It is related to the fact that whatever you believe about your origins does affect your whole world view, the meaning of life, etc. If there is no God and we are the result of chance random processes, it means there is no absolute authority. And if there is no one who sets the rules, then everyone can do whatever he likes or hopes he can get away with. Evolution is a religion which enables people to justify writing their own rules. The sin of Adam was that he did not want to obey the rules God set but do his own will. He rebelled against God, and we all suffer from this same sin: rebellion against the absolute authority. Evolution has become the so-called “scientific” justification for people to continue in this rebellion against God.
The Bible tells us in the Book of Genesis that there is a true and reliable account of the origin and early history of life on earth. Increasing numbers of scientists are realizing that when you take the Bible as your basis and build your models of science and history upon it, all the evidence from the living animals and plants, the fossils, and the cultures fits. This confirms that the Bible really is the Word of God and can be trusted totally.
The secular humanists, of course, oppose this because they cannot allow the possibility of God being Creator. They fight to have prayer, Bible readings, and the teaching of creation forced out of the public school curriculum. They have deceived the public into thinking this is eliminating religion from schools and leaving a neutral situation. This is simply not true! They haven’t eliminated religion from the public school. They have eliminated Christianity and have replaced it with an anti-God religion — humanism.
Most public schools have become institutions that train generations of school children in the religion of humanism. There is a minority of Christian teachers in the public school movement who do try to be the “salt of the earth” in such institutions. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for them. There are quite a number of Christian teachers who hide their light under a bushel — frightened of being consistent Christians in such a pagan environment. Some teachers have been threatened with termination of their employment if they are seen to be giving a Christian philosophy in the educational system.
We see extreme emotionalism in reaction to the creation ministries around the world because the evolutionists’ religion is being attacked by a totally different belief system. This emotionalism can be seen in the way in which the anti-creationists talk about the issue. For instance, consider the quote from Dr. Michael Archer (Senior Lecturer in Zoology at the University of New South Wales) in Australian Natural History, Vol. 21, No. 1: “Scientific Creationism is not just wrong; it is ludicrously implausible. It is a grotesque parody of human thought and a downright misuse of human intelligence. In short, to the Believer, it is an insult to God.”
The real battle is aligned with the fact that these people do not want to accept Christianity because they will not accept that there is a God to whom they are answerable. Perhaps this is why one evolutionist lecturer said: “You will never convince me that evolution is religion.” In other words, no matter what we were able to show him concerning the nature of evolution, he refused to accept that it was a religion. He did not want to accept that he had a faith because then he would have to admit it was a blind faith. And he would not be able to say that it was the right faith.
The public has genuinely been misled into thinking that evolution is only scientific and belief in God is only religious. Evolution is causing many people to stumble and not listen when Christians share with them the truth of the God of creation. You will notice in humanist opposition (through debates, the media, books, etc.) to the creation ministries that they very rarely identify any evidence for evolution. The main reason is, of course, that there is none.
Walk into a museum and have a look at all of the “evidence” for evolution on display. Different kinds of animals and plants are represented by carefully preserved specimens or by large numbers of fossils. You will see the story of evolution in words — but not in the evidence you see. The evidence is in the glass case. The hypothetical story of evolution can only be seen pasted on the glass case.
All the evolutionists have to do is to come up with one piece of evidence that proves evolution. If evolution is right and creation is nonsense, evolutionists have the media at their disposal to prove to everyone that evolution is true. However, they cannot do this. The evidence overwhelmingly supports exactly what the Bible says. It is a shame that creationists do not have the same media coverage to explain to the world the overwhelming evidence for the truth of creation.
Let’s face it, secular evolutionists must oppose creation ministries because, if what we are saying is right (and it is) — that God is Creator — then their whole philosophy is destroyed. The basis for their philosophy decrees there is no God. If evolution is not true, the only alternative is creation. That is why they will cling to the evolutionary philosophy even if the evidence is totally contradictory. It is really a spiritual question.
Some may say that if the evidence is so overwhelming that God created, surely people would believe this. In Romans 1:20 we read, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”
The Bible tells us that there is enough evidence in the world to convince people that God is Creator, and to condemn those who do not believe.
If that is so, and the evidence is all there, why don’t people believe it? Is it because they do not want to believe it? The apostle Peter states that in the last days men will deliberately forget that God created the world (2 Peter 3:5). This means there is a willfulness on their part not to believe.
The Bible also tells us that, “There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God” (Romans 3:11) and “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2 Corinthians 4:6). In other words, it is God who opens our hearts to the truth. When we think of the story of the pharaoh who would not let God’s people leave Egypt, the Bible says, “But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let them go” (Exodus 10:27). This idea is also recorded in Exodus 7:14: “Pharaoh’s heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go.” In the New Testament we read that Jesus taught the Pharisees and scribes in parables saying: “And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, by hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: for this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them” (Matthew 13:14–15).
Romans 1:28 tells us, “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.”
Thus, it is God who lets us see the truth — lets us see that the evidence is all there — that He is Creator. However, in a very real sense, there has to be a willingness on our part to want to see as well. Why can’t the humanists, the evolutionists, see that all the evidence supports exactly what the Bible says? It is because they do not want to see it. It is not because the evidence is not there. They refuse to allow the evidence to be correctly interpreted in the light of biblical teaching.
In Isaiah 50:10 we read, “Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? Let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.”
It is my prayer that those who oppose the Creator God will come to trust in Him as Lord and Saviour. When we read the rest of Isaiah 50, it should make each of us pray more for humanists and evolutionists who want to walk in their own light — in the light of man: “Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow” (Isaiah 50:11).
We do not want this to be the fate of any human being. As the Lord says in His Word, it is not His desire that any should perish. However, God (who is a God of love) is also the God who is judge, and He cannot look upon sin. Therefore, sin must be judged for what it is. However, God in His infinite mercy sent His only begotten Son, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men” (John 1:1–4).

Scientific arguments for a young earth are numerous.
1)The old-earth idea was developed historically, not from letting the physical facts speak for themselves but by imposing anti-biblical philosophical assumptions onto the geological observations. See this article and this DVD.
2)The radiometric dating methods are based on those same naturalistic, uniformitarian, anti-biblical assumptions and there is plenty of published evidence that they do not give valid dates. Besides the RATE research mentioned earlier, consider the well-researched arguments in The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. You cannot expect this icon of evolution to be overthrown in a few short paragraphs.
3)John Morris’s book (The Young Earth) gives a good layman’s summary (with documentation and plenty of pictures to illustrate) of the some of the strongest evidences for a young-earth and global Flood. For more in-depth arguments see John Woodmorappe’s book (Studies in Flood Geology). Excellent DVDs illustrating some of these points are on Mt. St. Helens (Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe) and Grand Canyon (The Grand Canyon: Monument to the Flood). Creationist scientists (or any scientists, for that matter) don’t have answers to everything and so are continuing to do research (and the number of qualified creationist geologists is increasing), but following is some of the evidence brought out in these resources:Creationists still have many challenges regarding the scientific evidence for a young universe, but distant starlight is no more of a problem for young-earth creationists than it is for big bang proponents, as this DVD by Dr. Jason Lisle (Ph.D. in astrophysics) shows: Distant Starlight.

If you take the premise that the bible origins are true -

the facts that we see around us stack up - this is science not religious creationism or religious evolutionism...

I want to state clearly that naturalistic assumptions do not necessarily mean that a scientific conclusion is wrong. For example, a person with naturalistic assumptions as his starting point could conceivably deduce the law of inertia from his observations. Or, in the matter of actualities, Francis Crick, who is an atheist, was a co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule. But these examples have to do with what I like to call operation science. This research uses the so-called ‘scientific method’ of observation of repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to determine how the present creation, or an individual entity in the creation, operates. For example, medical research, engineering research, and much research in biology, chemistry and physics fall into the category of operation science. This is the kind of science which put a man on the moon, a refrigerator in almost every kitchen, and finds cures for diseases. But operation science does not have any significant bearing on any doctrine of Scripture, and it is rarely affected by a scientist’s religious worldview.

However, the matter of the origin of the law of inertia or of the DNA molecule or of the origin, age and history of the earth and universe (and everything in them) is a distinctly different question. These questions fall into the domain of what is often called origin science. This kind of research does not use the ‘scientific method’ of experimentation (except sometimes to propose possible causes of past events). Rather, to determine the actual past cause for some present effect that was produced in the unobservable past (e.g., a fossil or Grand Canyon), origin scientists use the legal-historical method of consideration of any relevant eyewitness testimony of the past event and careful investigation of the existing circumstantial evidence of the past event. Sciences such as archeology, paleontology and historical geology fit into this category of origin science. Origin science is like criminal investigation—by studying the evidence which exists in the present, researchers are trying to ‘discover the past.’ Origin scientists, then, are reconstructing history, which has direct and significant bearing on many important doctrines of Scripture. Here, naturalistic and uniformitarian assumptions strongly influence the observation, selection and interpretation of the physical data and can lead to very erroneous conclusions. In this case, Jesus’ warning that bad trees cannot produce good fruit (Matt. 7:18) and Paul’s warnings about deceptive philosophy (Col. 2:8) and ‘arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge”’ (1 Tim. 6:20) are very relevant. Old-earth geological theories were theories about history. Since they started with anti-biblical presuppositions, it is no surprise that they ended up concluding that the history in the Bible was wrong.