(Slide concept from Institute for Creation Research seminar)
The traits of the competing models as given on the previous slide are quite different and it would seem a simple matter to resolve which model is true. The problem is that scientific data can in most cases be interpreted in different ways. Scientists like to portray themselves as impartial, but in fact we all have biases and make underlying assumptions. Depending upon whether you are starting with an assumption that evolution must be true, or creation must be true, the same scientific data will frequently yield interpretations which support either evolution or creation. This is why the same “fossil record” (or the “geologic column”) is touted both by evolutionists as proof of evolution (supposedly showing an increase in complexity of animals over time), and at the same time, by creationists as proof that evolution never occurred (showing abrupt appearance with no transitions). People also arrive at differing conclusions about something like the geologic column because it is a complex phenomenon, with many considerations needing to be taken into account, requiring much specialized knowledge. Many times our knowledge is also incomplete and the gaps must be filled via speculation, often confused with scientific fact by the unaware.