Joined: May 2007
With AiG being a creationism propaganda organization, obviously aimed at a general audience consisting of primarily fundamentalist creationists, with the purpose of supporting the belief in six-day creation and a literal reading of Genesis, I don’t see how stuff like that is relevant – except to impress the crowd with sciency stuff.
I think I am reasonably well informed and knowledgeable person, but from reading the Snelling piece I can only conclude that in order to determine if I think he’s got a valid argument, I’d have to do quite a thorough study of geology and nuclear physics.
As far as I am concerned I don’t for a second think that his argument is of much relevance for the question of the age of the Earth or the planet’s geological and biological history.
The problem is that creationists don’t believe science beyond facts like gravity, and don’t want to learn science. They believe creationism and ‘study’ creationism.
BTW, isn’t Snelling his own twin?
The fundamental choice to be made, given the available information, is not whether chance provides a better explanation than design, but whether natural laws provide a better explanation than a design.