Dick, I'm not sure what "Ineradicable" means but I want to followup anyway.
You mentioned in your article that "Creationism is an attempt to vindicate the Genesis account and to reconcile science with the Bible. It starts with the assumption that Genesis is true, and rejects any hypotheses incompatible with this assumption."
I'd like to take that statement and run with it a bit if I may. I originally intended to post this on the Feedback page but thought better of it and decided it warranted a place front and center.
From E.W.Bullinger's How To Enjoy The Bible pages 351-352. I quote:
The world that then was" (Gen i. 2) - The accurate reading in the English of the A.V. [my note: Authorized Version] Gen.i. 2 will be sufficient to show there is something in the verse which needs explanation; and when we have explained it we shall find that it points to a wonderful exposition of the Creation, and provides a complete answer to all the cavils of Geologists.
This discovery would be impossible if the Revised Version were used, as the Revisers deliberately discarded the use of italics in certain cases, one of which was in the case of the verb "to be", which does not exist in Hebrew.
In Gen.i. 2 (A.V.) we read: "And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."
Here, it will be seen that, the first "was" is in Roman type, while the second is in Italic type. This accuracy tells us that the latter verb, "was" represents the verb to be; and that the former "was" must represent a different verb, and not the verb "to be." This is the case; and the verb is (hayah), to become, come to pass.
That this is its meaning is clear from the very next verse (v. 3): "Let there be light, and there was light." Here the verb for "be" and "was" is hayah, and means become, while, in verse 4, the verb "was" is the verb to be, and is in italics.
The same use of "was" (Roman type) and "was" (Italic type) may be seen in verses 9 and 10; and in verses 11 and 12.
If we enquire further about the verb hayah we find it in Gen. ii. 7, "and man became a living soul; ch. iv. 14, "it shall come to pass"; ch. ix. 15, "the waters shall no more become a flood"; ch. xix. 26, Lot's wife "became a pillar of salt."
From all this we assuredly learn that Gen. i. 2 should read "and the earth BECAME without form."
Having made this discovery we now pursue it further; and we "search the Scriptures" to find out whether God has said anything else about the way in which He created the earth. And we find it in Isa. xlv. 18, Here the sentences are heaped together, in order to impress us with the fact that, He who created the earth, ought to know, and be able to tell us, how He made it. Note the words:
But this word (tohu) is the very word which is translated "without form" in Gen. I. 2. So that, whatever tohu means, it is evident that God did not create the earth tohu. Therefore it must have become so, at some time, in some way, and from some cause which we are not told.
It is clear from this that in Gen. i. 1. we have the record concerning what is called in 2 Pet. iii. 6 "the world that then was." This earth, we are there told also, "being overflowed with water perished." This is exactly what is stated in Gen. i. 1,2.
So that at the end of the first verse we must put a very large full stop; or draw a line; or leave a blank space, so as to separate verse 1 from what follows in verse 2, which relates to "the heavens and earth which are now" (2 Pet. iii. 7), and which will continue, until the time comes for "the new heavens and the new earth" of 2 Pet. iii. 13, and of many other Scriptures.
When Geologists have settled how many years they require between the first and second verses of Gen. i. there is ample room for all they want, and a large margin beside.
Meanwhile, we may well conclude that all the fossils and remains which are found belonged to "the world that then was," and thus, at one stroke, remove all friction between Geology and Scripture.
Again, we ask, why assume that all the Geological phenomena pertain to the earth "which is now," when it is this very assumption which creates the difficulty? and compels us to ignore all the phenomena of God's Word mentioned above?
His Word is misinterpreted, and His works are misunderstood, and the difficulty thus created is charged against the Scriptures of Truth!
Given this information and its reconciliation of the geological record with the biblical account of creation, I am quite perplexed that there is so much apparent ignorance on the part of Christians regarding the issue.
If you're not fully persuaded by the message above, I would like to challenge you to pursue it further. Research the ample references Bullinger provides to substantiate his position. The argument of Creationism vs Evolution is a major issue of our day. If you are a Christian that believes in the Bible as the Word of God, shouldn't you have a scriptural basis for your conviction that can weather the storm of the enemy as it breaks across the bow?