ABOUT CREATIONEST.COM

Creationest.com is dedicated to promoting evidence for the young earth and universe in addition to promoting the Biblical worldview. There is substantial evidence from history, culture, and science including the fields of archaeology, biology, geology, and astronomy that support the young earth and universe having an origin around 6,000 years old. Creationest.com wants to be a resource for students and the general public for knowledge supporting creation science and the Biblical worldview. Crationest.com believes that science and the Bible are fully compatible and that "true science" does not contradict the Bible. Modern man in the 19th and 20th century has misinterpreted both science and the Bible to produce a false science and a false interpretation of the Bible. Truly objective science shows the evidence for a young earth and universe around 6,000 years old and today's mainstream science refuses to acknowledge this evidence in order to promote a "more appealing false doctrine" of millions of years of slow and gradual change by random chance without the need for an intelligent creator or special creation. Mainstream science continues to make all efforts to keep religion out of science and to keep science totally secular, even to the point of endorsing outdated theories of origin that have been disproved by the latest scientific discoveries. While claiming to be open to new ideas as true science should, the mainstream science establishment and academia continues to endorse outdated models of origin inspired by Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell in the 19th century, two "naturalists" who introduced their theories of origin before the development of modern genetics and based their ideas on incorrect interpretations of the stratigraphic record by denying the occurrence of a global flood. Mainstream science today continues to accept these outdated models of origin despite substantial scientific evidence to the contrary.

ABOUT THE PUBLISHER

My career as a geologist began after taking my first university geology courses in 2002 at Mississippi State University. I had already completed a B.A. in economics, but I wanted to get back into science as both my father and sister pursued scientific fields. I was always skeptical of the idea of long ages in the millions and the uniformitarian philosophy of mainstream geology. In addition, I was also skeptical of the biological macroevolution taught in most high school and university courses. After completing a bachelor’s degree in 2004 and a master’s degree in 2006, both in the geoscience department, I continued to research the possibility of catastrophism and a young earth. I thank all of the teachers and professors that were part of my education. During my university studies, I did not seriously consider creation science until after I completed my master’s degree. The idea of a young earth confused me and seemed unrealistic at the time until I continued to research the topic further. At the same time, the uniformitarian geology that I was taught also confused me, particularly the idea of sediment and fossil deposition over millions of years. 
I knew that there had to be an answer to the question: Is the earth really 4.6 billion years old or is it younger? Do the young earth creationists have a case? That was the primary topic of my research. Upon much research, I came to the conclusion that the young earth creationists do have a case. The more research I did, the more evidence I found for both the global flood of the Book of Genesis and the young earth. For every evolutionist and old-earth question, I found a suitable creationist response. Despite the rebirth of creation science in the last 50 years after 200 years of Darwinism and old-earth geology, there is work to be done. Not only in research supporting the young earth and the global flood, but more work is also needed in the promotion of creation science to the general public. I hope to be part of the future of the creation science movement in the world and I hope that readers will enjoy this site.
Whereas operational science is focused on observations in the natural world today, creation science is focused on origins science, which is focused on using observations in today’s world and attempting to reconstruct the events of the past. However, mainstream science and particularly geology has been doing this for more than 200 years since the establishment of uniformitarian old-earth geology. In other words, both old-earth evolutionists and young-earth creationists are attempting to explain the natural history of the earth and the universe. Because of the focus on origins, religion becomes part of the discussion despite the objections of secular naturalists. The question of the origin of the earth and the universe is just as much a religious question as it is a scientific question. I believe that science and religion are compatible to a certain extent, however not all observations have a naturalistic or scientific explanation despite the attempts of mainstream science. Some observations are simply outside the realm of science and cannot be explained scientifically, such as reported miraculous events.
The development of creation science gives those who believe in the young earth an option to pursue during their pursuit of careers in science. Those pursuing operational scientific fields that do not involve origins, such as engineering, applied sciences, and mathematics will feel more welcome in these fields. However, those pursuing the basic science fields that involve origins such as geology, biology, biochemistry, physics, and astronomy may feel less welcome. I think over the years young-earth creationists have avoided these fields which have now become oversaturated with evolutionists. Young-earth believers do not need to be forced or pressured to accept evolution and the old earth model. However, this anti-creationist bias shouldn’t stop those creationists who are passionate about what they believe. Believers of the young earth model will continue to face discrimination in the mainstream academia and general public, however at least now there is an option for them in contrast to the old-earth model. The only way one can debate an evolutionist is by learning what they believe and therefore creationists should continue to pursue origins science fields at mainstream universities.

Omid Bekrai,
​Creationest.com publisher