Creation Science Rebuttals

     Sheppard starts off with telling how Dr. Jason Lisle is busy doing real science.  I agree...but only partially.    I've written elsewhere about the oxymoron "creation scientist", so I'll summarize here as needed.

     Sheppard compares the two sides (creation and evolution), in an attempt to show that you can do real science without believing in old ages.  No argument here.  Many scientific works have nothing to do with the age of the earth, and it is these where the creation scientist can make a name for himself/herself.  However, when dealing with the age of the earth, their bias makes their scientific works related to age useless (read the link above to find out why).   For the most part, this summary by Sheppard is addressed by the link.

     Sheppard says many Ph.D. scientists believe in a young earth (the holding of a Ph.D. is not an indication of wisdom or intelligence).  Interestingly, Dr. Jason Lisle, the author of this chapter of the book, says in another article that he had to sometimes hide his belief, or else he feared he would not be granted his Ph.D.  Since he studied at a secular university, and passed, that means he had to lie on the tests (he believed in a young universe, but he had to answer questions from an old universe perspective in order to pass).  Thus, Lisle had to lie in order to get his degree.  Since his integrity is in question, one must question whether or not his degree, and the degrees of many other young earth creationists, are valid.

     I realize that some creation scientists hold advanced degrees, and conduct some valid scientific research.  However, given their "reverse science" (see Creation Scientist?), they do not practice true science in matters related to young earth creation science.