As a Christmas gift for creationists and all truth enquiring mankind i offer the intellectual foundation of opposing claims by a acclaimed authority.
Creationists/anyone are often enough told they must submit to scientists on conclusions about origins. to reject same conclusions is to reject science or reasonable claims of scientists to being experts in their subject as opposed to anyone else.
Does the free and thoughtful enquirer of truth owe such a deference? I say NO!
It is the intellectual right of all men to not submit to a expert in conclusions but listen to their evidence they have gathered. Then weigh it. In dealing with experts we owe a respect , a presumption, that they have studied uniquely some subject and have gathered knowledge about it. known or new insights.
Yet we do not need to respect their conclusion because it means actually respecting their intellectual personal mechanism.We don’t need to say they have intellectually got it right just becvause they are a expert.
We have a moral, intellectual, right to weigh the evidence they have gathered.
In this weighing, for the creationist, we have our own intellectual mechanism . that is equal to the task.then we have our own experts. Starting with God, his written knowledge, or human experts/scientists (as in organized ID/YEC/ETC circles) or anyone who has persuaded us they know about subject(s) within origins.
Creationism/anyone should do a better, aggresive job of demanding why we can take on experts/scientists in origin subjects without being told we are breaking the rules of human society , uniquely, if we disagree and oppose aggressively intellectually conclusions.
It must first be the independent thinking human. We only owe respect to knowledge and not human intellectual thinking mechanism.to what they know and not to who they are.