Yes. This is another aspect of evasions, explanations and Making Stuff Up. The apologist might try to fiddle the order of creation and the details that fit the Babylonian snow -dome cosmos rather than the heliocentric system and round earth and trying to make'6 days the age of the universe (as current science reckons it or did until recently) divided into seven, though earth - creation is just 4 billion years and Life 2 billion, I recall. Though the cosmos being created after animal and plant life needs a whole lot more invention like the cloud cover to make it fit science.
But others simply deny the science, though I know of few creationists or Young Earthers who try to argue that the sun really was made later than the earth and the 'light' was Cosmic light with background Cosmic whisper supposed to be a remnant of that. Never mind the Bible says, dark and light, morning and evening. But we are in deep denial here.
Don't cue, please
the nit - pick apologetic. Like picking up holes in science (anything from corrupted C14 samples to doubts about human sub -species) and acting like it debunks evolution, or a 200 year revision in Pharonic dating and arguing that all history is wrong.
There's also a neat little ploy of ignoring the Big Picture (1) which is cumulative doubts, problems and stuff that is frankly wrong. I mean, each problem is supposed to a single thing that is questionable as though everything else was fine. If that were the case one might excuse much of it, but when so much is just wrong and a glaring contradiction, even the explainable stuff does not deserve benefit of doubt.
This is why I say the case is done and dusted and further discussion just findfs more crimes to add to the indightment. But the apologists want benefit of doubt to be extended to this or that problem in isolation. Never mind the real howlers which they ignore or deny anyway.
Bottom line, nobody who was not already buying into the Bible claims could be convinced by it, but buy - in has been successfully sold in the West for a long,long time, and is still being peddled.
Cue the 'we need it, true or not' apologetic (with or without partisan politics) or the 'metaphorically true' gambit. But as I say, metaphorically true'means 'not true at all', and 'we need it' is an arguable claim on its'own.
(1) Big Picture used to be a meme in the old days bit I found out it was Theist - speak for 'Faith' (ignore the problems and just believe all of it).
