I generally steer clear of topics like this; however, I finally felt obligated to weigh in on the Young Earth Creationist movement. Knowing the common belief among Young Earthers that certain fields of science are invalid, I’d like to consider a world without those fields.
Here are four topics I invite you to read:
Cosmic Microwave Background – Measuring residual microwave radiation from the Big Bang
Cosmological Redshifting – Determining relative speed of cosmic objects through spectral analysis
Radiocarbon Dating – Using relative Carbon isotope concentrations to determine the age of objects
Calculating Age of the Sun – Some basic atomic physics to figure out how old our sun is
Any one of these topics (which are all independent scientific methods) demonstrate that a 6,000 year old Earth just isn’t anywhere within the realm of possibility. Each link should provide sufficient evidence to make that apparent.
Let’s suppose for a minute that the Young Earth movement guys and gals are correct. We’d have to assume that everything we know about science isn’t true for that to be the case.
Here’s a few examples from those topics to consider:
If you refuse to believe in general/special relativity, you can’t use a GPS device that absolutely requires relativistic compensation in order to tell you which street you’re on due to the absolutely irrefutable fact of time dilation preventing an accurate measurement when your phone compares time-stamps for location triangulation from satellites orbiting above Earth. Our astrophysics models all rely on that basic scientific principle. Similarly, many other scientific principles are derived from that same knowledge.
Assuming that the base knowledge is incorrect so that your pet theory can be true requires you to invalidate pretty much everything we know that’s derived from that base knowledge.
If you want to argue that we don’t understand microwave radiation enough to calculate residual radiation from the Big Bang because you don’t believe in it, there’s an entire telecommunications industry that is founded on the same science and technology that suddenly makes no sense. How does a cellphone work? Obviously we don’t have any clue because we don’t understand enough about microwaves to point a receiver dish at space.
If you want to assume that Doppler shifting and spectral analysis are made up because that’d allow for cosmic objects greater than 6,000 light years away, you also give up everything you learn from using mass spectrometers (which is pretty much General Chemistry 1 and onward). If Joe Fourier was wrong, I just don’t want to be right.
If you want to assume that radiocarbon dating is just made up because the fossil record is a giant conspiracy, you give up the entirety of nuclear medicine because radioactive decay modeling is used in more than just telling you how old a fossil is. Ever have a PET scan in a hospital? That uses radioactive decay. We know how radioactive decay modes work to the point that we can use it to detect brain tumors just as well as telling how old a T-Rex is.
If you want to assume that our sun’s atomic chemistry isn’t real to refute the age of our sun (since it’s over 6000 years old), you’d have to assume that we have no idea how nuclear power works. If you can’t extrapolate a rough idea of reactant consumption in induced nuclear reactions, you’re probably not going to be able to design weaponry that works on the exact same principles.
That’s why you can’t just cherry pick science. All of our knowledge is dependent on the universe functioning the way that our fundamental laws say it will. For Young Earth Creationists to be correct, we’d have to throw out almost everything we know about chemistry and physics.