Young Earth Creationism

First and foremost, I would like to explain to my opponent the following things: 1. My opponent is the instigator. He has set forth a resolution and chosen a position against Young Earth Creationism. I am the contender, and my role is to respond negatively to the arguments he provides, while still providing a case for my own position. I am not required to prove Young Earth Creationism beyond a reasonable doubt. I need only provide enough information to adequately negate my opponent's attacks while providing a suitable argument, showing that Young Earth Creationism is a viable position despite my opponent's criticisms. 2. Young Earth Creationism need not be a literal interpretation of the Bible. It must only involve the notions of a guiding force for the creation of the universe and the assertion that the current view of a several billion year old universe is flawed. Nothing else. Next, I would like to debunk my opponent's first statement. There are an infinite number of convoluted, ridiculous, and nonsensical theories out there. The fact that my opponent believes he has not encountered one more so than Young Earth Creationism is irrelevant to this debate, as I am sure that no one will doubt that I can fashion a theory even more convoluted, ridiculous, and nonsensical. My opponent has asserted that modern science *proves* a case for a several billion year old universe. If this is the burden he has chosen to place upon himself, I will allow him to do such. I myself will uphold my opponent's challenge to provide evidence that the earth is young. However, this is a proof that will take many steps. First, I will make my case for a supernatural creation. Next round, I will make my case for a young earth. 1. The Anthropic Principle. Naturalists tend to adopt the notion that each and every object in this universe is made up of mass and energy. In addition, they assert that physical forces are responsible for every cause and effect that takes place in the universe. This directly contradicts our experience of free will. A deterministic universe cannot account for the fact that free will exists among human beings and that we alone execute actions that move the physical laws of the universe and the timeline of natural events from an infinite number of possibilities to simply one, and having that one lead to yet another infinite number of possibilities. With the advances in neurotechnology and biochemical research, we are still unable to prove the long held notion that our thoughts and actions are determined merely by physical, electrical forces in the brain. There is still an inexplicable confusion among the scientific community, even though all other aspects of human anatomy have been reduced down to the physical level, the brain and the processes by which human beings execute their actions and inflict change upon the universe remains undiscovered. Is this a proof for free will? No. However, this calls into question the assumed naturalistic and deterministic worldview that our universe is simply what science and empirical evidence can conclude: the natural. It is evidence showing that the possibility of a supernatural exists, and that we cannot simply throw it out. That having been said, there is something inherently and objectively special about human beings in comparison to all other things in the universe. Recall that the naturalistic view of all things as mere biochemical reactions ONLY makes sense in a deterministic view. I have shown that this view has not been substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, human beings can objectively understand the difference between their realm of influence, and that of all other animate and inanimate objects in the universe: we alone have the capability to enact our will upon the universe. This hearkens back to the Biblical notion that man is the steward of the universe, and that he is master of this physical domain. Setting aside the notion of creation, this universe exists in a manner that points to the notion that we rule it. 2. The Plausibility of Creation and the Divine The inexplicable aspects of our minds are what lead to very important parts of our society. Intelligence, creativity, logic, reason, these are all things that neurologists have not been able to adequately explain. Emotion and many higher learning functions have been traced to some degree, but not reduced down to the biomechanical components. It is then curious that the Judeo-Christian God is said to have the attributes of Intelligence and creativity, something that is shared with human beings. In this manner, if Creation is valid, then we were very much created in the image of the Divine, and no matter what your view of God, it then becomes plausible to believe that the aspects of humanity that seem supernatural to us, indeed come from a supernatural source. Not a conclusive proof, but a plausible suggestion. 3. The universe is fine-tuned to our existence. Being unable to explain the source of our intelligence and our ability to manipulate the universe is one thing. However, when we connect it with the fact that the universe is structured in a way that is specifically catered to our inexplicable characteristics, we can really start to question whether this universe is really the result of uncaring forces that build upon each other as with the core tenet of natural selection. Some may argue that the fine tuned argument is flawed in that we are arguing backwards, that humankind developed to fit the environment, and not the other way around. However, natural selection does not account for the development of the ability to defy physical law and implement an inexplicable free will upon the universe. How is it possible that ancient primate ancestors who did not have this ability, suddenly transcend the plane of determinism, into one of free will and free manipulation? How can it be that natural selection, which occurs by way of genetic mutation, a physical process that is overseen by deterministic mechanisms, suddenly pops out something that oversees *it*? This is akin to writing a computer program that can script itself to take over mankind. Something you see in sci-fi movies, but something not quite possible in real life. 4. Pulling it all together The naturalistic mindset does not and cannot account for the fact that free will developed. Unless my opponent can conclusively prove the fact that free will does not exist, without assuming naturalism is flawless, then we must conclude that the human ability to enact its will on space and time is something far grander than natural, physical forces. The human being is special, and is special in all the ways that humans attribute to the Divine. This cannot be a coincidence. The most logical conclusion that comes from these processes is that these characteristics we identify as characteristically human are actually divine in nature, and that the Divine has, for some reason, instilled these characteristics into a physical form. We were created by God, and we contain parts that are divine and unnatural. The universe reflects this divine creation. I look forward to my opponent's inarguable proof for a several billion year old earth. Thank you.