Plimer went broke because he tried to sue a Creationist for misleading and deceptive conduct under the old Trade Practices Act for handing out pamphlets
on young earth creationism.
The Earth being younger than the radiometric age of 4.5 billion years old is based
on the Young Earth Creationism religious belief.
Now it is but not back then (and the people
on the young earth creationism side are back then).
Not exact matches
At most he is arguing against
Creationism and more specifically,
Young Earth Creationism, which is a pseudo-science supposedly based
on Genesis.
And it is ironic that Mohler, who has been a tireless advocate for
young earth creationism on the basis that «the straightforward and direct reading of [Genesis] describes seven 24 - hour days,» does not seem to think that a straightforward and direct reading of Jesus» teachings regarding violence is necessary.
They had already determined that evolution could not be true based
on their religious convictions, and so any logical or scientific inconsistencies within the
young earth creationism model were dismissed with a shrug of the shoulders and a pithy statement about the mysteries of God.
As I said earlier today
on this blog, it's not «
creationism» that's being rejected per se, but rather «
young earth»
creationism.
(An aside
on terminology: When I use the term
creationism I mean
young -
earth creationism.
My parents never really pushed
young earth creationism on me nor taught that it was a fundamental element of the Christian faith, but for most of my life I travelled in circles where it was assumed that good Christians embraced a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2, which describes the
earth as being created in six days.
On the other hand, ideas such as
young earth creationism should not be taught as scientifically valid for the very simple reason that they are not.