To the editor:

In the May 6 Independent, Mr. Phil Drietz quotes information gleaned from sites like Answers In Genesis. These sites, like Mr. Drietz, promote the idea of a young Earth.

Their process is to assume their idea is true. One interpretation of Biblical genealogies says the Earth about 6000-years-old. Thus, any contrary statement must be false. By pointing out a few contested areas of science, they claim that all the science is wrong. They conclude that their original assumption, a young Earth, must be true. This is pure circular logic.

When you only look at sites that you agree with you only find information that supports your ideas.

Many people have refuted the fantasies promoted by Mr. Drietz, so I will not waste time by doing it again.

What evidence does Mr. Drietz offer for his position? Does there exist scientific, testable evidence that the Earth is 6000 years old? An Internet search finds sites, like Answers In Genesis, that present a few contested areas of science. In fact, it is scientists who found these areas and are working to clarify them. The young-Earth sites present this scientific process as flaws in the science.

If Mr. Drietz has scientific evidence for a young Earth, let him present it. Thousands of scientific, testable facts show the Earth being 4.3 billion-years-old. Suppose one, or a dozen, or even hundreds of those thousands of facts are questionable. This does not mean that the basic science is wrong, and it does not mean that some other idea is correct.

Science works by questioning and testing the facts. Toss out the data that is questionable or wrong. We are left with tested science we can rely on.

Harold Shuckhart

Minneota