Someone sent me a link to this interview with young earth creationist Jonathan Sarfati, which is full of the kind egregious crap we’ve grown accustomed to from YECs like him.
Tulsa World: How strong is the scientific evidence for classical Darwinian evolution?
Sarfati: You can’t make a good argument for it. Even going back in history, most of Darwin’s criticism from his contemporaries came from other scientists. A lot of his support came from the clergy, which is the reverse of what people usually think.
The last two sentences are both wrong and irrelevant. The first is simply idiocy. With a straight face, he actually says that you can’t make a good argument for a theory accepted by virtually every single scientist in the relevant fields for nearly 150 years. Utterly ridiculous. So is his attempt to explain away that consensus:
If belief in evolution is not scientifically defensible, why is it so widely held in the scientific community?
Evolutionists have their own bias, and their bias is a materialistic world view. We have admissions from (some of them) who said they have to accept the view, no matter how counter-intuitive because they have a commitment to materialism.
Really? Tell that to Ken Miller. He certainly doesn’t have any bias toward materialism. Nor do the thousands and thousands of other evolutionary scientists who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim or the like. This isn’t an argument, it’s an attempt to avoid one.
What about the contrary evidence from scientific dating methods?
There are always assumptions behind dating methods. They’re not infallible. They can be made to point to a young Earth, as well as an old Earth.
This is a neat rhetorical trick. He uses the term “assumptions” to refer to a set of claims that are entirely testable. We don’t have to assume, for example, the decay rates of radioisotopes; we can test that rate of decay. Nor do we have to assume that those decay rates are not affected by a wide range of conditions because we can test that too — and we have.
The evidence is not what people think. For example, people think that carbon 14 dating proves millions of years, but carbon 14 dating itself argues against millions of years.
One would have to be an ignoramus to believe that carbon dating either proves or disproves millions of years, since it can’t be used on anything near that old. It can only be used on organic samples that are younger than about 60,000 years because the half-life is only 5730 years. Sarfati knows this, of course, but he also knows his followers do not.