Michael_Callen (and others),
[edits forth coming]
Apologies in advance for the terseness of some replies and if I miss some querries. I became a target on the internet ever since I appeared in the April 28, 2005 cover story on Nature regarding ID, “Who Has Designs on your Students Minds.” So I simply have a policy of having to avoid complete answers to certain questions and stating my DEFAULT ANSWER: I don’t know, I could be mistaken.
My positions (my beliefs)
Universal Common Ancestry is in false. Evidence is FOR a TAXONOMIC nested hierarchy, but against the taxonomic hierarchy being the result of common descent, the main reason is Taxonomically Restricted Genes and Protein. Major transitions that are problematic are evolution of Eukaryotes, Multicellular Animals. Minor problems are evolution of mammary glands. Phylogenetic methods do not explain mechanistic gaps such as the absence for an explanation for the major taxonomic protein families. If one actually looks at CDART, the common ancestor of all proteins is non-existent in principle. If Universal Common Descent needs miracles to make it feasible, it is little different in degree from invoking special creation!
Age of the fossil record is much less than hundreds of millions of years. Evidence is good that the question, at the very least should remain open. Radio metric dates fall on both sides of the claim of old or young, however clocks within the organism (C14, amino acid racemization, DNA persistence) favor youth. Dates of surrounding rocks favor long ages. Problematic for long ages is that erosion rates indicate the fossils layers should have eroded into the sea. The process of fossilization favors a cataclysm and rapid burial involving water. The sedimentary layers are better explain such as in the video “Drama in the Rocks” which cite experiments at the Colorado School of Mines.
There are lots of other problems from purely mechanistic reasons that I could never in good conscience say the fossil record looks definitely old. I personally believe it is young. From and astrophysics standpoint, I think the Faint Young Sun Paradox is a serious problem for the fossil record being old. It would require Fine-Tuned global warming to keep the Earth becoming an iceball. The fine-tuning would be miraculous. At some point if one claim is just as miraculous as another, it’s a matter of picking your miracle! Alternative nucleosynthesis and nuclear transmutation models seem to fit the YEC model better, imho. The claim we came from an exploded supernova doesn’t accord with the element and isotopic profiles of the Earth or Solar System’s chemistry.
If the fossil record is young, it suggests life if young. I believe it is young. The evidence suggests it.
The Solar System. I don’t believe the Solar System Evolved nor is old. I came to believe the non-evolvability of the Solar System after reading Stuart Ross Taylor’s book that was actually intended as an anti-YEC thesis. It had quite the opposite effect on me. The question is the age of the Solar System. At this point, I will invoke the fact that I believe life is young, I’m philosophically and theologically inclined to believe the Solar System is young.
The age of the universe? I no longer believe the Big Bang for reasons articulated quite well by dissenting secular astronomers and astrophysicists. Reasons for me disbelieving, mechanistically, that we really understand what is going on is here:
The evidence is mostly FOR old universe because of distant starlight, but because life is young and because of the anomalies, I’m inclined to believe at a personal level the universe is young as well.
So, when I teach YEC, I suggest a TENTATIVE approximate defensible model is Old Universe/Young Life, or simply Young Life. I’m happy to say, I have personally believe in YEC because I think the fossil record is young and I totally reject universal common ancestry as a mechanistic explanation for the taxnomic nested hierarchy (which Linnaeus and other creationists saw), and that it seems a reasonable hunch the rest of creation is young, but we might need to wait on evidence to that effect.
I have worked on theory and experiments, such as Cahills interferometers, to explore alternative to Einsteinian relativity in favor of neo-Lorentzian relativity. For experimental reasons alone, I think Einstein’s General Relativity was close, but not quite accurate.
This is my view of Cahill’s work which I wrote in 2014 before I constructed one of Cahill’s experiments in 2016: