Objections To a Six-Day Creation, Part 1

This subject will easily fill more than one post, so today we will discuss just a couple of the most common objections we hear regarding a literal, 6-day creation. Probably the biggest, and most-often repeated objection, is that science has proven the earth to be billions of years old, so of course the Bible is incorrect in it's telling of a 6-day creation. My first response to this, is that the "science" used to prove the earth's age, is untrustworthy. Most of this is based on assumptions already help by the scientists. Read this quote from Professor Richard Lewontin, one of the leading evolutionary biology professors:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

If that does not show the absolute biased presuppositions of many "scientists", then nothing does! Both sides of this issue of evolution have the same evidence. We al study the same earth, fossils, galaxies, etc. However, we both come to the study with assumptions. However, for a scientist to admit that they will not even consider the possibility of a God who created the universe, simply because they are committed to materialism, how can we expect their findings to be correct? Why would you even trust some one who apparently without shame, says that he won't even look at another possibility, because it goes against what he already thinks? This is bias and prejudice at it's worst! 

Another answer for this objection, is that men will take the word of "science" as an absolute truth-in spite of the fact that it is always changing-above the word of the Infallible God. Science can not make up it's mind from one day to the next on many issues, yet we should trust these men and women more than the Ultimate Authority? If you wanted to get to know the history of a certain building, wouldn't you be more likely to trust a historian who lived in the area, and was familiar with all the details of the building in question? Or would you rely on the word of some man who claimed he knew the truth, yet changed his story about this building every few days, months or years? When put this way, it is easy to see why I, like so many others, choose to believe the Bible, and the Infallible God who wrote it!