Over the past three or four years, I have had a huge paradigm shift in my perspective on so called “creation science.” I went from being a die hard, solidly convinced AIG-type young earth creationist to having a worldview I don’t even necessarily have a decent label for anymore. Neither old or young earth creationism have a coherent interpretation of either scripture or observational science, and below are criticisms on both.
Old Earth Creationism is flawed because it loosely attempts to squeeze scripture into a geologic timescale inferred from observational evidence. For example, it denies the existence of human beings prior to 100 kya. You could say the first five days are long ages and literal time recording begins with the creation of man, as some prominent OECs do, but you still run into a time issue because Homo erectus was around ~2 mya. Their answer is that early hominids were not human beings but were rather human like creatures created before man. This makes no sense whatsoever. Hominids were advanced in terms of skill, culture, and social interaction, so denying them as part of our family tree is foolish
Young Earth Creationism is commendable in its high view of scripture, but it recklessly presents cosmological, geological, and biological models that do not make sense in light of observable evidence. For instance, the labeling of the entirety of the fossil record as Deluge sedimentation is not only excessive, but down right impossible when certain phenomena are considered, like paleosols and coral reefs embedded in strata on top of one another.
One view tries too hard to fit Scripture into science, while the other tries to fit science into scripture. What needs to be done instead is a correlation study of how scripture and science confirm one another and see how such commonalities correlate to a time scale.
Any other perspectives on the subject or other intellectual journeys anyone else has gone through are welcome!