This article is making a basic error, Russ. "Scientific" and "historically backed by scientists" are not the same thing.
Centuries ago, scientists did not have the knowledge we have today in fields such as geology, archaeology, biology, and genetics. They most certainly did not have the same sophisticated tools to give them access to this knowledge.
Newton was unaware that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. He was unaware of relativity and quantum mechanics. Does that somehow mean that these things are therefore invalidated?
Here is an article I read when I was researching angular unconformities for the Grand Canyon discussions. Interestingly, by way of discussing an angular unconformity in Scotland, it talks about a time when scientists were beginning to study the evidence carefully and notice certain things about it that suggested the earth was very old.
In the eighteenth century, most people believed the earth to be only 6,000 years old, a figure arrived at earlier by Bishop Ussher, a prominent theologian who added the ages of Biblical characters and thus concluded the world was created in 4004 B.C. Scottish scientist James Hutton, however, realized that thousand-year-old Roman ruins in Great Britain were barely touched by weathering and erosion. He therefore wondered how long it takes for whole mountains, like those in Scotland, to wear down.
The angular unconformity he discovered at Siccar Point in Scotland provided dramatic evidence for his time "expansion." He saw nearly horizontal sandstone resting on nearly vertical graywacke (a sedimentary rock similar to sandstone) and marveled at how long it took to deposit the graywacke, tilt it, erode it, and then lay sandstone across it. As his friend, John Playfair, wrote "The mind seemed to grow giddy by looking so far into the abyss of time."
Creationism was the "science" of centuries past.
I have asked many times here for evidence that it is also the "science" of today, as has been claimed here, but none has yet been forthcoming.
