The wrecked ships that had haloed the planet after the Battle of Tanith were long gone. Shuttle #1 descended through a sky that seemed curiously empty. What had been the Tanith spaceport still glared like a polished steel dish. Seen from low angle the crater became a glowing eye with a bright pupil.
... A new port had grown around the crater's eastern rim. Terry and Charley, riding as passengers while Sharon flew, picked out a dozen big aircraft, then a horde of lighter craft. The crater must make a convenient airfield. The gleaming center was a small lake. Have to avoid that.
Considering it was published in 1988, it beats Blizzard even existing by three years. It's highly improbable, but it's fun to think that the artist was inspired by the story, anyway.
scientists with doctorates (from other Universities) falsifying the evolutionary and big bang theories
There's a significant problem with that: falsifying (aka finding possible problems with) evolution or the big bang is hardly proving Creationism. I've never seen a valid defense of Creationism other than "evolution isn't true". The problem is, it's not a binary system. They are not logical opposites. Disproving evolution isn't proving Creation, not by a long-shot. If you want to get a degree in "anti-Evolution" by all means do. But don't pretend that "disproving" some small part of the dominant theory in biological and/or cosmological science negates and renders useless the entire theory, and also somehow provides evidence for an empirically random minor theory.
A good theory has to add value. This means it has to explain everything the old theory explained, and add additional, optimally risky, predictions that the old one didn't, to explain things the old one didn't. That's a pretty daunting task for a theory as big as evolution. If you want to try to counter a specific part of evolution, by all means go at it. But trying to disprove all of evolution by, say, questioning carbon-14 dating, is not the way to do it.
Einstein's theory of gravity won out over the dominant Newtonian theory not because it had Einstein's name on it, or because some religion had nonsimultaneity written in their books. It's because Einstein explained everything Newton did, explained things he didn't, and made very risky predictions as to how things would happen under his theory as opposed to Newton. Many of these have since proved true.
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson