I read this interesting article on Yahoo about how scientists are questioning physical constants of the universe. It cracked me up, and I have been talking about it too everyone in the lab. Either way you look at it, I feel it supports Creationism:

1) If it is true, then it shows that conclusions made today about how old the earth is or how the earth might have "evolved" are based on huge assumptions.

2) If false, it is another example of scientists twisting and tweaking the facts to fit their theory.

You may ask, how can they both support Creationism since that would be another example of making the data fit the model. Well, it is less of what they found and more that there is even a discussion. It is the "models based upon gross assumptions" that gets me. It is the "theory presented as fact even though there is so much that is unknown."

My take on the whole subject is that since everything was created by a Creator (that is my premise, so live with it...also, this is MY blog), there was a time when these things didn't exist. So as each one was created, things interacted differently (equilibrium was in a different place). As we look at things created near the beginning (via the mighty telescope), they may have different properties than they do know.