If no one on the YEC side can explain it, then what does that
say about the position they advocate. To imply that we can remain forever
in a state of suspended judgement implies that all views are equivalent
scientifically.
There are so many facts that the YEC position can not explain, one must
admire the ability to brashly state that "science supports" that positon.
>
>The question might be a proper one to ICR.
No, the question is proper to anyone who advocates a given view. If they
can't provide an answer, then I would contend that they have not put enough
thought into the problem. Why should someone be excused from defending what
they themselves advocate? ICR didn't post to this board.
>
>If I were a YECer I'd simply say the stuff was created at the beginning
>that way. Pretty much the Gosse approach.
Then I would not be able to complain. I might think that is not a good
position, but it IS unasailable.
>
>(I have a difficulty here because I really don't think "science," or --
>more properly -- "scientific data" supports a young earth. If God really
>created the earth 6000 or so years ago -- He must have created it to
>appear older than that. Why would he do that? I have no idea. The
>"deceitful God" hypothesis is clearly ruled out -- but there may well
>have been other reasons.
This is much different than Allen's claim. He said " ICR is successful
because they show that science supports recent creation week and Flood
Catastrophe."
As you so astutely observed, science and scientific data does no such thing.
And I think that Allen should defend what he is advocating rather than ask
the question of ICR.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm