Honestly, though, why does the Institute for Creation Research (http://icr.org) exist? Can you even call it science, when you start with “The Earth is 6000 years old because a book written 2800 years ago told me so. Now let’s cherry pick data and evidence to fit that conclusion.”
Look, science is not perfect. I am willing to admit it. Again, case in point, they have some evidence (carefully chosen) that is hard to technically refute (please read that very literally. The research itself is not *technically* incorrect, but it is *practically* incorrect) stating that the Earth is between 4000 and 10000 years old… But here’s the thing; the ICR will trumpet any cherry-picked study they can find that will agree with their pre-existing conclusion; that the Earth is 6000 years old. It doesn’t matter if 10, 100, or 1000 studies stand against this one study, they have one study that agrees with their conclusion (and conclusion is, obviously, not the correct word to use here).
How do they get funding? Why do they get funding? Why is their whole mission to stand against an entire body of science? What is the point of standing against a whole body of science?
I mean, if you are correct, and it is scientifically provable that the Earth is 6000 years old, won’t science at large eventually agree? Why do you need a specific, religiously funded branch to try to force the issue, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary? To make yourself feel better? It is my prerogative to believe there is a pink unicorn in my bedroom that sprinkles happy dreams on me while I sleep. I could even pay a large group of people to spread said story… But that doesn’t make it true.
Long story short, countering good science by cherry picking very narrow-spectrum studies does your side no good. Frankly, it makes you look silly.
Now please, let science do its thing. Please?
Blog42: My Stream of (semi)Consciousness 