Adversarial System in Science - Young-age Creationism

Creation Ministries International (CMI) posted an article on the website entitled "Why young-age creationism is good for science". It explains how young-age creationism (YAC) can bring about information that would not have been brought forth if it hadn't been for the the conviction of biblical creationists of a young age for the universe.

This can be brought out by the adversarial system. CMI's article says this about this system:

"The US legal system is a good example for how science should, and could, work. US criminal trials operate on the adversarial system, in which two lawyers face off, one unequivocally in defense of the defendant, and one unequivocally prosecuting the defendant. If any lawyer seems to lose a case on purpose, even if it is because the plaintiff decided that the defendant really was innocent, that lawyer can lose his or her license. This system, though it is often abused, is actually ideal for ensuring justice in the majority of cases."

It goes on to describe the Salem Witch Trials in The Crucible which illistrates the unjust trials of the witch. They then said that the "YACs are the ‘witches’ of contemporary science, and scientific scholarship is proceeding roughly like Miller’s version of the Salem Witch Trials." They also quoted T.C. Chamberlin on multiple working hypotheses:

"As an illustration, it is only necessary to cite the phenomenal influence which the Darwinian hypothesis has exerted upon the investigation of the past two decades. But a single working hypothesis may lead investigation along a given line to the neglect of others equally important; and thus, while inquiry is promoted in certain quarters, the investigation lacks in completeness. But if all rational hypotheses relating to a subject are worked co-equally, thoroughness is the presumptive result, in the very nature of the case."

They then give several examples of the adversarial system in science by the young-age creationists. One example is that of Paleontologist Leonard Brand and the Coconino Sandstone in northern Arizona.

"At least since 1933, the standard interpretation of the Coconino Sandstone has been that it formed from wind-blown sand dunes in a desert climate. The many fossilized vertebrate footprints in the lower half of the deposit had been interpreted as having been made on dry sand, even though, before Brand, no one had conducted rigorous laboratory experiments to determine whether the prints really looked more like underwater prints or prints made in dry sand. The wind-deposited model seemed satisfactory to old-earth geologists, so it is unlikely that anyone would have sought to reinterpret the fossil footprints any time soon. However, because his biblical Flood model for geology implies that the Coconino Sandstone was more likely laid down underwater, Brand set out to discover whether the fossil footprints really fit the Flood model or a desert deposit model better."

This was the result:

"Brand set up meticulous lab simulations of underwater, partially underwater, slightly moistened, and dry sand environments and observed the footprints made by a variety of reptiles and amphibians in those differing environments. After carefully comparing the experimental footprints with the fossilized footprints, Brand found that the tracks made underwater were the best match for those recorded in the fossil record."

This would have made more sense underwater when the Flood of Noah's day covered the entire earth than it would have if uniformitarian processes have shaped the earth. The article goes on further about the works of Russell Humphreys, Steve Austin, John Baumgardner, Werner Gitt, and John Sanford. The article then said this:

"If one recognizes the benefits that YAC has to offer science—increased accountability and rigour through an adversarial system and fruitful original research flowing from uniquely young-age hypotheses—one may yet have a grave reservation about accepting YACs as legitimate speculative scientists."