dumbfnck creationist mimicking/mocking scientific journals

[boutons_]

May 2, 2007 12:25 PM PDT
Creationists launch peer-reviewed journal

Posted by Stephen Shankland (/8300-10784_3-7.html?authorId=138&tag=author)
Creationists are adapting another element of the traditional scientific realm to their cause: the peer-reviewed journal.

The Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.edu/), a prominent believer that the scientific method can validate a literal reading of the Bible's account of the creation of the universe, Earth and humanity, has begun soliciting papers for the International Journal for Creation Research (http://www.icr.edu/ijcr/index.html).

Peer review, in which a scientist's paper is scrutinized by a group of colleagues, is designed to find errors and weed out crackpots. And although some have criticized peer review for rejecting new ideas just because they're too radical for the establishment to stomach, in the long run, science has marched along through various paradigm shifts.

The IJCR, though, has a few extra requirements to make sure scientific findings stay subordinate to creationist tenets.

"IJCR provides scientists and students hard data based on cutting-edge research that demonstrates the young earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of the species, and other evidences that correlate to the biblical accounts," according to the institute's description. In the call for papers, it adds, "Papers can be in any scientific, or social scientific, field, but must be from a young-earth perspective and aim to assist the development of the creation model of origins." And the three or more people who reviewer each paper are advised that each paper must "provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatico-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture."


http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9715114-7.html?tag=blog.1

[smeagol]

Ahhh, finally I agree with boutons

[Phenomanul]

I don't buy into all of ICR's theories but I don't discredit their goal - even when I feel they'll never attain it. Having gone through a brief Creationist phase myself I eventually came to the conclusion that sometimes their zeal is blinding.... Nevertheless, I still believe that GOD is the Creator of the Universe and everything therein - that has always been my position.

In the end however, I don't believe one can prove that which was 'supernatural' with natural theories - which is why their approach ultimately fails. Rebuttal in this instance is a moot argument. How can one disproove that which can't be proven? "Gimme the keys to that time machine!!'

GOD's presence is very real. But no amount of physical evidence will ever convince anyone of that fact especially if they have already made a conscious decision to reject Him. To each their own.

boutons_ hate, however is still very much unwarranted... I wonder what Creationists ever did to him to scar him so? I guess he feels that only his faction is entitled to "freedom of thought". Dude, we get it. You hate anything having to do with GOD.

[boutons_]

"I still believe that GOD is the Creator of the Universe and everything therein - that has always been my position."

that's what I believe too, but with an extremely different cosmology from the fairy tales in the OT.

"hate, however is still very much unwarranted."

Did I say hate? These dumbfuck creationists Bible-thumpers have as their goal the overturning, negation of one of mankind's most magnificent achievements, science and scientific methods.

God = universe, so knowing the universe through science is knowing God through science.

the devil, evil = darkness, sin, anti-nature. These regressive dumbfucks are spreading evil and ignorance and darkness in the name of their (infantile, backwoods) "God".

[Phenomanul]

"I still believe that GOD is the Creator of the Universe and everything therein - that has always been my position."

that's what I believe too, but with an extremely different cosmology from the fairy tales in the OT.

"hate, however is still very much unwarranted."

Did I say hate? These dumbfuck creationists Bible-thumpers have as their goal the overturning, negation of one of mankind's most magnificent achievements, science and scientific methods.

God = universe, so knowing the universe through science is knowing God through science.

the devil, evil = darkness, sin, anti-nature. These regressive dumbfucks are spreading evil and ignorance and darkness in the name of their (infantile, backwoods) "God".

NO one is overturning science.... Strict Creationists are simply an extreme. They counterbalance the other end of the spectrum... scientists (and their followers) who claim that Science is the catch all end all argument to everything.

GOD = universe? I'd be really interested to read an elaboration of this concept.

[smeagol]

God = universe, so knowing the universe through science is knowing God through science.

Please elaborate

[boutons_]

Robert already?

[Extra Stout]

Please elaborate
Pantheism.

[smeagol]

Pantheism.
That was my wild guess. I just want to see boutons defending it.

[Extra Stout]

That was my wild guess. I just want to see boutons defending it.
Somehow I doubt his religious philosophy is all that deep.

[Phenomanul]

From the context provided by his posts... I don't believe ethics even enter his supposed 'pantheistic' inclinations. It goes beyond moral relativism... it's almost as if he advocates a moral anarchy... 'people should do what they please, because there is no higher accountability.'

[xrayzebra]

...... negation of one of mankind's most magnificent achievements, science and scientific methods.





So according to boutons, only one view
of anything is allowed.

I thought "science" sought and encouraged debate on "theories".

And evolution is after all the theory of
one person. It has not been proven
as far as I know. Many point to
what they claim are evolutionary
changes, but still have not really been
proven.

But science has been proven wrong
time and time again on any number of
different things, science is not
infallible and science on any particular
subject is subject to change at any
time. Like the flat earth theory.

I find this subject and treatment
thereof much like the man made
warming of the earth theory. No dissention allowed. Much like Al Gore allows
no news media at his presentations.
is allowed.

[smeagol]

So according to boutons, only one view
of anything is allowed.

I thought "science" sought and encouraged debate on "theories".

And evolution is after all the theory of
one person. It has not been proven
as far as I know. Many point to
what they claim are evolutionary
changes, but still have not really been
proven.

But science has been proven wrong
time and time again on any number of
different things, science is not
infallible and science on any particular
subject is subject to change at any
time. Like the flat earth theory.

I find this subject and treatment
thereof much like the man made
warming of the earth theory. No dissention allowed. Much like Al Gore allows
no news media at his presentations.
is allowed.


Biblethumper! :spin

[Extra Stout]

So according to boutons, only one view
of anything is allowed.

I thought "science" sought and encouraged debate on "theories".
The debate has to be grounded in intellectual honesty. Creation scientists determine the conclusions they want ahead of time, and then cherry pick evidence which superficially appears to support them.


And evolution is after all the theory of
one person.
False. That was 150 years ago. The theory of evolution has advanced leaps and bounds beyond what Darwin developed.


It has not been proven
as far as I know. Many point to
what they claim are evolutionary
changes, but still have not really been
proven.
False, for as far as "proving a theory" has any meaning. The support for evolutionary biology is arguably stronger than that for the theory of gravity.


But science has been proven wrong
time and time again on any number of
different things, science is not
infallible and science on any particular
subject is subject to change at any
time.
True.


Like the flat earth theory.
That never really was a scientific theory.


I find this subject and treatment thereof much like the man made warming of the earth theory. No dissention allowed. Much like Al Gore allows no news media at his presentations.
is allowed.
All the layman sees is the politics. In the scientific arena, there is a lot of diagreement about details of evolutionary theory, and lively debate.

Well, at least as much as a bunch of eggheads can be "lively."

Where I see the bullying about evolution is when people try to use it, or deny it, to drive home what they want to believe about God. That's not science.

[xrayzebra]

The debate has to be grounded in intellectual honesty. Creation scientists determine the conclusions they want ahead of time, and then cherry pick evidence which superficially appears to support them.

As if this doesn't happen in all science.



False. That was 150 years ago. The theory of evolution has advanced leaps and bounds beyond what Darwin developed.

It Has? It has been expounded on and I suppose you
could say "advanced". But has it been proven?



False, for as far as "proving a theory" has any meaning. The support for evolutionary biology is arguably stronger than that for the theory of gravity.

Huh? I don't think so.








That never really was a scientific theory.

All the learned people (scientist) at the time stated it
as fact, as well as that the Earth was the center of the
universe. Both were later proven to be wrong.



All the layman sees is the politics. In the scientific arena, there is a lot of diagreement about details of evolutionary theory, and lively debate.

Well, at least as much as a bunch of eggheads can be "lively."

Where I see the bullying about evolution is when people try to use it, or deny it, to drive home what they want to believe about God. That's not science.

Again, your supposition, as you see it, is that they use
facts as they find them to make their point. May I ask:
what does the "other" scientist do? How do they
attempt to make their point?

The only point I was attempting to make was that there
are opposing views to evolution/global warming and
they are made/given by people who are scientist and
knowledgeable in their fields, but are discounted because
they are opposed to other widely held views, which may
or may not be necessarily true.

[Extra Stout]

Again, your supposition, as you see it, is that they use
facts as they find them to make their point. May I ask:
what does the "other" scientist do? How do they
attempt to make their point?
A creation scientist, in particular, does not use facts to make his point. He uses pseudoscientific babble and slick presentation to try to trick people who don't know any better. Look at the tactics being used by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists --> that is what the creation scientists do.

They are not knowledgeable.

They are not learned in their field.

They con you with scholarly titles, and flowery language, and fake journals to make you think they are.

dan let his guard down in the 9/11 threads and admitted that, to him, debating is about "building coalitions based upon ideas," not about proving facts. Convincing people of his political ideals is more important than being truthful. He probably believes that the relative well-being of millions of people is at stake with his ideology.

The CSers are analogous. The argument is that social order depends upon personal morality, and that morality is based in religion, and that a religious morality that works has to be based upon absolutes, and discipline, and authority. That morality in Christianity comes from the Bible, so people need to believe the Bible. But if people interpret it for themselves, they might come to immoral conclusions, so they need to be told how to interpret it. And that interpretation needs to be simple. If people are told that this part of the Bible or that part is "symbolic," well maybe they'll believe that "do not murder" is symbolic too. If the Bible says the Earth was created in six days, that has be be 6 calendar days, as in 144 hours, because the Bible has to be read literally for people to follow the moral law rather than doing as they please.

So the debate to them is about bringing people in line with their theology to advance their vision of how to bring about social order, not about actually probing the details of creation. They probably believe that the survival of civilization, and on top of that, the salvation of millions of souls depends on it.

It doesn't mean they are correct, and it doesn't mean they should be taken seriously.


The only point I was attempting to make was that there
are opposing views to evolution/global warming and
they are made/given by people who are scientist and
knowledgeable in their fields, but are discounted because
they are opposed to other widely held views, which may
or may not be necessarily true.
And my point is that the analogy doesn't hold. I grant there are meterologists with integrity who are still skeptical about anthropogenic climate change. They may get beaten down because their views are unpopular, since those who believe in it have a sense of urgency about policy change. The scientific community will have to do the tough job of distinguishing between the honest skeptics and the mere shills who will say whatever their bankroller wants them to say.


I don't, however, grant that there are biologists with integrity who are still skeptical about evolution. Their arguments are based upon gross distortions which they assume the layman won't be able to parse, and it has nothing at all to do with science.

[xrayzebra]

ES you make some very good points. I will get back to you
later when I have little more time. On some of the points you
make I am not well enough versed in them (no, I am not
going to do a "google") to give an intelligent answer. But a
little busy right now....

[Yonivore]

i. ain't. no. monkey.
Says you.

[Phenomanul]

A creation scientist, in particular, does not use facts to make his point. He uses pseudoscientific babble and slick presentation to try to trick people who don't know any better. Look at the tactics being used by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists --> that is what the creation scientists do.

They are not knowledgeable.

They are not learned in their field.

They con you with scholarly titles, and flowery language, and fake journals to make you think they are.

dan let his guard down in the 9/11 threads and admitted that, to him, debating is about "building coalitions based upon ideas," not about proving facts. Convincing people of his political ideals is more important than being truthful. He probably believes that the relative well-being of millions of people is at stake with his ideology.

The CSers are analogous. The argument is that social order depends upon personal morality, and that morality is based in religion, and that a religious morality that works has to be based upon absolutes, and discipline, and authority. That morality in Christianity comes from the Bible, so people need to believe the Bible. But if people interpret it for themselves, they might come to immoral conclusions, so they need to be told how to interpret it. And that interpretation needs to be simple. If people are told that this part of the Bible or that part is "symbolic," well maybe they'll believe that "do not murder" is symbolic too. If the Bible says the Earth was created in six days, that has be be 6 calendar days, as in 144 hours, because the Bible has to be read literally for people to follow the moral law rather than doing as they please.

So the debate to them is about bringing people in line with their theology to advance their vision of how to bring about social order, not about actually probing the details of creation. They probably believe that the survival of civilization, and on top of that, the salvation of millions of souls depends on it.

It doesn't mean they are correct, and it doesn't mean they should be taken seriously.


And my point is that the analogy doesn't hold. I grant there are meterologists with integrity who are still skeptical about anthropogenic climate change. They may get beaten down because their views are unpopular, since those who believe in it have a sense of urgency about policy change. The scientific community will have to do the tough job of distinguishing between the honest skeptics and the mere shills who will say whatever their bankroller wants them to say.


I don't, however, grant that there are biologists with integrity who are still skeptical about evolution. Their arguments are based upon gross distortions which they assume the layman won't be able to parse, and it has nothing at all to do with science.

I agree with the rest of the post... except for the bolded part. Science has not yet instated the "Law of Evolution" for a reason - it has remained as a theory.

[jochhejaam]

creation scientist(s).... are not learned in their field.

They con you with scholarly titles, and flowery language, and fake journals to make you think they are.

Pretty strong statements Stout. You are prepared to back them up with substance?

Here's a link to the faculty and their credentials (Although, based upon your charges I assume you're already quite familiar with them).

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci#saustin

[Phenomanul]

Pretty strong statements Stout. You are prepared to back them up with substance?

Here's a link to the faculty and their credentials (Although, based upon your charges I assume you're already quite familiar with them).

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci#saustin


Oh yeah... I didn't completely buy into this assertion either. You may believe that their goal is misplaced, or even call them out for mistakes... but you cannot outright claim that they are unknowledgeable in their respective fields.

That is simply your opinion based solely on the fact that you disagree with their ideology and their methods.

[Extra Stout]

Pretty strong statements Stout. You are prepared to back them up with substance?

Here's a link to the faculty and their credentials (Although, based upon your charges I assume you're already quite familiar with them).

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci#saustin
Steven Austin, for one, is a fraud in the area of radiometric dating. He is also a liar, who loves to tell people that his "research" at Mt. St. Helens converted him from evolutionism to creationism. However, it has been shown that he published at ICR under a different name in the 1970's.

That's one.

[Extra Stout]

Vardiman is a fraud in the field of atmospheric sciences who peddles a blatant lie about helium accumulation in the atmosphere, which totally ignores the polar wind.

[Extra Stout]

Then there is Russell Humphreys, a nuclear weapons physicist whose creationist claim to fame is a cosmology paper.

Oh yeah, the paper rather ludicrously defines the Earth as the center of the universe, and violates the laws of physics by imposing an arbitrary boundary on the universe, in order to claim that general relativity can make the universe 6,000 years old and 6 billion years old at the same time.

Do I have to keep going?

[jochhejaam]

Steven Austin, for one, is a fraud in the area of radiometric dating. He is also a liar, who loves to tell people that his "research" at Mt. St. Helens converted him from evolutionism to creationism. However, it has been shown that he published at ICR under a different name in the 1970's.

That's one.
Okay, you've cast aspersions on one of them with unsubstantiated charges. Substantiate the charges you've attributed to him, and then proceed to explain (without name calling) how he's not knowledgeable or learned in his field.

And since when is the use of an earned "scholarly title" the basis for ridicule...?

Also you bring up their "flowery words" as a point of ridicule...?

If you happen to sustain your charges against Steven Austin, do proceed with reasonable arguements as to why the other credentialed faculty are unknowledgable and unlearned in their fields.
Thanks.

p.s. The use of size 7 font does not enhance your arguement in the least.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Man, there are some knowledgeable motherf...s in this thread! I used to have a point of view on the matter, but after reading some of the posts here, I realise I probably don't know enough to have one :lol

EDIT: I have to say though, I'm leaning towards Extra's point of view. Just seems more complete and closer to what I believed in the first place

[jochhejaam]

Then there is Russell Humphreys, a nuclear weapons physicist whose creationist claim to fame is a cosmology paper.

Oh yeah, the paper rather ludicrously defines the Earth as the center of the universe, and violates the laws of physics by imposing an arbitrary boundary on the universe, in order to claim that general relativity can make the universe 6,000 years old and 6 billion years old at the same time.

Do I have to keep going?
Only if you want to support your original attack.

Actually you need to retreat and do some serious expounding on your first attack victim before even thinking about moving on to your next victim.

[Extra Stout]

Okay, you've cast aspersions on one of them with unsubstantiated charges. Substantiate the charges you've attributed to him, and then proceed to explain (without name calling) how he's not knowledgeable or learned in his field.
Austin used non-cogenetic lava flows for isochronic dating, in an attempt to disprove the validity of Rb/Sr isochrons. A plot of the data showed the layer of the flows to be "older" than basalt layers beneath.

This is an elementary error no "expert" would make, because non-cogenetic flows by definition did not occur at the same time, and so all the plot reveals is the age of the mantle rock from which they emerged. In essence, all he proved was that the lithospheric mantle rock beneath the Grand Canyon is older than the basalt lying above it.

I will grant you that there is an alternative to his being unknowledgeable/unlearned: perhaps he knew perfectly well the invalidity of his research, and did it anyway. In that case, he is still a liar and a fraud.

[Extra Stout]

And no, I am not going to systematically show each and every member of the ICR faculty to be liars and frauds. A representative sample is enough.

[Extra Stout]

Andrew Snelling attempted to invalidate the potassium-argon radiometric dating method by analyzing New Zealand lava flows less than 60 years old at the Geochron lab.

The Geochron lab readily admits that their methods are invalid for any samples expected to be less than 2 million years old, because of the contaminating effect of atmospheric argon.

So either Dr. Snelling has serious lapses in knowledge basic to his field, or maybe he is engaging in intentional deception. Either way, liar and fraud.

[Extra Stout]

Dr. Snelling also has a nasty tendency to submit samples of petrified wood for radiocarbon dating without protecting them from contamination. This results in cross-contamination by younger carbon and tends to yield an "age" of 30,000 years, regardless of how old the petrified sample is.

He uses these findings to try to disprove the validity of radiocarbon dating.

Either he is fatally careless in his research, which calls into question his expertise, or he knows full well the trace contaminants will throw off the results, and his audience at ICR will eat it all up.

[Extra Stout]

Bill Hoesch has a "master's degree" from ICR Graduate School.

Please.

[Extra Stout]

David Phillips is still a student.

[Extra Stout]

John Oller is an expert in linguistics, not biology, geology, or cosmology.

[Extra Stout]

Jay Wile writes creationist science textbook for homeschooling. He also claims that radiometric dating is invalid. He does have peer-reviewed journal articles in actual journals; however, none of them are about his claims of the invalidity of radiometric dating.

I can't call him a liar; he just is not an authority on the subject.

[Extra Stout]

Andrew McIntosh is an expert in combustion theory. This makes him an authority if I want to build a coal-fired power plant.

Creation science? Not so much.

He does like to repeat the absurd claim that evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a claim which ignores a source of external source of energy in the Earth system. You can see this source of external energy if you look up in the sky during the day; it is a bright yellow ball of flaming gas.

[Extra Stout]

Tom McMullen is a chemical engineer who got a Ph.D. in the "History and Philosophy of Science."

Not an expert.

[Extra Stout]

Kurt Wise cannot be characterized as a fraud like some of these others.

His main contribution to creation science is "catastrophic plate tectonics," which proposes that the continents arrived at their current locations as a result of a single catastrophe wherein slabs of ocean crust broke apart and began a runaway subduction of plates at interstate highway speeds, also causing enough ocean to boil off to produce a 40-day global rain, and a rising of the ocean floor that flooded all the continents.

His claims can be dismissed because A) there is no plausible mechanism for this to happen, B) mantle "hot spots" cannot be explained under his idea, C) The Himalayas would never have formed under his claims, D) certain seamounts could never have formed.

But he is not a liar or a fraud, merely wrong.

[Extra Stout]

David Livingston's field of expertise is biblical archaeology.

[Extra Stout]

Paul Ackerman's field of expertise is psychology.

(Is his research in "Why gullible Christians fall for our tripe?" Sorry. That was snarky.)

[MaNuMaNiAc]

:dizzy wow...


hmm... joch?


:corn:

[Extra Stout]

Keith Wanser's claim to fame is his contention that the inability to explain baryogenesis disproves the Big Bang, though he ignores other very strong evidence for it, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation, observable redshift, and the preeminence of elements with atomic number less than or equal to 4.

[Extra Stout]

Donald Chittick's field of expertise is alternative fuels.

[Extra Stout]

Edmond Holroyd claims that if we see a supernova that is 150,000 light years away that, since our seeing it would imply that the universe is at least 150,000 years old, which is impossible since the earth is just 6,000 years old, God must have created its light "in transit" so we could see it.

[Extra Stout]

Arlo Moelenpah is a chemical engineer.

[Extra Stout]

Otto Berg has a Bachelor of Arts degree in "Physics/Chemistry."

[Extra Stout]

I have to stop now. The convulsions from laughter are hurting my back.

[Phenomanul]

come one hedgemaster general, you're leaving yourself open to a tactical nuclear strike

Why? I've stated repeatedly that one can't prove that which was 'supernatural' with 'natural' means...

Try this analogy for comprehension: It's like trying to to prove the existence of colors to blind people... sure, we know they exist because we can 'see' them... but what if every living soul on earth were blind? Would you be able to prove it then - no matter how real it was to you?

I can see evidence of GOD's design in creation, in life itself, in DNA - in the sense that I acknowledge the Creator's work. But again, no amount of physical evidence will ever prove GOD's existence to doubting hearts because that's not how He chooses to operate (from what we read in the Biblical canon)... He desires to meet people on grounds of faith.

If ES can discredit people such as Einstein for reaching a Deistic conclusion he can do so at his own peril. Then again, Einstein didn't believe in the Judeo-Christian GOD... or advocate a 6-day creation of the Universe. While I don't preclude the latter from being true, I certainly can't prove it to be false when I know we are dealing with the supernatural. That stance can't be shaken because my belief in GOD does not hinge on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

For those who are curious - I align my belief structure more along the lines of Francis Collins', and Richard Deem's - not ICR's (even though I will admit that some of their articles point out interesting observations).

[Extra Stout]

If ES can discredit people such as Einstein for reaching a Deistic conclusion he can do so at his own peril. Then again, Einstein didn't believe in the Judeo-Christian GOD... or advocate a 6-day creation of the Universe. While I don't preclude the latter from being true, I certainly can't prove it to be false when I know we are dealing with the supernatural. That stance can't be shaken because my belief in GOD does not hinge on a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Why would I discredit Einstein just because I disagree with his theology, and believe in a personal God instead?

[jochhejaam]

I have to stop now. The convulsions from laughter are hurting my back.
Wow, yeah, you've totally destroyed each faculty member's credibility, and you've done it basically using only one sentence per member!!

A puzzle is complete when all of the pieces are put together Stout. In much the same way each faculty member of IRC contributes his expertise to a common cause.
What's laughable (ridiculous) is you isolating them into separate entitiies as if each of them are on an island working towards their conclusions alone.

You are light years away from proving your assertion that "they are not knowledgeable" and they are not "learned in their field".

I won't pretend to be convulsing from laughter as you did, but it's quite disappointing to see a poster of your stature resort to blanket condemnations, and then show what amounts to nothing to support your charges.


BTW, have you lied to anyone about anything in, say, the last 3 years?
(I'll bet you know what's coming if you admit to this)

[jochhejaam]

:dizzy wow...


hmm... joch?


:corn:
Yeah, I switched to watching the game, and then off to bed. :)

[jochhejaam]

David Phillips is still a student.
Which means that he's still learning...that's a slam? I hope all of those studying some form of creation are still learning (students if you will)

And that makes him unknowledgeable and unlearned in his field, how?


David Phillips - He has a B.A. in Physical Anthropology with minors in Biology and Geology from the California State University of Northridge (CSUN) and a M.A. in Paleoanthropology with highest honors from CSUN as well. Professor Phillipps is pursuing his Ph.D. in Paleontology. He is professor of physical sciences at the Masters College and works at the Paleontology lab for the La Brea Tar Pits.
Tell me again how these credentials disqualify him from assisting in the study of creation?

Off to work

[Extra Stout]

Wow, yeah, you've totally destroyed each faculty member's credibility, and you've done it basically using only one sentence per member!!

A puzzle is complete when all of the pieces are put together Stout. In much the same way each faculty member of IRC contributes his expertise to a common cause.
What's laughable (ridiculous) is you isolating them into separate entitiies as if each of them are on an island working towards their conclusions alone.

You are light years away from proving your assertion that "they are not knowledgeable" and they are not "learned in their field".

I won't pretend to be convulsing from laughter as you did, but it's quite disappointing to see a poster of your stature resort to blanket condemnations, and then show what amounts to nothing to support your charges.


BTW, have you lied to anyone about anything in, say, the last 3 years?
(I'll bet you know what's coming if you admit to this)
Sure, linguists, psychologists and engineers are critical to doing pure scientific research in geology, biology, and cosmology. Perhaps they should add a political scientist, or an MBA, or a dentist, to "contribute" to the "common cause." :rolleyes

And I will step back from my assertion that those guys are unlearned in their field, despite the preponderance of obvious errors in their research that only fools would fall for. It is possible that some of them are quite expert in their field, and are intentionally engaging in deceit for theological-ideological reasons.

Either way, they are liars and frauds. I feel sorry for you that you take them seriously. ICR has no more credibility than a 9/11 conspiracy website.


Wow, yeah, you've totally destroyed each faculty member's credibility, and you've done it basically using only one sentence per member!!That it only takes one sentence to discredit them speaks to the credulity of those who believe them.

They post these CV's on their site to trump up their "academic credentials," thinking that the sheer length will impress somebody, but then when you actually take a look at them, about 80% of it is garbage. By their standard, you could list the academic credentials of Political Forum posters and make this look like some kind of expert seminar.

Ironically, most everybody in this forum probably has the basic scientific knowledge to realize what a load of crap the "evolution violates the Second Law" and "maybe God created light in-transit" arguments are. To a person with any intellectual honesty whatsoever, those kind of reaches end the argument. They are risible, no matter how many papers the arguer has published.


Which means that he's still learning...that's a slam? I hope all of those studying some form of creation are still learning (students if you will)

And that makes him unknowledgeable and unlearned in his field, how?
College students are not academic experts.

[Phenomanul]

Why would I discredit Einstein just because I disagree with his theology, and believe in a personal God instead?

As do I.... the point being YECs (young earth creationists) have chosen to believe in a literal GOD of Genesis. That's their perogative. You can say that they are misguided, you can say that they are wrong. But the arrogance with which you've plucked some of their credibilities is misplaced. They seek that which can't be explained in a manner consistent with the scientific method and they can't see past that mismatch of concepts. That does not make them liars.

For the reason explained in my earlier post however, GOD has not openly revealed every detail about Creation. That does not mean that Genesis is false, or that He is not the Creator of the Universe. So although 'proof 'may not exist as apparent as a blinking "Las Vegas" sign Creation nevertheless points and glorifies its Creator - the Bible says this much. Having said that, I have a problem when people refer to scientific observations that reveal creation's design and purpose as 'pseudoscience' - the prefix implying it should be outright dismissed. This is a grossly misapplied term that undermines a greater Truth - that GOD is in fact the almighty Creator.

I personally know at least 50 or so molecular biologists that I've run into over the course of the years which have a big problem accepting the biological leaps that are required to accept random evolution. Most of them educated in M.I.T, Harvard, John Hopkins or Stanford, and most of them willing to tell you that the widely accepted, and generally overlooked implications of natural 'origins' are mathematically impossible. Can a natural spontaneous origin of life be proven? No, because human involvement and inherent interaction in such a study would negate the study's conclusions. Thus if the mainstream notion can't be proven, how is it people aren't as averted to classifying it as SCIENCE? Talk about agendas - they certainly go both ways.

[Extra Stout]

As do I.... the point being YECs (young earth creationists) have chosen to believe in a literal GOD of Genesis. That's their perogative. You can say that they are misguided, you can say that they are wrong. But the arrogance with which you've plucked some of their credibilities is misplaced. They seek that which can't be explained in a manner consistent with the scientific method and they can't see past that mismatch of concepts. That does not make them liars.
Einstein did not manipulate his research in order to fit his personal view of God. That is where the ICR people fall into utter intellectual dishonesty.

Nor did he have his CV printed on handbills to hand out to people so they would take him seriously. His credibility spoke for itself.


For the reason explained in my earlier post however, GOD has not openly revealed every detail about Creation. That does not mean that Genesis is false, or that He is not the Creator of the Universe. So although 'proof 'may not exist as apparent as a blinking "Las Vegas" sign Creation nevertheless points and glorifies its Creator - the Bible says this much. Having said that, I have a problem when people refer to scientific observations that reveal creation's design and purpose as 'pseudoscience' - the prefix implying it should be outright dismissed. This is a grossly misapplied term that undermines a greater Truth - that GOD is in fact the almighty Creator.
A person certainly can make an observation in the natural world, and relate it to his belief about God. Just about everybody does this, I think. You can even formulate an argument to persuade others towards your beliefs based upon natural observations.

All that is fine. It is normal. But it is theology. It is philosophy. It is not science. It is perfectly OK for it not to be science. We in the West have this hang-up about science being the only valid form of learning and study. It isn't.

Where it becomes pseudoscience is when people claim that some observation offers "scientific proof" of their belief, or unbelief in God. It is baloney when ICR does it. It is baloney when Richard Dawkins does it.


I personally know at least 50 or so molecular biologists that I've run into over the course of the years which have a big problem accepting the biological leaps required for believing in random evolution. Most of them educated in M.I.T, Harvard, John Hopkins or Stanford, and most of them willing to tell you that the widely accepted, and generally overlooked implications of natural 'origins' are mathematically impossible. Can a natural spontaneous origin of life be proven? No, because human involvement and inherent interaction in such a study would negate the study's conclusions. Thus if the mainstream notion can't be proven, how is it people aren't as averted to classifying it as SCIENCE? Talk about agendas - they certainly go both ways.
As I think I've stated for years, evolution does not attempt to describe how life began on Earth. That is a separate theory, called abiogenesis, which is much, much weaker, for the reasons you state, as well as others.

Yes, it is difficult to believe that the conditions necessary for life to generate itself occurred by chance.

Yes, it is difficult to believe that the "fine-tuning" necessary for matter as we know it to exist in the Standard Model to occur by chance.

And the explanations offered by non-theists and skeptics, like the anthropic principle, are not science any more than something like intelligent design is. They are philosophical/theological inductive arguments.

But that line of debate is totally different from what ICR does. How on earth is it "scientific research" to first select a Bible hermeneutic based upon nothing more than personal belief, and then force all hypotheses to fit that hermeneutic? How is that credible? Did I miss the part where they conclusively proved that a strictly literalist reading of Genesis is the correct one?

[xrayzebra]

Well ES you left me at the gate many post ago. So I will bow out
of any further discussion. Just assert one more time, I think
opposing views should be heard. In science or everyday life.
But seems as though, especially on college campus, that it is not
possible to submit or discuss an opposing view. At least we do
have our forum to do just that....even lay persons have views/
opinions.

[Phenomanul]

Einstein did not manipulate his research in order to fit his personal view of God. That is where the ICR people fall into utter intellectual dishonesty.

Nor did he have his CV printed on handbills to hand out to people so they would take him seriously. His credibility spoke for itself.

What's funny is that Einstein's research was never in a position to find proof of GOD's existence. That was never his motive. His eventual belief in a Deity came about from noting that everything else he knew about our Universe was too perfect to exist uncreated. That the language of the Universe (Math) was too unique to exist undefined.



A person certainly can make an observation in the natural world, and relate it to his belief about God. Just about everybody does this, I think. You can even formulate an argument to persuade others towards your beliefs based upon natural observations.

All that is fine. It is normal. But it is theology. It is philosophy. It is not science. It is perfectly OK for it not to be science. We in the West have this hang-up about science being the only valid form of learning and study. It isn't.

Where it becomes pseudoscience is when people claim that some observation offers "scientific proof" of their belief, or unbelief in God. It is baloney when ICR does it. It is baloney when Richard Dawkins does it.

Well this is certainly the biggest concern because this is exactly what the public schools are pushing on our students. You end up with people who can't tell the difference between the unprovable, percieved truth and Absolute Truth. Those who fail to see the limitations of science and try to claim that their 'superior' methods explain everything - even when they haven't got a clue about what they are talking about. Or people who equivocally believe that one's belief in GOD is an immediate 'handicap' to logic - and that this somehow discredits anything else they happen to say.



As I think I've stated for years, evolution does not attempt to describe how life began on Earth. That is a separate theory, called abiogenesis, which is much, much weaker, for the reasons you state, as well as others.

Yes, it is difficult to believe that the conditions necessary for life to generate itself occurred by chance.

Yes, it is difficult to believe that the "fine-tuning" necessary for matter as we know it to exist in the Standard Model to occur by chance.

And the explanations offered by non-theists and skeptics, like the anthropic principle, are not science any more than something like intelligent design is. They are philosophical/theological inductive arguments.

But that line of debate is totally different from what ICR does. How on earth is it "scientific research" to first select a Bible hermeneutic based upon nothing more than personal belief, and then force all hypotheses to fit that hermeneutic? How is that credible? Did I miss the part where they conclusively proved that a strictly literalist reading of Genesis is the correct one?

I can agree with most of this.

[DarkReign]

Dude, this is the thread that defines the very-fucking-word of OWNAGE!!!1!!11!!!

Wow.

[DarkReign]

Instant. Classic.

[jochhejaam]

Andrew Snelling attempted to invalidate the potassium-argon radiometric dating method by analyzing New Zealand lava flows less than 60 years old at the Geochron lab.

The Geochron lab readily admits that their methods are invalid for any samples expected to be less than 2 million years old, because of the contaminating effect of atmospheric argon.

So either Dr. Snelling has serious lapses in knowledge basic to his field, or maybe he is engaging in intentional deception. Either way, liar and fraud.
And that in a nutshell is what Snelling's known for? How pompous of you to summarily dismiss his achievements and research based upon that point. It takes very little effort to see beyond the generic vitriolic rhetoric you've spewed forth about him and other faculty at ICR.
What stands out in your post(s) is that you have proverbially "judged books by their cover (congratulations!).
Unfortunately Snelling's not able to counter your lambasting. I imagine he'd make you look like quite a buffoon.


Here's a more complete resume' for Snelling. Perhaps you'd care to research him and his work thoroughly (and while you're at it, all of the others you've attempted to take to task) so as to critique him in a fair manner instead of a shameful two sentence rebuke replete with juvenile name calling.




Andrew A. Snelling

Research
» Scientists in the Physical Sciences
» Scientists in the Biological Sciences
» Scientist List FAQ
Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. Geology

Education:
B.S. Applied Geology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, AUS - 1975
Ph.D. Geology, University of Sydney, Sydney, AUS - 1982

Organizations:
Geological Society of Australia
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Geological Society of America
Geological Association of Canada
Mineralogical Society of America
Society of Economic Geologists
Society for Geology Applied to Mineral Deposits
International Association of Geochemistry and Cosmochemistry
Association of Exploration Geochemists
Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists

Professional Experience:
1971-1975 Trainee geologist with Geopeko Limited in field locations and mine sites around Australia - Tennant Creek (Northern Territory), King Island (Tasmania), and Parkes-Wellington (New South Wales).
1975-1978 Tutor in geology, Department of Geology and Geophysics, the University of Sydney, instructing and assisting undergraduate students in geology laboratory and practical classes.
1979-1981 Field geologist for CRA Exploration Pty Ltd based in Darwin (Northern Territory) with responsibility for mineral exploration surveys and projects throughout northern and central Australia.
1981-1983 Project geologist for Denison Australia Pty Ltd with full geological responsibility for the Koongarra uranium mine development in east Arnhem Land, Northern Territory.
1983-1992 Consultant research geologist for Denison Australia Pty Ltd for their Koongarra uranium mine project, and for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission on their internationally-funded project on the geology and geochemistry of the Koongarra uranium deposit as an analogue of a high-level nuclear waste disposal site.

Publications: (partial list)
1. Snelling, A., and B.L. Dickson, Uranium daughter disequilibrium in the Koongarra uranium deposit, Australia, Mineralium Deposita, 14, pp. 109-118, 1979.

2. Snelling, A.A., Pitchblende and its alteration products, Koongarra uranium deposit, International Uranium Symposium on the Pine Creek Geosyncline, Extended Abstracts, pp. 188-191, 1979.

3. Dickson, B.L. and A.A. Snelling, Uranium daughter isotopes movements in the Koongarra uranium deposit, International Uranium Symposium on the Pine Creek Geosyncline, Extended Abstracts, pp. 57-60, 1979.

4. Snelling, A.A., Uraninite and its alteration products, Koongarra uranium deposit, Uranium in the Pine Creek Geosyncline, J. Ferguson and A.B. Goleby (editors), International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp. 487-498, 1980.

5. Dickson, B.L., and A.A. Snelling, Movements of uranium and daughter isotopes in the Koongarra uranium deposit, Uranium in the Pine Creek Geosyncline, J. Ferguson and A.B. Goleby (editors), International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp. 499-507, 1980.

6. Giblin, A.M., and A.A. Snelling, Application of hydrogeochemistry to uranium exploration in the Pine Creek Geosyncline, Northern Territory, Australia, Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 19, pp. 33-55, 1983.

7. Snelling, A.A., A soil geochemistry orientation survey for uranium at Koongarra, Northern Territory, Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 22, pp. 83-99, 1984.

8. Mackay, J.B., and A.A. Snelling, The 1980 Mount St Helens eruption: The role of volcanism in the formation of coal beds ( A modern analogue of ancient coal measure formation), Proceedings of the 18th Symposium on Advances in the Study of the Sydney Basin, Department of Geology, University of Newcastle, New South Wales, pp. 95-97, 1984.

9. Dickson, B.L., B.L. Gulson, and A.A. Snelling, Evaluation of lead isotopic methods for uranium exploration, Koongarra area, Northern Territory, Australia, Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 24, pp. 81-102, 1985.

10. Snelling, A.A., and J.B. Mackay, Evidence of catastrophic deposition of coals and sediments of the Newcastle coal measures, Proceedings of the 19th Symposium on Advances in the Study of the Sydney Basin, Department of Geology, University of Newcastle, New South Wales, pp. 110-113, 1985.

11. Snelling, A.A., and J.B. Mackay, The role of volcanism in the rapid formation of coal seams: The Walloon Coal Measures of Queensland and New South Wales - A case study, Proceedings of the 1985 International Conference on Coal Science, Pergamon Press, Sydney, p. 641, 1985.

12. Gole, M.J., C.R.M. Butt, and A.A. Snelling, A groundwater helium survey of the Koongarra uranium deposits, Pine Creek Geosyncline, Northern Territory, Uranium, 2, pp. 343-360, 1986.

13. Airey, P.L., P. Duerden, D. Roman, C. Golian, T. Nightingale, T. Payne, B.G. Davey, D. Gray, A.A. Snelling, and D. Lever, Koongarra ore body: A natural analogue of radionuclide migration in the far field of high level radioactive waste repositories, Natural Analogue Working Group, First Meeting, Commission of European Communities, Report ERU10315 EN-FR, Brussells, pp. 175-216, 1986.

14. Dickson, B.L., B.L. Gulson, and A.A. Snelling, Further assessment of stable lead isotope measurements for uranium exploration, Pine Creek Geosyncline, Northern Territory, Australia, Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 27, pp. 63-75, 1987.

15. Dickson, B.L., A.M. Giblin, and A.A. Snelling, The source of radium in anomalous accumulations near sandstone escarpments, Australia, Applied Geochemistry, 2, 385-398, 1987.

16. Airey, P.L., P. Duerden, D. Roman, C. Golian, T. Nightingale, T Payne, B.G. Davey, D. Gray, A.A. Snelling, and D. Lever, The predication of the long-term migration of radionuclides in the far field of high level waste repositories: Results from the Alligator Rivers Natural Analogue Study, Geological Disposal of High Level Radioactive Waste, B.G. Brookins (editor), Theophrastus Publications, S.A., Athens, Greece, pp. 507-524, 1987.

17. Snelling, A.A., Koongarra uranium deposits, Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea, F.E. Hughes (editor), The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, Monograph 14, pp. 807-812, 1990.

18. Snelling, A.A., Geologic setting, Alligator Rivers Analogue Project Final Report, OECD/NEA International Project, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization, Sydney, Volume 2, 118pp., 1992.

19. Edis, R., L. Cao, J. Cashion, D. Klessa, A.J. Koppi, T. Murakami, T Nightingale, T. Payne, A.A. Snelling, and N. Yanase, Chemistry and Mineralogy of Rocks and Soils, Alligator Rivers Analogue Project Final Report, OECD/NEA International Project, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization, Sydney, Volume 8, 255pp., 1992.

20. Austin, S.A., A.A. Snelling and K.P. Wise, Canyon-length mass kill of orothocone nautiloids, Redwall Limestone (Mississippian) Grand Canyon, Arizona, Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, p. A-421, 1999.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci_snelling

[jochhejaam]

Dude, this is the thread that defines the very-fucking-word of OWNAGE!!!1!!11!!!

Wow.
:blah :drunk As Extra Stout told you once before, "you have a very low standard for ownage".

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Extra Stout]
Either way, they are liars and frauds. I feel sorry for you that you take them seriously. ICR has no more credibility than a 9/11 conspiracy website.
Please tell me where I stated that I have bought into their philosophy? I merely took exception to your labeling them as "unlearned in their field", and "not knowledgable".
Add to that the blanket statement that they are "liars and frauds".




That it only takes one sentence to discredit them speaks to the credulity of those who believe them.
Come back to the table when you have thorough knowledge of each of the faculty members knowledge, reasearch, employment, peer reviewed articles, education, etc.

Until you've done that it's only in your own mind that you discredited them with one sentence.

[smeagol]

Joch, where do you stand in the debate the Earth is 6 billion years old vs the Earth is 6 thousand years old?

[jochhejaam]

Joch, where do you stand in the debate the Earth is 6 billion years old vs the Earth is 6 thousand years old?
Hey smeagol. I would state that I stand somewhere in the middle, but my postiton would probably be best described as one of ambivalence. My purpose or reason for living doesn't require the formation of a concrete stance on the subject.

With that being said, I will defer to the experts on that issue and let them go at it as I have not put in the amount of time and study that I feel is necessary to formulate an independently, educated opinion.

Whichever.

[Extra Stout]

Please tell me where I stated that I have bought into their philosophy? I merely took exception to your labeling them as "unlearned in their field", and "not knowledgable".
Add to that the blanket statement that they are "liars and frauds".




Come back to the table when you have thorough knowledge of each of the faculty members knowledge, reasearch, employment, peer reviewed articles, education, etc.

Until you've done that it's only in your own mind that you discredited them with one sentence.
I already gave an alternative to the "not knowledgable" notion. Go back and read.

If indeed these men are so distinguished, why then do they make errors an undergraduate would catch in their creation science "research"?

That to me would be like Stephen Hawking declaring that 2 + 2 = 5, and then when somebody points out that is obviously wrong, for Hawking to point to his long list of accomplishments.

His accomplishments don't matter in that case. He would be wrong in saying 2 + 2 = 5 , and if he stuck to it, it would harm his credibility. A person would not need "thorough knowledge" of his career to say that. Your contention is nothing but a dodge and a red herring worthy of Nbadan.

In this case, these scholars have an axe to grind in promulgating these errors. That makes them intellectually dishonest, which makes them frauds on the subject of creation. They may be just marvelous assets to the world of science in nuclear physics or meteorlogy or whatever their field is. But on this subject, they have switched off their brains because the facts don't fit their own ideas about God.

[clambake]

They can make up the truth as they go along. Print and publish. How easy is that. Write it down and agree to believe. You don't have to prove something is right when it can't be proven wrong. Just ring the dinner bell and the hungry will follow.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Extra Stout]I already gave an alternative to the "not knowledgable" notion. Go back and read.

Yep, I did see that Stout, but practically in the same breath you once again labeled them "liars and frauds". I understand your premise for labeling them as such, but my belief is that if you personally took them to task on the point of contention they would be able to satisy you with the reasoning behind their findings (or not).
What would they possibly have to gain by promoting deceptive and fraudulent information?

They're thinking outside the box (which elicits laughter, sarcasm, etc), and I don't see any harm in that.

[Phenomanul]

Yep, I did see that Stout, but practically in the same breath you once again labeled them "liars and frauds". I understand your premise for labeling them as such, but my belief is that if you personally took them to task on the point of contention they would be able to satisy you with the reasoning behind their findings (or not).
What would they possibly have to gain by promoting deceptive and fraudulent information?

They're thinking outside the box (which elicits laughter, sarcasm, etc), and I don't see any harm in that.


I've been mocked for my 'out of box' ideas and projects at work - then when they get implemented I usually get the last laugh.

On a twist to the subject... Right or wrong; YEC's will probably get the proverbial last laugh because most of them will probably inherit the kingdom of heaven while their non-believing critics will get the last burn... :smokin

I simply believe ICR's goals are misaligned with GOD's will. Especially because most of the evidence points to a supernatural creation of the Universe (from the uniqueness and significance of 15 primary constants that define it). They ought to focus their energy on sharing the Gospel.

[clambake]

Where do you guys stand on Jack and the Beanstalk?

[jochhejaam]

Where do you guys stand on Jack and the Beanstalk?
On Jacks head, but it's more of a climbing thing on the stalk.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

This is the best religious exchange I've ever seen. Clear, concise arguments with intelligent points... NOT usually found in a Political Forum thread, I have to say. Plus, I have yet to see ANY personal attacks, which are so common in this sort of discussions, which speaks volumes about the people involved.

Seriously gents, you've outdone yourselves! Congrats!

anyway... continue... :corn:


EDIT: Ok, perhaps there are some attacks, but compared everything else in the political forum, this thread is immaculate :lol

[Extra Stout]

but my belief is that if you personally took them to task on the point of contention they would be able to satisy you with the reasoning behind their findings (or not).
They probably could outmaneuver me in a debate, since I would not be able to decipher the smoke-and-mirrors act until later examination.


What would they possibly have to gain by promoting deceptive and fraudulent information?
Possible things they have to gain:

1) Protecting their own religious beliefs. If their faith depends upon a literal intepretation of Genesis, then they would have a motivation to deceive themselves, and by extension, others.

2) Religious ideology. If they are believe that fundamentalism is critical to the integrity of Christianity, then they have a motivation to steer people towards fundamentalism, since they may think souls are on the line.

3) Social ideology. As I said earlier in the thread, if they believe that social order is dependent upon a Biblical morality founded in a literal interpretation thereof, then they could see their behavior as being toward the greater good.

They don't even necessarily have to do this consciously. The best liars are the ones who convince themselves of the lie.

[Phenomanul]

They probably could outmaneuver me in a debate, since I would not be able to decipher the smoke-and-mirrors act until later examination.


1) You don't give yourself enough credit.

2) You assume they're out to trick everyone.

3) If your objectivity changes on account of No. 2, your receptiveness to ideas or new observations will likely not exist.




Possible things they have to gain:

1) Protecting their own religious beliefs. If their faith depends upon a literal intepretation of Genesis, then they would have a motivation to deceive themselves, and by extension, others.

2) Religious ideology. If they are believe that fundamentalism is critical to the integrity of Christianity, then they have a motivation to steer people towards fundamentalism, since they may think souls are on the line.

3) Social ideology. As I said earlier in the thread, if they believe that social order is dependent upon a Biblical morality founded in a literal interpretation thereof, then they could see their behavior as being toward the greater good.

They don't even necessarily have to do this consciously. The best liars are the ones who convince themselves of the lie.

There's a bit of truth to that statement. But the second statement again assumes they're out to trick the world. Which reminds me of an article I read off of Rich Deem's website, because evolutionists have already done so. Surprisingly the article was linked off of ICR's domain - an institute Richard Deem chastises much like you do ES.



Smithsonian: Religious Scientists Prohibited
by Lawrence Ford
“Are you a religious person?”

This question is not allowed on job applications and it is prohibited during job interviews. And regardless of the truth, the religious affiliation of an individual cannot be used to deny employment, except perhaps in church work.

However, the Smithsonian Institution, an agency of the United States government, has been using this question to penalize one of its most gifted scientists, Dr. Richard Sternberg.

A Research Associate at the National Museum of Natural History, Dr. Sternberg is an evolutionary scientist with two doctorates in biology, one in molecular evolution and the other in theoretical biology. In addition to his research work at the Smithsonian, he served as managing editor of the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

During his oversight of this journal, Dr. Sternberg accepted for publication an article titled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, a Cambridge-educated scientist. Publication was accepted only after passing the required peer-review process by other scientists. Dr. Meyer’s article, though highly academic in nature, suggested that Intelligent Design could better solve the biological problems currently under scrutiny.

Publication of Meyer’s article, however, sparked a firestorm of internal controversy that resulted in discriminatory harassment of Dr. Sternberg by senior Smithsonian scientists and administrators. So defaming were these actions that a congressional oversight committee investigated the claims and publicly released its findings in December 2006 titled "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian: Smithsonian's Top Officials Permit the Demotion and Harrassment of Scientist Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution."

Included in the investigation report are emails between Smithsonian officials regarding Dr. Sternberg’s situation and how to terminate his relationship with the museum. The Smithsonian even enlisted the help of Eugenia Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education, to “monitor Sternberg’s outside activities.”

In the report summary, congressional investigators concluded:

The staff investigation has uncovered compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg’s civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials. Moreover, the agency’s top officials—Secretary Lawrence Small and Deputy Secretary Sheila Burke—have shown themselves completely unwilling to rectify the wrongs that were done or even to genuinely investigate the wrongdoing. Most recently, Burke and Small have allowed NMNH officials to demote Dr. Sternberg to the position of Research Collaborator, despite past assurances from Burke that Dr. Sternberg was a “Research Associate in good standing” and would be given “full and fair consideration” for his request to renew his Research Associateship. The failure of Small and Burke to take any action against such discrimination raises serious questions about the Smithsonian’s willingness to protect the free speech and civil rights of scientists who may hold dissenting views on topics such as biological evolution.

The Sternberg case is actually a couple of years old, though the congressional oversight committee just completed its investigation. And Dr. Sternberg is not a creationist by any means. He simply allowed a non-Darwinian to publish a scientific paper in an academic journal. For that sin, his career is under attack. Read Dr. Sternberg’s own defense of his actions at rsternberg.net.

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled “The Branding of a Heretic,” the article that originally brought widespread attention to this case, David Klinghoffer comments on the Smithsonian’s handling of the Sternberg matter with these revealing words:

Darwinism…is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches—like the National Museum of Natural History.

It’s clear from his article that Mr. Klinghoffer is not a creationist. But his description of Darwinian evolution as a “quasi-religious faith without a deity” reveals an important reality of the debate between evolution and creation: both viewpoints, while working with science, are ultimately matters of faith.

Creationists admit this. Evolutionists will not.

[Extra Stout]

1) You don't give yourself enough credit.

2) You assume they're out to trick everyone.

3) If your objectivity changes on account of No. 2, your receptiveness to ideas or new observations will likely not exist.

I'm not a PhD; I just know that 2 + 2 does not equal 5.

I certainly do not have the background to counter an ICR argument off the top of my head, unless it is just obviously wrong and silly.

Look, these people might be really friendly, polite, magnanimous, what have you. It's not that they are malevolently trying to lie to people. But fundamentalists have a knack for having enough "faith" to deny objective reality when it doesn't fit their theology.

One can interpret some passages in the Bible to say that line of thinking is the right one ("wisdom of this world" usw.), but whereas that usually has meant to address the Christian's faith in the mystery of Christ and his resurrection, taking it to deny anything whatsoever that contradicts the fundamentalist hermeneutic is going much too far.

[Extra Stout]

There are a few points to consider with regard to the Sternberg case:

When the article says that the paper in question passed "peer review," that is true administratively, but only because Sternberg bypassed the usual practice of sending the paper to an associate editor for review before reviewing it himself.

In addition, the paper in question was a literature review, whereas the journal in which it was published was meant to be systematic in nature.

Because Dr. Sternberg and Dr. Meyer are both members of the Discovery Institute (Dr. Meyer is actually program director), this was seen as a conflict of interest, and an inappropriate exercise of Dr. Sternberg's editorial authority.

Despite his abuse of authority with the journal, it is still possible the Smithsonian overreacted, and that their zeal to go after him stemmed from his involvement with Discovery.

Now with regard to creation and evolution both being matters of faith: baloney. Evolution is nothing more and nothing less than the current state of the art on the biology of species. It is a very strong theory. It is not comprehensive. It has holes. It has differences of opinion. Something could well come along later and blow it up, the way quantum mechanics did to classical physics.

Creation is a theological and/or philosophical argument about whether and how a Supreme Being brought about the universe. As has been argued back and forth for years, there is really no way deductively to determine scientifically which view is correct. A person can accept the basics of evolution and believe in God, or not. A person can reject mainstream science and believe in God, or not.

A person has to decide inductively, based upon their own experiences and understanding, about God, and Christians are supposed to communicate their beliefs in order to guide people to an understanding about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

As we've debated before, Western culture, for all its technological and social advancements resulting from its successful use of rational thought, does not do a good job of conceiving of the spiritual and the abstract. People want something from God they can see and touch to prove he is there. The lack of physical evidence for God in a culture that relies on the concrete is a stumbling block for faith.

A further problem is that 150-200 years ago, Western rationality was a vehicle for evangelism in this culture. Now that dog won't hunt. But, sometimes it is more expedient to go on as it if still worked, and besides, the souls of laymen are still being saved, right? Redefining our encounter with God as numinous one, to swim against the dominant culture, is much more challenging.

[Phenomanul]

There are a few points to consider with regard to the Sternberg case:

When the article says that the paper in question passed "peer review," that is true administratively, but only because Sternberg bypassed the usual practice of sending the paper to an associate editor for review before reviewing it himself.

In addition, the paper in question was a literature review, whereas the journal in which it was published was meant to be systematic in nature.

Because Dr. Sternberg and Dr. Meyer are both members of the Discovery Institute (Dr. Meyer is actually program director), this was seen as a conflict of interest, and an inappropriate exercise of Dr. Sternberg's editorial authority.

Despite his abuse of authority with the journal, it is still possible the Smithsonian overreacted, and that their zeal to go after him stemmed from his involvement with Discovery.

It still points to an agenda that aims to push conflicting views out of the scientific spheres of influence... nevermind Sternberg's own interests in the the two programs.


Now with regard to creation and evolution both being matters of faith: baloney. Evolution is nothing more and nothing less than the current state of the art on the biology of species. It is a very strong theory. It is not comprehensive. It has holes. It has differences of opinion. Something could well come along later and blow it up, the way quantum mechanics did to classical physics.

See this is where we differ. I believe it stems from your classification of Abiogenesis as a completely independent theory from the theory of Evolution. Science has deemed the two theories as such out of convenience because while the latter is built on mountains of evidence, family trees, and taxidermical roots, the former leaves much to be desired. I still see the theory of biological speciation as nothing more than genetic adaptation woven into the fabric of every created creature - specifically every creature 'according to its kind' - which could be our modern day classification of 'GENUS' or 'FAMILY'.

Why is this important??... Because the processes behind evolution had to start at some point, they had to start on a strand of genetic material. Much like your "light in transit" observation, the theory cannot just assume everything was already there for the process to commence. That same process requires point zero to be defined - and the engine behind Evolution cannot define it. Belief in Evolution hence requires a step of faith in order for its construct to form the complete framework that can define biological diversity from point zero to the present. The theory of Abiogenesis was therefore required to bridge that gap - but more than anything to address the inconsistency of Evolution's point zero. Evolutionist's will always deny that this problem is even relevant, because the theory wonderfully describes page 2 through page 99 of our biological world and can even predict what may happen in page 101 - Most of them however rarely bother to question why page 1 is missing this same element of consistency.

I firmly believe that Evolution is a guided process. One that manifests GOD's purpose and design. I don't believe it to be a randomly selective process that came about from a lifeless chemical broth.




Creation is a theological and/or philosophical argument about whether and how a Supreme Being brought about the universe. As has been argued back and forth for years, there is really no way deductively to determine scientifically which view is correct. A person can accept the basics of evolution and believe in God, or not. A person can reject mainstream science and believe in God, or not.

A person has to decide inductively, based upon their own experiences and understanding, about God, and Christians are supposed to communicate their beliefs in order to guide people to an understanding about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

As we've debated before, Western culture, for all its technological and social advancements resulting from its successful use of rational thought, does not do a good job of conceiving of the spiritual and the abstract. People want something from God they can see and touch to prove he is there. The lack of physical evidence for God in a culture that relies on the concrete is a stumbling block for faith.

A further problem is that 150-200 years ago, Western rationality was a vehicle for evangelism in this culture. Now that dog won't hunt. But, sometimes it is more expedient to go on as it if still worked, and besides, the souls of laymen are still being saved, right? Redefining our encounter with God as numinous one, to swim against the dominant culture, is much more challenging.

Well said! :tu

[Phenomanul]

BTW if we wish to discuss the topic further I'd rather we do it in a new thread... I find boutons_ thread title to be highly distasteful and it pains me to have bumped it up so many times already.