"Scientific" creationists have claimed that the physical evidence, without the need of miracles, supports an earth which is only about 6000 years old. They have written numerous books in support of such claims. If the number of books written, lectures delivered, and debates staged had any relationship to the accuracy of one's claims, the "scientific" creationists would have succeeded a long time ago!

The scientific debate, of course, was settled long ago. However, a public debate is kept very much alive by the activities of the "scientific" creationists. I use quotations here because real scientists look at the data first and then determine if their hypotheses will fit in. "Scientific" creationists begin with biblical "truths" which may not be questioned. They look at the data and then decide whether or not the data will fit in with their interpretation of the Bible. Supporting data are collected; contradictory data are assumed to be incomplete or erroneous. That is not science!

The shocking truth, unknown to much of the public, is that the arguments advanced by the "scientific" creationists are not only bad, but shockingly bad! Arguments based solely on obsolete data are by no means rare. Misrepresentation of the data are commonplace! (It is usually a case of bad data being passed along or wishful thinking rather than out- and-out dishonesty.) Thus, the question as to how good the young-earth arguments are takes on a new meaning.

This paper was written with the upcoming May 1994 Babinski-Hovind debate in mind. Dr. Kent Hovind, a popular "creationist evangelist," has offered $10,000 to anyone who can provide him with "evidence for evolution." If that offer is a meaningful one, then this manuscript may be viewed as a step toward claiming that prize. Therefore, Dr. Hovind's list of 30 young-earth "proofs"--so typical of those offered by young- earth creationists over the past few decades--will be the primary focus of our discussion.