So, to answer the clarified question, "What would it take for an evolutionist to consider creation?", then my simple answer would be if that it agreed with the consensus scientific view on things like the age of the earth, and diversity of life forms.
There are excellent reasons why the scientific community doesn't take creationism seriously, and it has nothing to do with any sort of conspiracy, satanic influences, etc. It is purely because the facts point elsewhere.
Facts like what? You mean finding that 95% of the fossil record is marine in nature? That limestone, which can only be made by planktonic, and diatonic creatures, covers 10% of the earth's continental crust, and that many of the soft tissue fossils found in limestone laggerstatten prove rapid burial? That many fossils which are measured by other (the rocks around them) dating methods, have 14C in them. That shale, which covers much of the earth's crust also, can contain kerogen, which comes from the decay of organic material, sucn as diatoms, plankton, spores and woody material. And that many marine fossils, including Cambrian fossils, are found in shale and limestone.
Yes, the majority of the fossil record is indeed marine. This should not be a surprise as the majority of the earthÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s surface is covered with ocean water, and the study of paleogeography shows that this has been the case for much of the earthÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s history. If this is taken as evidence, it points to conditions similar to that which are found today in the general sense of depositional environment. That points to a stratigraphic record with the largest proportion of fossils being marine forms. Fossils are found when deposited and preserved in sedimentary rocks. The vast majority of sediments in our modern day are being deposited in oceans, with far lesser amounts deposited in lakes and rivers. But often these Ã¢â‚¬Å“terrestrialÃ¢â‚¬Â sediments are rather temporarily parked in such environments and continue a journey after erosion to the worldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s oceans. Their included life forms are then exposed to destruction lessening the number of preserved fossils even more. Being above base level, most continental areas are places of erosion and not the accumulation of sediments. So we start with a much greater abundance of life in oceans, and follow this up with far greater opportunity for burial and preservation. Rapid burial is often inferred by better than average preservation, but it is this preservation and not the speed of burial that is is proven by a careful study of the strata. Fantastic preservation can be accomplished with rather slow burial in stagnant and oxygen depleted basins.
Limestone most emphatically is not made only by planktonic and Ã¢â‚¬Å“diatonicÃ¢â‚¬Â creatures. I would assume that in the later term you are meaning to refer to diatoms and not Ã¢â‚¬Å“musicalÃ¢â‚¬Â creatures as the word is generally used, but there really is no reason to bring them up separately as diatoms are planktonic forms. Coral debris often forms limestones, and coral atolls attest to this. This is not deposition by the lifeless tests of plankton. There are vast deposits of limestone chemically precipitated that have little to virtually no fossil content. There are limestones that are not marine. Wander into a limestone cave such as Carlsbad Caverns and witness some for yourself. Go to Mono Lake in California and check out the Tufa deposits there. But having limestone present in the earthÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s continental crust is something geologists would expect to be the case in the prevailing earth model.
Some fossils are young enough to have C14 in them according to the theory used to date with it, assuming constant ratios and no contamination. Creationists are fond of attacking C14 as unreliable yet you seem to cite it here as evidence for a young earth even though dates for coals and fossil forms thought extinct for millions of years using other methods have yielded the presence of some C14 and calculate ages many thousands of years greater than 6 -10 thousand years. This seems to be a case of wanting to eat oneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s cake and keeping it as well. So I would guess that your intent is to discredit dating methods since dates obtained show an older earth than you accept? In addition to the need to obtain samples free of contamination, which can be difficult, there are ideas of producing new C14 that was not present during the life of the material being sampled. But to be honest the use of C14 in my field is extremely rare and it is not a topic of discussion.
Kerogen is commonly present in shale. It is organic material dispersed throughout the rocks in question in variable amounts. We usually measure this as the TOC of the rock in question or Ã¢â‚¬Å“total organic carbonÃ¢â‚¬Â and it is of great importance in the exploration for oil and gas. Some rocks have far too low a TOC to generate significant amounts of hydrocarbons. It can come from plankton (including diatoms) but that is not the only source as you have indicated. The source rocks for the gas and oil that I help to discover and produce are to a great extent not marine in nature. Geochemical analysis through biomarker typing show that most of the gas is generated from coals and shale deposited in marginal marine settings (but still deposited on continental crust) and by river systems in their floodplains. Most of the oil comes from lacustrine deposits. These are lacustrine shales that formed in lakes, where the organic content differed from the woody material in more fluvial deposited shales and coals which is more gas prone. Kerogen becomes important to the generation of oil and gas when it becomes concentrated. What does being concentrated mean? You could take this to mean that it is not Ã¢â‚¬Å“dilutedÃ¢â‚¬Â by a higher percentage of non-kerogen material, such as mineral grains. What causes more dilution? Well, rapid sedimentation does this while holding the production of organic material relatively constant. In what rocks is total organic carbon higher? Fine-grained rocks. Why are they fine-grained? They are deposited in quieter water that allows the particles to settle out instead of being Ã¢â‚¬Å“dumpedÃ¢â‚¬Â in place and deposition is slower. It is true that marine shales are the best source rocks in general, due to slower deposition and conditions that favor the preservation of organic material by minimizing the destruction through oxidation. I deal with thousands of feet of shale in wells everyday that are terrible source rocks with low TOC. We call them the Ã¢â‚¬Å“redbedsÃ¢â‚¬Â due to the common brick-red color of the shale. Bricks come from such clay material, where ground waters are able to oxidize them giving the iron minerals in them the distinctive color. Most of the organic content has been destroyed. Black shales on the other hand indicate reducing environments and often are high in TOC.
You really donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make a point about the relevance of finding marine fossils in shale and limestone. I wonder if this is an implied dismissal of the well-documented tectonic activity and changes in sea level that geologists have determined occur through careful studies? What is your point in correctly stating that such rocks can include Cambrian fossils? You really have not made much of a case here. Your post appears to be some ad hoc ideas grouped together without using them to come to a conclusion.
So no matter how many people who have paid to be educated by others, who have also paid others to be educated in only one view--the state endorsed view of the ToE-- Which politicians, lawyers, judges, and all professionals have been educated in exclusively. And all other scientists who hold agnostic science to be the only possibility, with no rebuttal allowed, unless it upholds the ToE. No matter what they want to pass on you, they also intentionally ignore these facts by framing these facts into ad hoc stories which are unmentioned foundational footers, which only a few care to delve into. However the data that covered the earth is unquestionable, and no geologist would argue--they just "change the story" into many coverings, and smugly ignore the Bible, which tells of a historical flood.
The rest (like yourself) just take the word of the "vogue" science of the day. We're talking about agnostic state science which allow the ToE assumption to ride upon every new fact that arises.
I fear that I might miss some of your meaning here, but your comments in general strike me as stating that a system such as found in novels such as 1984 is present in America and other countries today, and not what is the reality in university study in science and beyond. Most of us do not live in a totalitarian society such as you seem to describe and in fact academic freedom is usually present. Your statement sounds like the bitter and oft stated conspiracy theory creationists are fond of using, saying they are dismissed and their theories are not taught due to control of the system, not due to a lack of merit. Do you talk from the point of view of the experience of studying science in an university? The fact remains that if solid evidence was put forth for GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s role in what we find through scientific research, it would be of great interest and published and taught. It would have been welcomed with great fanfare at the university where I received my MasterÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s degree in geology for it was a university run by a religious organization. There was quite a difference of opinion between the religion department (solidly creationist) and the departments of science. Both "world views" were taught au this university and some were stressed by the conflict that seemed to be present. The head of the trustees at one point time advocated banishing the teaching of anything to do with evolution. He was a YEC. He was told that the university would lose its accreditation for all departments if this action was taken, as it would violate academic freedom and cause the university to be considered a religious backwater.
It is Ã¢â‚¬Å“creation scienceÃ¢â‚¬Â that usually is an ad hoc jumbling or re-interpretation of what has been published from prime research by mainline scientists, and forums in which it is taught such as the ICR restrict any opposing theory from being taught. The pledge faculty members had to sign that anything in conflict with the Bible could not be presented at ICR has been revealed. Much more fiction than science is the norm in what I have seen of Ã¢â‚¬Å“Creation Science.Ã¢â‚¬Â I was taught in Historical Geology of alternate theories for fossil emplacement and deposition in sedimentary rocks and the evidence in favor. The fact remains that what has been discovered through time has led to some of these (such as what is now termed "flood geology") being discredited or strongly weakened. It is not true that all people that seek higher education are educated exclusively to follow or believe one theory. Those with intellectual curiosity are left to to discover for themselves. Ã¢â‚¬Å“RebuttalsÃ¢â‚¬Â were not disallowed in my experience and at times were discussed. The discussion was about the relative merits of conflicting concepts. As I said, I did graduate work in geology at a private university owned and operated by a church organization. Religion classes were mandatory for all undergraduates. I never met a single student that claimed to not believe in God save one roomate that claimed he was Ã¢â‚¬Å“doubting GodÃ¢â‚¬Â one week. Thoughts about God came naturally and were freely expressed in classes and geology field trips. The Bible was not ignored, but studied every week by most, myself included. The data that covers the earth was what we in the geology department studied, and it was part of our study to question how it formed. That is the nature of the study of geology. But like others following proper scientific methods of gathering data and then interpreting it according to proper geologic principles, the conclusions never led to a sedimentation in world-wide flooding event occurring in mere months. We all believed in the Bible as the word of God, but also proper science and allowing for the data to lead to conclusions and not stating a conclusion and then fitting what data we could find to fit it. Nobody intentionally ignored data because it did not conform to Ã¢â‚¬Å“flood geologyÃ¢â‚¬Â... such data just did not emerge. You have stated things about limestones and fossils that conform to what can be observed happening on the planet today, involving local floods but not one world-wide event.
I was a bit of anomaly in the department as I had gone through high school science not having a problem accepting an old earth or evolution. The majority of my fellow grad students had in fact been YECs until starting the study of geology at the university level. Seeing the evidence at hand they changed their viewpoint. I read an article by a current member of the faculty in the geology department that started study after I had left. He abandoned his YEC viewpoint as a freshman studying geology for the first time.