Speaking in the context of evolution, David Macmillan advises:
Creationists attempt to rewrite the last two centuries of scientific progress in order to avoid dealing with the multiple lines of evidence all independently affirming common descent and deep time.
But does a claim’s support by multiple lines of evidence mean that it’s true?
Speaking in the context of deep time, Henry Morris advises:
When I first became interested in the subject of cosmogony almost 40 years ago, it was widely held that the universe was two billion years old. The most persuasive “proof” of this age was the convergence of several independent calculations on this date. The argument went like this: “Although questions can be raised about the reliability of any one method, the fact that several independent methods ‘agree’ must prove that they are all basically correct. The decay of lead into uranium, the expansion of the universe, and several other calculations all yield an age of two billion years, so this is undoubtedly the true age!”
It is now known, of course, that all these calculations were wrong. In each of the methods, certain assumptions had been made which were later proved wrong.
- Macmillan, D. (2014) Understanding creationism: An insider’s guide by a former young-Earth creationist. Panda’s Thumb. Available http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/05/understanding-c.html. Last accessed 11th Jul 2015.
- Morris, H. (1987) ‘How and When Did the World Begin?’ in What is Creation Science? [ebook]. Revised and Expanded Edition. Master Books, Green Forest, Location 3532.