Why you should become a Bible-believing anarchist
who also believes the universe was created around 4004 B.C.
Neutrality
Nobody is "neutral" in the clash between Creationism and Evolutionism.
There are no "brute facts." Every fact must be interpreted. Sometimes it's easier to give a "fact" an interpretation that fits one model and harder to fit that "fact" into a rival model.
The Bible says all facts should be interpreted to fit the Bible. This is what Isaac Newton did.
Evolutionists say no fact should be interpreted to support the Bible. All facts must be interpreted to support the reigning theory of evolution.
Is it truly "rational" and "scientific" to give a "fact" an interpretation which leads to the destruction of civilization -- and science itself? We all have a moral obligation to promote "Theocracy," that is, "civilization," that is, society-wide obedience to God's Commands. Using God's facts to promote an idolatrous origins model is a sin and needs to be repented of.
Peer pressure creates temptations. Sometimes it's hard to buck the crowd and wait for a resolution of a perplexing "fact."
I appreciate that there are many "facts" which seem to fit an evolutionist interpretation easier than a Biblical one. But the opposite is also true: there are many "facts" which make it hard to believe in "deep time." Just Google "evidence for young earth." Both sides require faith. Neither side is strictly "scientific" in the sense of observation and testing.
The Administrative State has appropriated billions of dollars for research that would buttress the theory of evolution, and zero dollars to research creationism, that is to publish "research" which supports the Bible.. Your article on any subject must tip the hat to evolution to get published, and will not get published if it smacks of creationism. How many questions about history would support creationism if answered in a free market, and voluntarily funded by those who value true (Christian) civilization?
The Bible -- "Jerusalem" -- leads to civilization; autonomy -- "Athens" -- leads to chaos. Why would anyone choose an interpretation of any "fact" that ultimately undermines civilization? Why would you listen to someone who advocates evolution, beginning with The Milesians and progressing to Heraclitus, Parmenides, The Atomists, Pythagoras, The Sophists, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, The Stoics, to Plotinus, to Kant, to Hegel, to Nietzsche to Darwin?
It's a choice, as all religious choices are. There is no "fact" that forces you to choose evolution over creation at the risk of abandoning rational, scientific thought. Everyone chooses the interpretation that fits their religious -- or anti-religious -- inclinations. Everyone faces difficult choices -- temptations -- and must exercise faith. There is no "fact" that would force a creationist to adopt an evolutionary worldview. People choose to believe a certain worldview (depending on whether they want to obey God or whether they want to obey men) and then they interpret facts to support their choice. A discussion of this concept is here.