As a Christian trained in geology, let me suggest that the difficulty is one
of philosophical approach rather than evidence. Along with colleagues also
trained in geology, we have investigated as many problems as we could during
the past 20 years. Our conclusions: that in every case we have
investigated, we have found alternative explanations at least as
satisfactory as those accepted by evolutionary geologists. Clearly, with a
lead time of 200 years, evolutionary geologists have gained a great
advantage. Most of the evidence has been interpreted in this context, and
thus favors this perspective. I will have to tell you, therefore, you make
a great mistake to think that you can present evidence to refute every
position taken by evolutionists. I know of no compelling explanation for
the data from geochronology. I don't even try to explain it away. I am
content to put it on a shelf, and let it sit for someone else to tackle. I
am not trained in geophysics. I see the data. I am informed with respect to
what it is interpreted to indicate. But I am unwilling to tell God in the
judgment that I chose not to believe His Word because of all the evidence
from geochronology. After all, it was to protect us from that mistake that
He told us in detail how He did form the surface of the earth to be
inhabited and how He created life, in Genesis. My confidence is based first
on a straightforward reading of His Word, and secondly on what I have found
in the studies I have done in areas where I am competent.
Faced with this overwhelming body of evidence interpreted within the
evolutionary context, some individuals have felt that they could not
honestly continue to believe in the straightforward reading of Genesis. In
this I do not condemn them. I am convinced they are being honest, and God is
their judge, not I. But once one allows the possibility that Genesis may
have explanations other than the most straightforward reading, it is far
simpler to accommodate the evolutionary explanation than to come up with
alternatives. I do not suggest that individuals who have elected to do so
are less honorable or less competent. They have just made, in my opinion, a
wrong turn. We have probably spent an average of ten years of our
professional careers on each problem, so it is not easy, but the problems we
have chosen to study have been the most compelling arguments against the
short chronology, so they were not easy problems to resolve. All of this
has been done in the context of the evolutionary geological community, with
the results published in geological journals that are peer reviewed. This
is not to say that we have advocated a global flood in the papers. We have
addressed the questions of the scientific evidence.
Art
http://chadwicka.swac.edu