YEC paleontologist presents old earth research at GSA

But I thought Marcus Ross was, like, a superhero or something. (And that his superpower was honesty.)

Maybe I'm confusing him with other superhero creationists who are honest and admit that evolution makes sense and creationism doesn't. I forget. I know there's a couple of them around here. And they are well respected for their honesty superpowers.

what kind of nonsense is "use a different framework" ? That is simply a confusing way to say, "Sometimes I say one thing, sometimes I say another thing. They are mutually exclusive but I am smart enough to know that if I tell stupid lies in front of other PhD geologists they will laugh at me, so I pretend to believe science when I am talking with them. Later, when I talk with other YECs, I tell them what I really think."

I think two things are going on in their minds. First is kind of like a what-if game. What if reality really IS the way things are, then how would it all work? That takes research and hard work, but it's based on the pretense that reality is real, and we know better. And second is, as Joe said, the tactic of fabricating credentials of the "see, real scientists accept and respect the creationist viewpoint" variety.

I suppose there is some vague parallel with mathematicians who prove all manner of theorems within nonreal axiom systems. The rules of the creationist "framework" resemble the rules of Calvinball.

Years ago, I had a colleague, a half-way decent scientist, who professed to be a biblical literalist. I asked him if he really thought that adulterers should be stoned to death. No, he said, Jesus canceled that commandment when he said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

And before that? I asked. Yes, he said, we do not understand, but before then it was appropriate to stone adulterers to death, because God said so.

Utterly baffled, I went to a psychologist I knew slightly and asked him how a trained scientist could possibly hold such views. Compartmentalization, he said; sometimes it is pathological.

So is this case is pathological? I asked. He paused and thought for a while before answering, Yes.

I have never heard of Marcus Ross before, but I have a suspicion that my psychologist acquaintance would give the same response if I asked him.

I think it goes beyond compartmentalization. The fact that he has not produce any papers showing how the research also supports a young earth means that either:
1. He believes in an old earth but doesn't want to give up an comfy job.
2. He believes in a young earth but knows that the evidence currently overwhelming supports an old earth

In either case he is lying to the world.

386sx said: Maybe I'm confusing him with other superhero creationists who are honest and admit that evolution makes sense and creationism doesn't. I forget. I know there's a couple of them around here. And they are well respected for their honesty superpowers.

386sx said: I think one of them cut up a Bible or something. He was looking for something in the Bible (I forget what) and whenever he found it he cut it out. And when he was done with it, there wasn't any Bible left. Ergo, creationism. However, he was a very honest creationist superhero whose superpowers were honesty and denial.

Yep thanks that's the guy!

There is more going on here than probably meets the eye.

Since the 1960s, very little has changed among YECs with their misrepresentations and fabricated pseudo-science. The game with them has always been to taunt real scientists into debates in order to climb onto their coattails and gain “credibility and respectability.” Ever since the science community stopped taking their bait, creationists have had to seek “legitimacy” by other means.

They have no intention of being credible and respectable; they want the appearance of legitimacy among the rubes that follow them. And if that means presenting papers at real scientific conferences, they will find a way to climb onto the work of others to do so. You can bet that once these idiots have established themselves as credible among their followers, their real scientific output will cease.

We are still seeing this with the crop of young PhDs over at AiG; they just make up crap.

And it is also important to note the tactics of the late Lee Attwater, his protégé, Karl Rove, Michele Bachman, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and the rest of the wrecking crew at Fox Noise. When they are called out, they simply double down and tell bigger lies more frequently. Where, and from whom, did they learn they could get away with this crap?

Yeah, these people are psychopaths; and they find resonances among the ignorant and fearful to the point of building those psychotic “armies of the night” that will march like zombies to form the theocracy these leaders crave.

The scientific community is going to have to be far more vigilant and take a much harsher stand against these charlatans than they ever did in the past. Any ground that gets ceded to ID/creationists will be only that much harder to take back.

YECs especially will not hesitate to attempt to wreck the reputations of people in the science community. People have tended to underestimate the meanness and sneakiness of these hucksters in the past. That is a mistake.

Yes, use the paradigm that works when meaningful science has to be done, and back to the faith-based claptrap when lying to the faithful must be effected.

It is true that different interpretations are possible. Essentially, all creationist interpretations should be called misinterpretations, at best. They are not honest interpretations of the evidence at all, and no one can do science with them (obviously, ID included).

Glen Davidson

Mike Elzinga said: The scientific community is going to have to be far more vigilant and take a much harsher stand against these charlatans than they ever did in the past. Any ground that gets ceded to ID/creationists will be only that much harder to take back.

As others have noted, when Ross says that he "uses a different paradigm" he simply means that he lies.

We don't know which audience he's lying to.

He unequivocally lies, though, to one audience or the other. If he "doesn't know" he's lying, that would only make me deeply concerned that he might be either a sociopath or delusional. If he does know he's lying, then he's an ordinary sleazeball.

I believe that his scientific work needs extra scrutiny. He has a record of saying different things to different audiences; the thing each wants to hear. Science always needs to be on the lookout for frauds, and we already know that this guy is a fraud.

And please note that I'm sympathetic to the audience here. If he had expressed a religious belief that was not directly in conflict with his own scientific work, I'd be supporting him.

Oops -

We don't, of course, have any reason to believe that Ross's scientific work is fraudulent.

By "already know he is a fraud" I meant that we know he makes contradictory statements about creationism in different venues.

His scientific work doesn't need "extra" scrutiny; ideally, the ordinary level of scrutiny will be sufficient to see if it stands the test of time.

Apologies if I was unclear.

There is more going on here than probably meets the eye.

When I present or publish my work, I believe I am offering valid data, valid conclusions from the data, and the best explanation I'm aware of. I would consider it extremely unethical to present a paper if I didn't believe its conclusions were valid.

If I'm on record taking a particular position and I present a paper that contradicts that position, asking me to reconcile those positions is totally fair game, and I had damn well better be able to explain the change. Saying "Oh, the previous conclusion was just from a different viewpoint" simply wouldn't fly.

Flint said: To the average American, with the average American understanding of science, the tension between actual science and creation-science boils down to a swearing contest. The audience is simply not equipped to evaluate the competing claims, except by looking at people's degrees. They couldn't understand a scientific paper, they have no grasp of publications or what's involved with them, the phrase "null hypothesis" sounds like meaningless doubletalk.

An associate from the National Center for Science Education was at the field trip, and is hopefully writing his response as well.

Gary Hurd said: An associate from the National Center for Science Education was at the field trip, and is hopefully writing his response as well.

It is somewhat disheartening that no one at the Univ. of RI thought to question the contradiction in Ross' approach. One would think that during the whole of his education there, the YEC crap might have come up.

what kind of nonsense is “use a different framework” ?

Liberty University? What are they going to do about it? Kiss him and tell him to keep up the good work?

Correction: I goofed! I now realize that he teaches at Liberty U where lying faculty are welcome. But he still should stay away from non-creationists and keep his lies in creationist institutions where they belong.

RBH said: That's why I found the reaction of some of the conference attendees that Meert reported to be problematic. They thought Joe was being harsh when he called Ross out on his YEC beliefs.

So in other words, "when I'm talking to biologists, a bat is a mammal; but when I'm talking to biblical literalists, it's a bird".

MikeMa said: It is somewhat disheartening that no one at the Univ. of RI thought to question the contradiction in Ross' approach. One would think that during the whole of his education there, the YEC crap might have come up.

Well, as it happens, I have an up-coming debate with ICR's Steve Austin. I was pissed that AGS had co-sponcored the field trip. I know that Austin and the rest of these YEC twits use their meeting visits as "professional acknowledgement" for their creationism, when in fact their YEC beliefs are carefully hidden from sight.

I spread a little joy around.

Mike, I'm pretty sure that the person who followed me in the questioning was not a YEC. He saw how flustered Ross was and I think he felt sympathy and said "I have drawers and drawers of ammonites that you might want to include in your analysis." as an attempt to turn the conversation away from YEC'ism. I have to believe, though I don't know, that this was the typical "Well, if only he studies more he's bound to see that YEC'ism is wrong". It's kind of like thinking "Well maybe John Wayne Gacy won't be so bad if he sees that little boys are really fragile beings".

Gary Hurd said: I spread a little joy around.

J Meert said: I have to believe, though I don't know, that this was the typical "Well, if only he studies more he's bound to see that YEC'ism is wrong". It's kind of like thinking "Well maybe John Wayne Gacy won't be so bad if he sees that little boys are really fragile beings".

RBH said:

Gary Hurd said: I spread a little joy around.

Tee hee! Will your debate with Austin be recorded/streamed?

Gary Hurd said: I know that there will be a video. The date has changed 4 or 5 times. Currently, the plan is that it will take place in February. It will be hosted at the Calvary Chapel in Orange County, Ca. We are discussing the age of the Grand Canyon.

PS: I call for a round of congratulations to our friend, Joe Meert. He is a new Fellow of the AGS.

Bravo!

Gary Hurd said: PS: I call for a round of congratulations to our friend, Joe Meert. He is a new Fellow of the AGS. Bravo!

Gary Hurd said: PS: I call for a round of congratulations to our friend, Joe Meert. He is a new Fellow of the AGS. Bravo!

SWT said: I would consider it extremely unethical to present a paper if I didn't believe its conclusions were valid.

Ross claims that he can both be a YEC, using his credential to bolster his teaching of Flood geology, and also work honestly in the framework of orthodox geology simply by switching “paradigms” according to (audience) context.

Gary Hurd said: The date has changed 4 or 5 times. Currently, the plan is that it will take place in February. It will be hosted at the Calvary Chapel in Orange County, Ca.

Gary has deep experience with creationists. I'm not worried.

The date has changed 4 or 5 times. Currently, the plan is that it will take place in February. It will be hosted at the Calvary Chapel in Orange County, Ca.

RBH said:

Mike Elzinga said: The scientific community is going to have to be far more vigilant and take a much harsher stand against these charlatans than they ever did in the past. Any ground that gets ceded to ID/creationists will be only that much harder to take back.

That's why I found the reaction of some of the conference attendees that Meert reported to be problematic. They thought Joe was being harsh when he called Ross out on his YEC beliefs.

RBH said: Gary has deep experience with creationists. I'm not worried.

I once was able to stand behind Kent Hovind during one of his debates. He had ever Power Point slide he had ever used all on his laptop.

As he listened to his opponent speak, Michael Shermer as it happened, Hovind was pulling slides he would use.

An excellent strategy.

This Code of Honor, an expression of the values inherent in our Doctrinal Statement, defines the rules and principles by which our community functions. At the core of this Code are two key concepts: a belief in the dignity of all persons and an insistence on the existence of objective truth.

Gary Hurd said: PS: I call for a round of congratulations to our friend, Joe Meert. He is a new Fellow of the AGS. Bravo!

socle said: From the Honor Code of Marcus' employer, Liberty University:

This Code of Honor, an expression of the values inherent in our Doctrinal Statement, defines the rules and principles by which our community functions. At the core of this Code are two key concepts: a belief in the dignity of all persons and an insistence on the existence of objective truth.

I wonder if LU approves of "two frameworks, one truth"?

Having once been a YEC, I have a bit more understanding of the mindset than most people who comment on it, but I really don't understand how Marcus can hold that dichotomous view. He must know one of them is wrong so why would he knowingly teach a wrong paradigm?

Best I can come up with is he's going with All Models are Wrong: Some Models are Useful approach, and the old earth models are more useful than the young earth models, so he teaches those just for utility sake. Pretty weak rationale though.

btw, unless you know your Bible very well, understand context and to whom and for the various letters were written, and what has been expounded upon in later letters/books, you should refrain from quoting a verse or two at a YEC. More often than not, you'll take it out of literal and sociological context.

All this does is tell the YEC that 1. you don't know what you're talking about and therefore can be ignored, or 2. you deliberately cherry-picked a verse out of context, therefore are dishonest, and anything you say should be ignored--including any science-based information you might pass along.

It really is more "effective" (relatively speaking, that is) sticking to the facts. Using a Bible verse against a YEC is like a science-challenged YEC using something by Dawkins or Gould against a well-read or educated evo-sci person. We laugh at what YECs misunderstand and get wrong, and they do the same.

mariana said: ... Best I can come up with is he's going with All Models are Wrong: Some Models are Useful approach, and the old earth models are more useful than the young earth models, so he teaches those just for utility sake. Pretty weak rationale though. ...

mariana said: btw, unless you know your Bible very well, understand context and to whom and for the various letters were written, and what has been expounded upon in later letters/books, you should refrain from quoting a verse or two at a YEC. More often than not, you'll take it out of literal and sociological context. All this does is tell the YEC that 1. you don't know what you're talking about and therefore can be ignored, or 2. you deliberately cherry-picked a verse out of context, therefore are dishonest, and anything you say should be ignored--including any science-based information you might pass along.

It really is more "effective" (relatively speaking, that is) sticking to the facts. Using a Bible verse against a YEC is like a science-challenged YEC using something by Dawkins or Gould against a well-read or educated evo-sci person. We laugh at what YECs misunderstand and get wrong, and they do the same.

Gary Hurd said: We are discussing the age of the Grand Canyon.

Oclarki said:

Gary Hurd said: We are discussing the age of the Grand Canyon.

Oh, good...perhaps I can finally get a YEC answer to a pressing question....o If your debate does actually occur, could you perchance ask about the spatial characteristics of the Temple Butte Limestone in the context of "flood geology? In particular I would be quite interested to learn how the stream channels in the eastern canyon were carved, filled, eroded, and covered in the few days (at most) that the "flood" would have allowed.

Oops...sorry...a completely unintentional duplication of posts. Apparently the declared "syntax error" that led me to repost was pretty much a fictional statement.

They’ve been working for decades to destroy Western civilization, and the scientific community is just waking up to this fact.

Steve P. said: Alert: Misreading due to lost bifocals cognitive dissonance! Misunderstanding due to the rush from a Starbucks double espresso emotionally induced mental masterbation! Actually, YECs scientists (and those that recognize and appreciate true science) and are working overtime to undo decades of the Burnetts intellectually dishonest asshats of this world sneaking in their secular humanistic/atheistic worldviews through the back door by surreptitiously inserting clever slants into certain sections of biology textbooks curriculums. True, it has been an effective strategy. The burnetts intellectually dishonest asshats can easily play coy: "What, me?" I didn't do anything! What are you talking about? You're being ridiculous! Its all the more reason why YECs and the public in general need to be loud. See, its a level playing field or no field. Easy as pie. Look, if you want to push the envelope, fine. Just remember Truman's words, 'if you can't take the heat........'.

Steve P. said: See, its a level playing field or no field. Easy as pie. Look, if you want to push the envelope, fine. Just remember Truman's words, 'if you can't take the heat........'.

In the above screed, "humanistic/atheistic" should be read as "evidence-driven", "surreptitiously" should be read as "openly", "clever slants" should be read as "facts", and "the back door" should be read as "the front door".

The Burnetts, and the Lucketts also, can easily play coy, because, unlike the YECs, we do not confuse fact with polemic, nor evidence with propaganda. And the truth, though it speaks softly amid the brassy boasts of creationism, does carry a rather large stick. A clue stick, to be precise.

As for heat, buddy, heat is all you got. Blaze away.

He clearly leaves his biblical glasses at home when doing paleontology presentations in front of genuine scientists, but puts them back on when he walks out of the building.

Ken Ham would be frowning in deep disapproval. Biblical glasses are supposed to be worn at all times by YECs when discussing science.

But I wonder how one's mind becomes so twisted that a person will actually study and gain a formal qualification in a topic they believe to be riddled with falsehoods, just so they can teach the faithful the complete opposite to the overwhelming scientific consensus, while claiming some sort of authority.

Oh, and I just read that link to Lisle's paper.

Thanks a lot, Mike E. Now I have coffee all over my computer monitor! ;)

Sorry, but a lot of the comments here seem to imply a "lack of faith" in scientific processes.

At the end of the day, is it really important what one individual PhD in Geology believes? Indeed, does it even matter that he HAS a PhD? At the end of the day, the PhD is just one of the keys to an academic/research job. What matters is the papers a person publishes. If he wants to write about YEC, let him. They won't fly in the journals. If he wants to write proper science, he contributes to the community, and I could care diddly squat whether he was a YEC, or believed in Baba Yaga.

If he wants to go on TV and spout creationist nonsense, he'll just be one of a whole bunch of other nutjobs doing the same. And if you're worried about this, you're worried about a more fundamental problem than a single nutjob. You're worried about the fact that entire categories of people have problems grasping basic scientific ideas. The solution to that problem- proper education of the masses ain't got nothing to do with one Geology major.

Cecil Chua said: If he wants to go on TV and spout creationist nonsense, he'll just be one of a whole bunch of other nutjobs doing the same. And if you're worried about this, you're worried about a more fundamental problem than a single nutjob. You're worried about the fact that entire categories of people have problems grasping basic scientific ideas. The solution to that problem- proper education of the masses ain't got nothing to do with one Geology major.

Cecil Chua said: Sorry, but a lot of the comments here seem to imply a "lack of faith" in scientific processes. At the end of the day, is it really important what one individual PhD in Geology believes? Indeed, does it even matter that he HAS a PhD? At the end of the day, the PhD is just one of the keys to an academic/research job. What matters is the papers a person publishes. If he wants to write about YEC, let him. They won't fly in the journals. If he wants to write proper science, he contributes to the community, and I could care diddly squat whether he was a YEC, or believed in Baba Yaga. If he wants to go on TV and spout creationist nonsense, he'll just be one of a whole bunch of other nutjobs doing the same. And if you're worried about this, you're worried about a more fundamental problem than a single nutjob. You're worried about the fact that entire categories of people have problems grasping basic scientific ideas. The solution to that problem- proper education of the masses ain't got nothing to do with one Geology major.

Okay, I'm missing something here.

Which part of Ross's presentation was wrong because he was a YEC? From Meert's comments it's not clear what bit of the ammonite-mosasaur correlation Ross presented that Meert was objecting to, other than the presenter.

This just strikes me as 'dickish' ad hominem. So what if Ross is a YEC, as long as he does compartmentalise his beliefs and perfoms good science, I don't care whether he believes in gods or 'rods'. If we are to treat YEC as so poisonous to scientific endeavour, why stop there, every Christian I've ever met has held some pretty wacky unscientific belief or other, virgin births, transmutation of liquids, dead people coming back to life, as has most every other theist of any stripe, why not pick them up on it too?

Not to would be hypocritical.

David B. said: Okay, I'm missing something here. Which part of Ross's presentation was wrong because he was a YEC? From Meert's comments it's not clear what bit of the ammonite-mosasaur correlation Ross presented that Meert was objecting to, other than the presenter. This just strikes me as 'dickish' ad hominem. So what if Ross is a YEC, as long as he does compartmentalise his beliefs and perfoms good science, I don't care whether he believes in gods or 'rods'. If we are to treat YEC as so poisonous to scientific endeavour, why stop there, every Christian I've ever met has held some pretty wacky unscientific belief or other, virgin births, transmutation of liquids, dead people coming back to life, as has most every other theist of any stripe, why not pick them up on it too? Not to would be hypocritical.

David B. said: Okay, I'm missing something here. Which part of Ross's presentation was wrong because he was a YEC? From Meert's comments it's not clear what bit of the ammonite-mosasaur correlation Ross presented that Meert was objecting to, other than the presenter. This just strikes me as 'dickish' ad hominem. So what if Ross is a YEC, as long as he does compartmentalise his beliefs and perfoms good science, I don't care whether he believes in gods or 'rods'. If we are to treat YEC as so poisonous to scientific endeavour, why stop there, every Christian I've ever met has held some pretty wacky unscientific belief or other, virgin births, transmutation of liquids, dead people coming back to life, as has most every other theist of any stripe, why not pick them up on it too? Not to would be hypocritical.

Actually, YECs are working overtime to undo decades of the Burnetts of this world sneaking in their secular humanistic/atheistic worldviews through the back door

Okay, I’m missing something here. Which part of Ross’s presentation was wrong because he was a YEC? From Meert’s comments it’s not clear what bit of the ammonite-mosasaur correlation Ross presented that Meert was objecting to, other than the presenter.

This just strikes me as ‘dickish’ ad hominem. So what if Ross is a YEC, as long as he does compartmentalise his beliefs and perfoms good science, I don’t care whether he believes in gods or ‘rods’.

If we are to treat YEC as so poisonous to scientific endeavour, why stop there, every Christian I’ve ever met has held some pretty wacky unscientific belief or other, virgin births, transmutation of liquids, dead people coming back to life, as has most every other theist of any stripe, why not pick them up on it too? Not to would be hypocritical.

386sx said: Maybe I'm confusing him with other superhero creationists who are honest and admit that evolution makes sense and creationism doesn't. I forget. I know there's a couple of them around here. And they are well respected for their honesty superpowers.

I asked you once how old the earth is. In that thread, you were defending “ID”, so you ran away. Now we see that you are a YEC.

— harold

David B. said: Okay, I'm missing something here. Which part of Ross's presentation was wrong because he was a YEC? From Meert's comments it's not clear what bit of the ammonite-mosasaur correlation Ross presented that Meert was objecting to, other than the presenter. This just strikes me as 'dickish' ad hominem. So what if Ross is a YEC, as long as he does compartmentalise his beliefs and perfoms good science, I don't care whether he believes in gods or 'rods'. If we are to treat YEC as so poisonous to scientific endeavour, why stop there, every Christian I've ever met has held some pretty wacky unscientific belief or other, virgin births, transmutation of liquids, dead people coming back to life, as has most every other theist of any stripe, why not pick them up on it too? Not to would be hypocritical.

Okay, I’m missing something here. Which part of Ross’s presentation was wrong because he was a YEC? From Meert’s comments it’s not clear what bit of the ammonite-mosasaur correlation Ross presented that Meert was objecting to, other than the presenter. This just strikes me as ‘dickish’ ad hominem. So what if Ross is a YEC, as long as he does compartmentalise his beliefs and perfoms good science, I don’t care whether he believes in gods or ‘rods’. If we are to treat YEC as so poisonous to scientific endeavour, why stop there, every Christian I’ve ever met has held some pretty wacky unscientific belief or other, virgin births, transmutation of liquids, dead people coming back to life, as has most every other theist of any stripe, why not pick them up on it too? Not to would be hypocritical.

I kind of agree with Cecil that his work should stand on its own. But I also with JMeert's last comment; he needs to disclose his YECism if his work is to stand on its own. Anything else is professional dishonesty. Here's why:

Scientists are expected to present and analyze all of the important limitations, boundary conditions, and caveats to our research. When you present results, you are expected to present all the critical problems and issues with your research too. Both the for and against data.

Ross thinks his own dating of these fossils is wrong. He thinks there's a stronger argument to be made for a much younger date. As a scientist, he has an obligation to include his reservations in his talk. That is important information other scientists need to know. Imagine if some other scientist presented the readings of a detector, and intentionally did not tell the audience that he (the detector builder and operator) thought the detector was miscalibrated. Is that good science? No, it is bad science (at best - fraud at worst). That is what Ross is doing. Now, if he says he's a YEC, presents all his mainstream data, and then says he thinks its wrong for reasons a, b, and c, his scientific audience are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves that a, b, and c are creationist bunk and his mainstream data is still good. But not presenting a, b, and c means you're doing bad science.

If Ross thinks his measurements are in error, he has a professional obligation to discuss that in his presentations. He needs to tell other scientists that he thinks the measurement is in error and discuss why he thinks its in error. An "I don't know yet" for the latter is acceptable, but not mentioning his reservations isn't.

JMeert said: If it's dickish to point this out, then consider me Dickus Maximus, because I'll do it every chance I get.

Which part of Ross’s presentation was wrong because he was a YEC? From Meert’s comments it’s not clear what bit of the ammonite-mosasaur correlation Ross presented that Meert was objecting to, other than the presenter.

JMeert said: By the way, in Florida we're in for a battle. We've got a new governor and a new legislature that is going to bring creationism back up for legislation.

What particularly irritates me is that Ross, and his pals use their totally innocuous presentations at science meetings as "proof" to church members that YEC is gaining ground in the sciences.

Gary Hurd said: What particularly irritates me is that Ross, and his pals use their totally innocuous presentations at science meetings as "proof" to church members that YEC is gaining ground in the sciences.

The acceptance of Ross’ data shows their whole ‘expelled’ meme is a bunch of baloney (as if that really needed to be shown).

Cecil Chua said: Sorry, but a lot of the comments here seem to imply a “lack of faith” in scientific processes.

Marcus Ross leads students from noLiberty U. to the Smithsonian Natural History museum where he demolishes the Old earth-evolution happened theories, presumably with bible quotes and the usual lies.

For him to go to a paleontology conference and claim he can switch between toxic religion and reality is some sort of astounding height of hypocrisy.

It would be counterproductive and unnecesary to hound him about it. But it should be pointed out what he is doing and why. It is perfectly legal to be a hypocrite. It is, in fact, with lies and hate, one of the three main sacraments of fundie xianity. It is also perfectly legal to point out hypocrisy when it happens.

It is a bit of a mystery how someone like Ross can exist with such high levels of cognitive dissonance without eventually cracking up.

The thing to watch for is whether Ross ever publishes a pro-YEC paper, or makes a pro-YEC presentation, and refers to his presentation at GSA as part of his credentials as a scientist providing authority to the subject.

Steve P. said: Actually, YECs are working overtime to undo decades of the Burnetts of this world sneaking in their secular humanistic/atheistic worldviews through the back door by surreptitiously inserting clever slants into certain sections of biology textbooks.

Steve P. the wacko troll: said: Actually, YECs are working overtime to undo decades of the Burnetts of this world sneaking in their secular humanistic/atheistic worldviews through the back door by surreptitiously inserting clever slants into certain sections of biology textbooks.

From the standpoint of evolution it appears to me we live in a meaningless universe. Evolutionary ethics, such as it is, involves how we get along a groups, tools are guilt and shame, and always are co-opted by power.

Most people, and about everyone posting, makes the assumption that there is an objective ethic, and they know how it ought to be applied. Simply looking at how scientific ethics changes so rapidly from decade to decade (score to score?)should make us all a lot more modest about whatever values we happen to be peddling.

I hold to certain religious values, but am aware that my values are culturally/self chosen.

eric said:

Gary Hurd said: What particularly irritates me is that Ross, and his pals use their totally innocuous presentations at science meetings as "proof" to church members that YEC is gaining ground in the sciences.

What it shows is exactly the opposite: it shows that science rejects bad creationist arguments, not creationists per se. Which is as it should be. The acceptance of Ross' data shows their whole 'expelled' meme is a bunch of baloney (as if that really needed to be shown).

Kurt said: The thing to watch for is whether Ross ever publishes a pro-YEC paper, or makes a pro-YEC presentation, and refers to his presentation at GSA as part of his credentials as a scientist providing authority to the subject.

RobLL said: Most people, and about everyone posting, makes the assumption that there is an objective ethic, and they know how it ought to be applied. Simply looking at how scientific ethics changes so rapidly from decade to decade (score to score?)should make us all a lot more modest about whatever values we happen to be peddling.

I hold to certain religious values, but am aware that my values are culturally/self chosen.

Flint said: I think thgis is too generous. Creationists are masters of the "heads I win, tails you lose" strategy. If their science is accepted by the mainstream, it shows that creation science is valid. If it is rejected, it shows that the mainstream is closed-minded and prejudiced.

JMeert said: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/creation-museum/2007/10/11/are-there-any-young-earth-phd-paleontologists/ While not referring specifically to this GSA, it's clear that the credentials are being used to justify YEC'ism.

These men are part of a growing number of well trained scientists that also believe in God’s Word and that He created the Earth and universe less than 10,000 years ago.

I just can't fathom what it takes to operate like this guy. It must be mental illness, probably one that infects most of humanity...

OT:

There is a YEC editoral in The Crimson White, the student newspaper of the University of Alabama.

http://www.cw.ua.edu/2010/11/08/scientific-support-for-creationism-strong/

They might need some better informed opinion.

These men are part of a growing number of well trained scientists that also believe in God’s Word and that He created the Earth and universe less than 10,000 years ago.

Mike Elzinga said:

Flint said: To the average American, with the average American understanding of science, the tension between actual science and creation-science boils down to a swearing contest. The audience is simply not equipped to evaluate the competing claims, except by looking at people's degrees. They couldn't understand a scientific paper, they have no grasp of publications or what's involved with them, the phrase "null hypothesis" sounds like meaningless doubletalk.

We have been seeing a steady erosion of science and technology in this country since at least the 1970s. There have been the Carly Fiorinas and Kodak managers of industry, the steady increase in the percentage of PhD degrees in science and engineering going to students from other countries – who are now more often returning to their countries. We have seen basic manufacturing and foundational technology being sent to other countries and the development of complete amnesia about how to do basic stuff here. I have even encountered Deans of Education eradicating all prerequisites in community colleges, with similar trends going on in a number of universities. Not only has postmodernism affected the thinking of many who are now in leadership positions in our colleges and universities, but we are actually seeing concerted efforts on the part of extreme right-wing groups to destroy the bullshit detectors of every citizen in the US. Somewhere in the world, science and human contact with reality may continue to survive; but it is unlikely to be here in the US within this next century unless rational people and the scientific community start getting up some backbone and start really fighting back.

From the standpoint of evolution it appears to me we live in a meaningless universe.

Evolutionary ethics, such as it is, involves how we get along a groups, tools are guilt and shame, and always are co-opted by power.

Most people, and about everyone posting, makes the assumption that there is an objective ethic, and they know how it ought to be applied.

Simply looking at how scientific ethics changes so rapidly from decade to decade (score to score?)should make us all a lot more modest about whatever values we happen to be peddling.

I hold to certain religious values, but am aware that my values are culturally/self chosen.

It's interesting that you would complain about the loss of science and technology in the US, but totally ignore that evolution has been taught exclusively in our government schools for over 50 years now. Plus, you have the mainstream media and legal system on your side.

According to some humanists, the education of American children isn’t the top priority. It’s getting rid of their religious superstition.

henry said: It's interesting that you would complain about the loss of science and technology in the US, but totally ignore that evolution has been taught exclusively in our government schools for over 50 years now.

henry said: It's interesting that you would complain about the loss of science and technology in the US, but totally ignore that evolution has been taught exclusively in our government schools for over 50 years now.

Plus, you have the mainstream media and legal system on your side.

Having a hostile business environment[unions, EPA, minimum wage laws] is forcing companies to operate overseas. Of course, some Japanese automakers are building their cars on American soil with American labor, but they don't have the enormous burden of labor unions. Labor unions aren't just overburdening businesses, but they are driving state and local governments into bankruptcy.

It is obvious that these ID/creationist tactics aren’t going away soon; and I think the scientific community as a whole must do a better job of bringing their expertise to bear in debunking this crap in a way that the public can understand. This is not easy to do; but all working scientists have to get involved. The future of science is at stake in a very serious way.

ID/creationism is, and has always been, pure pseudo-science. It has been consciously concocted to support a narrow range of sectarian dogma, and because of this, it is always conceptually wrong. While certain specifics are important, one should not mud wrestle with these idiots; that only gives them the appearance of legitimacy.

Much of what the public doesn’t understand about specific scientific arguments is very often not related to those specific arguments. One has to look carefully at misconceptions or missing background concepts and correct those before moving on to the specific arguments. In the years since the 1970s that I have been watching this, I see nearly all scientists making the mistake of engaging the specifics without noticing the slight-of-hand IC/creationists are using.

Notice that ID/creationists never put any burden of having to learn any science on their followers. It’s all assertions that sound plausible and appeal to “common sense prejudices.” Once there is a “plausible scientific sounding argument” supporting sectarian dogma in place, there is little a real scientist can do with any specific counter arguments.

The issues are not only conceptual, but they are socio/political. Pseudo-scientists of all stripes use essentially the same tactics to get attention. Most pseudo-scientists of the past have been free-lancers; ID/creationism is one of the few pseudo-sciences with a vicious political agenda in place that is carefully planned and well-funded.

But the pseudo-science of the ID/creationists can be debunked conceptually. While this is much easier to do with their “physics” arguments, they have serious misconceptions about the concepts of evolution, the concepts of age determination, and the interrelated concepts that cross the boundaries of chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, and the rest of science.

The DI, ICR, and AiG are obviously aware of the “issues of historical science;” and they have concocted a plausible sounding bullshit answer to the objections they project onto the science community. Whether or not they really understand the objections of the science community is irrelevant; it’s what their followers are taught to believe that counts for them.

So the scientific community needs to learn to be politically more astute and address the tactics of these ID/creationists more vigorously. But at the same time, scientists must be thinking more carefully about the conceptual issues faced by the general public. This not only helps the public, but I can vouch for the fact that this exercise helps the scientist in his/her work as well.

It’s interesting that you would complain about the loss of science and technology in the US, but totally ignore that evolution has been taught exclusively in our government schools for over 50 years now.

Plus, you have the mainstream media and legal system on your side.

According to some humanists, the education of American children isn’t the top priority. It’s getting rid of their religious superstition.

Having a hostile business environment[unions, EPA, minimum wage laws] is forcing companies to operate overseas.

Of course, some Japanese automakers are building their cars on American soil with American labor, but they don’t have the enormous burden of labor unions. Labor unions aren’t just overburdening businesses, but they are driving state and local governments into bankruptcy.

Mike of Oz said: Oh, and I just read that link to Lisle's paper. Thanks a lot, Mike E. Now I have coffee all over my computer monitor! ;)

As I write this I am wearing a URI expensive hoodie and I think I just threw up in my mouth! Oh my God. URI is my undergraduate Alma mater (BA Anthropology)and in general an OK school. I don't get how you lie to yourself and others. Liberty? OK now I get it.
'slowly turns, removes hoodie and stands in the corner.'

henry lying: It’s interesting that you would complain about the loss of science and technology in the US, but totally ignore that evolution has been taught exclusively in our government schools for over 50 years now. Plus, you have the mainstream media and legal system on your side.

henry proving nothing: According to some humanists, the education of American children isn’t the top priority. It’s getting rid of their religious superstition.

Somehow, henry, I just knew it would be of a piece with the rest of your Christianity to want to ensure that the wage-earner should be made powerless, and the people who run the corporations should get richer. After all, this recession that has turned hundreds of thousands out of their homes, and made god alone knows how many more destitute - why, clearly, it was all their fault, and they must pay.

Jesus wept. I almost wish the Judgement really was to come, so I could watch you having to face Him.

"A few friendly replies to these interesting philosophical thoughts." Harold

Harold - I appreciated your comments, particularly the important role of 'emotional mirroring'. What dismays me in real life is how fast it is co-opted by our tribal instinct (or whatever one chooses to call it). War is always popular, James Jones, The Thin Red Line, front page has a quote that mankind despite all protests to the contrary really love war. Inflicting pain on your enemy, whether bullying at school, useless torture, mass bombing of civilians. Repeatedly these sorts of behaviour are enforced by the tribe, and easily overcome gentler and kinder emotions. Someone's delusional religious beliefs, so long as they are compartmentalized from their science, strikes me as fairly minor.

RobLL said: "A few friendly replies to these interesting philosophical thoughts." Harold Harold - I appreciated your comments, particularly the important role of 'emotional mirroring'. What dismays me in real life is how fast it is co-opted by our tribal instinct (or whatever one chooses to call it). War is always popular, James Jones, The Thin Red Line, front page has a quote that mankind despite all protests to the contrary really love war. Inflicting pain on your enemy, whether bullying at school, useless torture, mass bombing of civilians. Repeatedly these sorts of behaviour are enforced by the tribe, and easily overcome gentler and kinder emotions. Someone's delusional religious beliefs, so long as they are compartmentalized from their science, strikes me as fairly minor.

Ross replied (Meert’s paraphrase)

The future of science is at stake in a very serious way.

Do you think all is lost if you are unable to win an argument concerning the age of the earth? Is this what it all boils down to for all scientist today

Since when did it become nothing more than proving the age of the earth?

David B. said: Okay, I'm missing something here. Which part of Ross's presentation was wrong because he was a YEC? From Meert's comments it's not clear what bit of the ammonite-mosasaur correlation Ross presented that Meert was objecting to, other than the presenter. This just strikes me as 'dickish' ad hominem. So what if Ross is a YEC, as long as he does compartmentalise his beliefs and perfoms good science, I don't care whether he believes in gods or 'rods'. If we are to treat YEC as so poisonous to scientific endeavour, why stop there, every Christian I've ever met has held some pretty wacky unscientific belief or other, virgin births, transmutation of liquids, dead people coming back to life, as has most every other theist of any stripe, why not pick them up on it too? Not to would be hypocritical.

Gary Hurd said:

RBH said:

Gary Hurd said: I spread a little joy around.

Tee hee! Will your debate with Austin be recorded/streamed?

I know that there will be a video. The date has changed 4 or 5 times. Currently, the plan is that it will take place in February. It will be hosted at the Calvary Chapel in Orange County, Ca. We are discussing the age of the Grand Canyon.

RobLL -

I don't think we have any serious disagreement.

There is a human love of violence. I have to admit that I like to watch intelligent violent movies and NFL football myself. I don't violence on other people, though. Whether we can manage not to destory ourselves is an open question (although if we do it may not be directly by violence).

I do think you may find that having a good high quality beer once in a while will help to imbue the universe with subjectively better meaning.

That was supposed to be "inflict violence on other people", of course, but anyway...

jlue said: Really Mike? By "science" do you mean biology, geology, paleotology, aeronautics, zoology, radiolgy, psychology, neurology, genetics, physics, anatomy, ecology, etc? Do you think all is lost if you are unable to win an argument concerning the age of the earth? Is this what it all boils down to for all scientist today or just those here? Isn't science about problem solving? Isn't it about finding cures for disease, improving air quality on the planet, conquering space, finding better farming methods, and in general improving living conditions? Since when did it become nothing more than proving the age of the earth?

Another troll: Since when did it become nothing more than proving the age of the earth?

I see we have xian Talibani doing a lemming run over the cliffs.

Don't discount American science. It explains why we have the world's leading economy and military.

We also jump started the Chinese modernization push. The Chinese send as many of their kids to our universities as they can and a US education in science is highly prized.

A few decades ago, I was visiting a leading biology department to see an old friend from college and on science biz. About 90% of the grad students were from China. They offered the university a lot of money and their best students to set up an overseas study program.

Mike, I'm not sure how company executives’ attempts to fog up the research on the effects of smoking on cancer rates has anything to do with the age of the earth, but if you say so...

A question about Marcus Ross, has he ever been asked where the mesosaurs fit in his YEC-framework? e.g. does he believe the mesosaurs lived 6000 years ago and died in Noah's flood (despite being marine reptiles...) when he's operating in the YEC-framework? That would be my first question if I ever met him.

jlue said: Mike, I'm not sure how company executives’ attempts to fog up the research on the effects of smoking on cancer rates has anything to do with the age of the earth, but if you say so...

A question about Marcus Ross, has he ever been asked where the mesosaurs fit in his YEC-framework?

jlue said: Mike, I'm not sure how company executives’ attempts to fog up the research on the effects of smoking on cancer rates has anything to do with the age of the earth, but if you say so...

Flint said: Golly, the mesosaurs fit into one paradigm, but not in the other. Isn't that remarkable?

Oops, I think I meant Todd Woods, not Kurt Wise. Apologies to both parties.

Steve P. lying outright: Alert: Misreading due to lost bifocals! Misunderstanding due to the rush from a Starbucks double espresso! Actually, YECs are working overtime to undo decades of the Burnetts of this world sneaking in their secular humanistic/atheistic worldviews through the back door by surreptitiously inserting clever slants into certain sections of biology textbooks. True, it has been an effective strategy. The burnetts can easily play coy: "What, me?" I didn't do anything! What are you talking about? You're being ridiculous! Its all the more reason why YECs and the public in general need to be loud. See, its a level playing field or no field. Easy as pie. Look, if you want to push the envelope, fine. Just remember Truman's words, 'if you can't take the heat........'.

Ross claims that he can both be a YEC, using his credential to bolster his teaching of Flood geology, and also work honestly in the framework of orthodox geology simply by switching “paradigms” according to (audience) context.

As I've always said, the so-called "worldview" meme is a bunch of bullsxhit. Anyone can turn the bullcrxp on and off at will. The rare individual is the one who can admit that he/she is doing so for their own personal pleasure and/or political gain.

eric said: Oops, I think I meant Todd Woods, not Kurt Wise. Apologies to both parties.

Wood.

Mike, I’m not sure how company executives’ attempts to fog up the research on the effects of smoking on cancer rates has anything to do with the age of the earth, but if you say so…

...hindsight is 20/20, but he should have been failed on his comprehensive exam/thesis defence, and if not then the degree granting status of his university in his area of expertise should have been reconsidered closely

OFF TOPIC! Have any of you been a part of the Origin of Life interactive internet workshop that Matt Young mentioned a few threads ago? I strongly recommend it.

ckc (not kc) said: ...hindsight is 20/20, but he should have been failed on his comprehensive exam/thesis defence, and if not then the degree granting status of his university in his area of expertise should have been reconsidered closely

I wonder how many of Ross's students at Liberty know about his two-faced approach to paleontology. I'm not surprised he would take that approach, but I bet some of his students would be. After all, if the evidence really favors a young earth, as he no doubt teaches them, why should he "lie" about it when he talks to scientists at GSA? Shouldn't he tell the truth and help try to spread "God's Word" like a good Christian?

Calling Ross's hypocrisy out at scientific events is certainly worthwhile, but maybe there's more value in making it known to his students at Liberty. Maybe at least a few of them will be prompted to consider that Ross might be lying to them instead.

jlue said: Mike, I'm not sure how company executives’ attempts to fog up the research on the effects of smoking on cancer rates has anything to do with the age of the earth, but if you say so...

And when all of society is playing this game, that society will soon collapse.

Liberty? OK now I get it.

Where could I be directed to read what Ross actually said?

If the age of the earth is 6000 years, then geology is wrong.

I wonder how many of Ross’s students at Liberty know about his two-faced approach to paleontology.

jlue said:

Ross replied (Meert’s paraphrase)

Where could I be directed to read what Ross actually said? Mike says:

The future of science is at stake in a very serious way.

Really Mike? By "science" do you mean biology, geology, paleotology, aeronautics, zoology, radiolgy, psychology, neurology, genetics, physics, anatomy, ecology, etc? Do you think all is lost if you are unable to win an argument concerning the age of the earth? Is this what it all boils down to for all scientist today or just those here? Isn't science about problem solving? Isn't it about finding cures for disease, improving air quality on the planet, conquering space, finding better farming methods, and in general improving living conditions? Since when did it become nothing more than proving the age of the earth?

jlue the lying creationist creep: They are choosing to believe God.

jlue babbling incoherently: If God can hide something like a cure for cancer from mankind, can He not hide other information? If there is a God who not only created the earth and holds the secrets of its age and existance in His keeping, then isn’t He the person you are at odds with?

jlue said: I would like to make one point, however. Will you consider this? If God can hide something like a cure for cancer from mankind, can He not hide other information? If there is a God who not only created the earth and holds the secrets of its age and existance in His keeping, then isn't He the person you are at odds with? Not Marcus, or me or anyone who disagrees with your conclusions on the age of the earth.

jlue the death cult liar: If God can hide something like a cure for cancer from mankind, can He not hide other information? If there is a God who not only created the earth and holds the secrets of its age and existance in His keeping, then isn’t He the person you are at odds with?

I see how atheist can easily believe that there is no motive other than money behind a faith in God and the Bible that believes there is an Intelligent Creator who is able to hold this world in His hand and who also holds the secret of its beginning and its ending as well. It will be useless for anyone to attempt to convince anyone here otherwise, so I won’t try.

I would like to make one point, however. Will you consider this? If God can hide something like a cure for cancer from mankind, can He not hide other information? If there is a God who not only created the earth and holds the secrets of its age and existance in His keeping, then isn’t He the person you are at odds with? Not Marcus, or me or anyone who disagrees with your conclusions on the age of the earth.

I think there is a very big difference in a person choosing to believe God over man

and choosing to believe a warning label on a cigarette package over a company, in fact, there is no comparison. This is really the choice that you are talking about when you say some children are confused. They are not confused. They are choosing to believe God.

Would it not be more accurate to say that the conclusions drawn by geologist have been wrong rather than saying the study of the earth is wrong.

I think there is a very big difference in a person choosing to believe God over man and choosing to believe a warning label on a cigarette package over a company, in fact, there is no comparison. This is really the choice that you are talking about when you say some children are confused. They are not confused. They are choosing to believe God.

As I write this I am wearing a URI expensive hoodie and I think I just threw up in my mouth! Oh my God. URI is my undergraduate Alma mater (BA Anthropology)and in general an OK school. I don’t get how you lie to yourself and others. Liberty? OK now I get it. ‘slowly turns, removes hoodie and stands in the corner.’

If there is a God who not only created the earth and holds the secrets of its age and existance in His keeping, then isn’t He the person you are at odds with?

What raven said. If there's a God, he gave us hands and eyes and brains and He expects us to use them, not to train them to shut down on command.

Jesus taught that, you know. That's the point of the Parable of the Talents. That's why "a talent" in English means a particular bent for some skill or field of activity, not just an ancient Greek unit of weight, around sixty pounds.

What jlue is retailing is an old and corny lie: "There are some things Man was not meant to know."

To the tune of "Exodus". It goes on...

"And songs Man was not meant to sing.... And this is one of them..."

jlue said: ...there is an Intelligent Creator who is able to hold this world in His hand...

Mike Elzinga said: Most religious people in this world have no problem with evolution. On the other hand, you and your religion do. Why is that?

Dave Luckett said: What raven said. If there's a God, he gave us hands and eyes and brains and He expects us to use them, not to train them to shut down on command.

I would like one small clarification. While the threads have documented that Marcus Ross believes in YEC, I haven't seen a demonstration that he actively speaks positively about YEC in public forums. I've seen a lot of talk about other YECs, but not Marcus Ross specifically.

I mention this, because the main thesis is that Marcus Ross acted unethically. If we are to "fairly" try him, we need a demonstration of unethical behavior. To me, not believing what you publish fails that standard. In many cases, we CELEBRATE individuals who believed one thing, but did the research and reported their results even if they contradicted that belief.

I would suggest that a claim of unethical behavior would be better substantiated if one could document incidents where Marcus Ross either during the process of completing the thesis, or afterwards spoke for a YEC viewpoint with an intent to sway beliefs.

Paul Burnett said: That's easy - it's based on their Bibliolatry - treating the Bible as an idol, as if it were inerrant literal fact: If evolution is true, and hominids evolved, that means Adam and Eve didn't exist, which means there's no such thing as Original Sin, which means Jesus died for nothing - and the whole Christian edifice collapses. Since that can't be true, in their warped worldview, evolution has to be wrong, and they have to oppose it. (For extra points, why do some - not all - Moslems oppose evolution?)

Paul Burnett said:

Mike Elzinga said: Most religious people in this world have no problem with evolution. On the other hand, you and your religion do. Why is that?

That's easy - it's based on their Bibliolatry - treating the Bible as an idol, as if it were inerrant literal fact: If evolution is true, and hominids evolved, that means Adam and Eve didn't exist, which means there's no such thing as Original Sin, which means Jesus died for nothing - and the whole Christian edifice collapses. Since that can't be true, in their warped worldview, evolution has to be wrong, and they have to oppose it. (For extra points, why do some - not all - Moslems oppose evolution?)

Cecil Chua said: I would suggest that a claim of unethical behavior would be better substantiated if one could document incidents where Marcus Ross either during the process of completing the thesis, or afterwards spoke for a YEC viewpoint with an intent to sway beliefs.

@Mike:

I will agree that one should be suspicious of an individual who fits a profile, but we shouldn't judge an individual until he or she acts.

Also, Marcus Ross appears to be spending a great deal of effort to establish a faux identity. A PhD is effort (maybe not as much as being an Assistant Professor, but still...). Publishing a paper at a conference is also an effort. I don't know what his P&T requirements are, but if he has publishing requirements and wants to keep his job, he'll have to do more work.

In short, I don't believe anyone can be in the field and continue playing multiple personality disorder for very long. The basic demands of the job are too taxing. Plus, given how tough the job is, I wouldn't try to give an Assistant Professor a hard time, unless he or she demonstrated they were behaving unethically, where the standard is harm or intent to harm.

386sx, I assume you mean that you can't see how the premise "God created the human mind", IF granted for the nonce, leads to the conclusion "God intends that humans should use their minds to understand the Universe"?

I suppose you're right, strictly speaking. IF God exists and created the human mind (along with everything else), this does not necessarily imply that He intends humans to use their minds to understand the Universe. Or indeed, to use their minds at all, for any purpose whatsoever.

God could be merely whimsical, or random, or incompetent, or insane, after all. But if He is any of those things, then considering His opinions is, I submit, simply pointless and useless by definition. He might as well be ruled out altogether. But we were stipulating, for the nonce, His existence and role as Creator.

IF He exists, and is the Creator, then, the only assumption to make is that He is competent and rational, and hence that He gave us our minds, with their integral capacity to reason, (and by reasoning, to understand the Universe), because He wants us to use them to do just that.

It is just another lie from noAnswersingenesis.

— raven

cecil chua from cloud fairyland: In short, I don’t believe anyone can be in the field and continue playing multiple personality disorder for very long. The basic demands of the job are too taxing.

cecil chua being wrong some more: Plus, given how tough the job is, I wouldn’t try to give an Assistant Professor a hard time, unless he or she demonstrated they were behaving unethically, where the standard is harm or intent to harm.

Chua being clueless: I will agree that one should be suspicious of an individual who fits a profile, but we shouldn’t judge an individual until he or she acts.

Mike Elzinga said: Just look at how many times Lisle at AiG manages to slip in “Well, Dr. Lisle …?” in his presentations. Notice how they all self-consciously place their titles in front of their names wherever they can.

Cecil Chua said: I would like one small clarification. While the threads have documented that Marcus Ross believes in YEC, I haven't seen a demonstration that he actively speaks positively about YEC in public forums. I've seen a lot of talk about other YECs, but not Marcus Ross specifically.s.

Cecil Chua said: I would like one small clarification. While the threads have documented that Marcus Ross believes in YEC, I haven’t seen a demonstration that he actively speaks positively about YEC in public forums. I’ve seen a lot of talk about other YECs, but not Marcus Ross specifically.

I would suggest that a claim of unethical behavior would be better substantiated if one could document incidents where Marcus Ross either during the process of completing the thesis, or afterwards spoke for a YEC viewpoint with an intent to sway beliefs.

jlue said: In the case of tobacco, it has been a group who want a lucrative industry to continue and the people who have aided them most have been the addicts who use the product.

Will you consider this? If God can hide something like a cure for cancer from mankind, can He not hide other information?

qetzal said: I wonder how many of Ross's students at Liberty know about his two-faced approach to paleontology. I'm not surprised he would take that approach, but I bet some of his students would be. After all, if the evidence really favors a young earth, as he no doubt teaches them, why should he "lie" about it when he talks to scientists at GSA? Shouldn't he tell the truth and help try to spread "God's Word" like a good Christian? Calling Ross's hypocrisy out at scientific events is certainly worthwhile, but maybe there's more value in making it known to his students at Liberty. Maybe at least a few of them will be prompted to consider that Ross might be lying to them instead.

IMHO, based on all the evidence, Marcus Ross is acting unethically when he presents in a genuine scientific forum w/o disclosing his "other paradigm" message that he presents in other forums. It is by definition two-faced.

This is NO DIFFERENT than a Holocaust denier presenting at a forum of WWII historians and hiding his beliefs.

Actually its WORSE. Ross's research is a sham. Not in the sense that the data is fallacious, in the sense that the PURPOSE of the research/presentation/publication is NOT to further the pursuit of knowledge for the betterment of all mankind (or knowledge for knowlege's sake), but it is to artificially create a facade of credibility for all the other crap he spews.

like so many others of his ilk, he is lying for Jesus, bearing false witness, and using deceit as a tool of ministry. This is not only ETHICALLY WRONG (by any standard of ethics that anyone outside of Liberty "university" holds to be valid) but SINFUL by the vast majority of Christians.

This breech of ethics IMHO should be sufficient reason to BAN Ross from any events/forums/etc held or sponsored by any institution of higher learning, professional society of scientists, government agency, public grammar school etc. All of these institutions have mission statements that are not compatible with whoring in the name of a sectarian religious view.

Aagcobb said:

qetzal said: I wonder how many of Ross's students at Liberty know about his two-faced approach to paleontology. I'm not surprised he would take that approach, but I bet some of his students would be. After all, if the evidence really favors a young earth, as he no doubt teaches them, why should he "lie" about it when he talks to scientists at GSA? Shouldn't he tell the truth and help try to spread "God's Word" like a good Christian? Calling Ross's hypocrisy out at scientific events is certainly worthwhile, but maybe there's more value in making it known to his students at Liberty. Maybe at least a few of them will be prompted to consider that Ross might be lying to them instead.

I guess Ross is making a good living doing real science on one hand and lying to his students at Liberty U. on the other, but if Liberty ever decides to conduct a witchhunt for heretics, it could come back and bite him in this ass.

jlue said: I see how atheist can easily believe that there is no motive other than money behind a faith in God and the Bible ... It will be useless for anyone to attempt to convince anyone here otherwise, so I won't try.

Returning to the previous digression, the super-powered honest creationists, Todd Wood is currently blogging about a geocentrist meeting he attended recently. It's interesting to see the wheels in his head turning; or not turning, as the case may be. (And no, he hasn't become a geocentrist.)

jasonmitchell said: Ross's research is a sham. Not in the sense that the data is fallacious, in the sense that the PURPOSE of the research/presentation/publication is NOT to further the pursuit of knowledge for the betterment of all mankind (or knowledge for knowlege's sake), but it is to artificially create a facade of credibility for all the other crap he spews.

jlue, supporter of torture and fraud said: Will you consider this? If God can hide something like a cure for cancer from mankind, can He not hide other information?

eric said:

jasonmitchell said: Ross's research is a sham. Not in the sense that the data is fallacious, in the sense that the PURPOSE of the research/presentation/publication is NOT to further the pursuit of knowledge for the betterment of all mankind (or knowledge for knowlege's sake), but it is to artificially create a facade of credibility for all the other crap he spews.

I agree with you that that's his likely purpose, but I disagree that that's what makes it a sham. A scientist can be in it for the money, or the fame, or many other reasons that have nothing to do with the 'betterment of mankind' and that doesn't devalue their research. But scientists are expected to disclose funding source information because potential personal biases are important to the peer review process. Ross has a non-funding source of (potential) personal bias he isn't voluntarily disclosing. Second, if a scientist thinks the results of their experiment are not valid for some reason, they are expected to report that when they publish. Other scientists can't reproduce your work or figure out what you did wrong if you keep your potential mistakes to yourself. You have to report them. Ross thinks the result/conclusion of his work is not valid, but he doesn't say that, and he doesn't discuss his reasons for thinking its invalid. That is what is disturbing about his conduct. Focusing on whether his personal motivation for doing science is fame or money or God or humanity misses the point.

jasonmitchell said: I suspect Ross is acting with his handler's blessings - his agenda for doing "real" science is to create a facade of credibility to propaganda that other creationists peddle.

google captures: News Article | Liberty University School of Law Students, professors featured in Washington Post creationism article ... led by professors David DeWitt and Marcus Ross, as they tour the Smithsonian's ... law.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=18495&MID=5259 - Cached CURRICULUM VITAE FOR MARCUS R Assistant Director, Center for Creation Studies, Liberty University, 2005-present. .... “Vacations to build your faith: The Smithsonian .... 7) “The road to Liberty: How biology professor Dr. Marcus Ross became a paleontologist and ... works.bepress.com/marcus_ross/cv.pdf

Ross should be kicked out of/ not allowed to present at/ not allowed to be affiliated with the GSA - he actively engages in professional activities (using his credentials as a geologist) to undermine the Mission and Vision of the GSA

promoting YEC as a geologist - undermines the science of geology!

GSA's mission statement:
GSA’s mission is to be a leader in advancing the geosciences, enhancing the professional growth of its members, and promoting the geosciences in the service to humankind and stewardship of the Earth.

GSA's Vision statement:
GSA will be a broad, unifying scientific society

◦Fostering the human quest for understanding Earth, planets, and life;
◦Catalyzing new scientific ways of thinking about natural systems; and
◦Supporting the application of geoscience knowledge and insight to human needs, aspirations, and Earth stewardship

source:
http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/index.htm

Ross thinks the result/conclusion of his work is not valid, but he doesn't say that, and he doesn't discuss his reasons for thinking its invalid.

my apologies - Ross doesn't claim AFAIK to be a geologist, he claims to be a paleontologist -

JMeert said: Ross said he hopes to bridge the often-warring worlds of science and religion by establishing geological proof the Earth was created around 4000 B.C. - a date he traces back through the Old Testament. "My goal is to incorporate the Bible as part of the data in the natural world," he said. "That's the biggest difference between me and my secular colleagues. They say the Bible is not data and we can't use God to explain anything."

Marcus Ross lying: Ross said he hopes to bridge the often-warring worlds of science and religion by establishing geological proof the Earth was created around 4000 B.C. - a date he traces back through the Old Testament. “My goal is to incorporate the Bible as part of the data in the natural world,” he said. “That’s the biggest difference between me and my secular colleagues. They say the Bible is not data and we can’t use God to explain anything.”

Dave Luckett said: Somehow, henry, I just knew it would be of a piece with the rest of your Christianity to want to ensure that the wage-earner should be made powerless, and the people who run the corporations should get richer. After all, this recession that has turned hundreds of thousands out of their homes, and made god alone knows how many more destitute - why, clearly, it was all their fault, and they must pay. Jesus wept. I almost wish the Judgement really was to come, so I could watch you having to face Him.

henry said: Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said: Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

It appears that henry is a Social Darwinist to the core. No oversight, no regulations (in this world anyway), just let the rich and stupid exploit to their hearts content. The more powerful you are, the less accountable you are. The more you exploit, the more you get to dump the consequences of your exploitation onto others. Yup, henry is a Social Darwinist alright.

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said: Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

It appears that henry is a Social Darwinist to the core. No oversight, no regulations (in this world anyway), just let the rich and stupid exploit to their hearts content. The more powerful you are, the less accountable you are. The more you exploit, the more you get to dump the consequences of your exploitation onto others. Yup, henry is a Social Darwinist alright.

Mike Elzinga said: This is very much in the mold of the original program of the ICR; namely, take any well-established science and deliberately and consciously distort it to agree with sectarian dogma.

So we see this use of legitimate science to prove they are legitimate, but they immediately switch back to their bogus science without warning anyone when they do. It’s the old slight-of-hand shtick; and the rubes are in awe.

The main problem with this approach is that the “science” ID/creationists construct no longer works in the real world.

In the 1860s a theologian at the University of the South commented that scriptures could not be made consistent with science, and that theologians should not even try. Ross's big mistake from that point of view is that he is not really keeping his science and religion seperate. If he does not in his teaching at Liberty acknowledge the robust science of evolution he is being dishonest. And of course his students likely would likely become more sceptical of 'creation science' His being intellectually inconsistent does not bother me. I (and every human being) does it all of the time*. But most of us work at being aware of our inconsistencies.

* I am willing to expand upon this, but it is somewhat another issue. Ralph Harper's The Denial of Death speaks to this from the point of view of a non-believer.

“Tis a dangerous thing to engage the authority of scripture in disputes about the natural world in opposition to reason; lest time, which brings all things to light, should discover that to be evidently false which we had made scripture assert.” Telluris theoria sacra (1684 English edition, “The Sacred Theory of the Earth” Preface, pg. 10), Reverend Thomas Burnett (1635?-1715)

eric said: I doubt this concerns them. Their approach isn't supposed to be useful for invention; its supposed to win converts, and that is all. Sure they have the Feynman problem ('nature will not be fooled'), but unlike real science, nature isn't what they're trying to manipulate.

It all goes back to the old my-religion-is-better-than-your-religion theme. “Science” agrees with their dogma but not other dogmas.

Somewhere down deep in their psyches they must be a bit uneasy about their dogma. I suspect that the need to prop up sectarian dogma with a pastiche of science reveals a fundamental insecurity and inferiority complex among these scientist wannabes.

Mike Elzinga said: I suspect that the need to prop up sectarian dogma with a pastiche of science reveals a fundamental insecurity and inferiority complex among these scientist wannabes.

I am becoming more and more convinced that the prime movers behind all of the religiously-based science denialism are all in it STRICTLY for the money. They're running a long con, they know it, we know it, but the poor dopes funding them seem not to. There's another whole tier of foot soldiers who are true believers, working towards an American theocracy, who are not benefitting so much financially, but get a rush out of their perceived righteousness.

I don't know which is worse.

Haha Eric, money quote from Hank Hill: "You're not making Christianity better, you're making rock and roll worse!"

JMeert said:

Somewhere down deep in their psyches they must be a bit uneasy about their dogma. I suspect that the need to prop up sectarian dogma with a pastiche of science reveals a fundamental insecurity and inferiority complex among these scientist wannabes.

That's really the rub isn't it? Their faith must be extremely weak if they require scientific verification.

JMeert said:

Somewhere down deep in their psyches they must be a bit uneasy about their dogma. I suspect that the need to prop up sectarian dogma with a pastiche of science reveals a fundamental insecurity and inferiority complex among these scientist wannabes.

That's really the rub isn't it? Their faith must be extremely weak if they require scientific verification.

Flint said:

JMeert said:

Somewhere down deep in their psyches they must be a bit uneasy about their dogma. I suspect that the need to prop up sectarian dogma with a pastiche of science reveals a fundamental insecurity and inferiority complex among these scientist wannabes.

That's really the rub isn't it? Their faith must be extremely weak if they require scientific verification.

Not at all. Their faith trumps reality. What they seek is not verification, but validation. I'm quite sure Philip Johnson was sincere in his belief that, with properly focused scientific effort, the scientific method really had no choice but to validate his delusions - and if it has not done so, it's because the atheistic scientific establishment MUST be blind to God's Truth. They must be Doing It Wrong. But by now, they seem aware that (a la Behe), this atheistic establishment is NOT going to find God they way they're going about it. They must be Creationists FIRST, to open their eyes to Truth. Science cannot serve theological purposes unless science is first harnessed to theological purposes. People without that faith seem to feel that if Creationists ignore all evidence, if their convictions are manifestly goofy, if they attempt to bend and distort science (and all else) to their faith, they MUST be dishonest and greedy. After all, if WE acted like that, that would be OUR motivation. Therefore it must be theirs. But we are projecting inappropriately. These people really mean it. We are like professional athletes watching the Special Olympics and concluding that those people aren't really trying, they MUST be faking it. If we performed that poorly, WE would be faking it, therefore there's no other possible explanation.

Interesting how much “Darwinism” is the religion of the creationists. They consider a dead scientist some magical boogeyman with supernatural powers rivaling their god. And while they reject any notion of “survival of the fittest” in biology, they wholeheartedly endorse the most grotesque perversions of that concept possible in politics and economics. They think those with wealth, no matter how underhanded or lazy their means of obtaining it, deserve to rule over others with an iron fist, and as far as they’re concerned anyone with the audacity not to be born rich deserves to just starve. Altruism is an alien concept to them. In the rare instances that they engage in charity, the goal is never to actually help others, just to promote their cult’s dogma.

Soon some people will be telling their children that someone will be bringing them presents. The point is who is Santa? Evoution or YEC? Which one are you pretending is true? Is it harmless fun?

Soon some people will be telling their children that someone will be bringing them presents. The point is who is Santa? Evolution or YEC? Which one are you pretending is true? Is it harmless fun?

Flint said: People without that faith seem to feel that if Creationists ignore all evidence, if their convictions are manifestly goofy, if they attempt to bend and distort science (and all else) to their faith, they MUST be dishonest and greedy. After all, if WE acted like that, that would be OUR motivation. Therefore it must be theirs. But we are projecting inappropriately. These people really mean it. We are like professional athletes watching the Special Olympics and concluding that those people aren't really trying, they MUST be faking it. If we performed that poorly, WE would be faking it, therefore there's no other possible explanation.

Ever since then, I’ve understood that people who derive social and emotion benefits from religion will cling to it

NO ONE can know the actual facts, in their totality, and deny evolution. It MUST be a scam!

It is this kind of behavior that often stands out as stunted emotional and intellectual development; stunted right back at roughly the preadolescent level.

it would be interesting to know if people are attracted to certain religions primarily by their psychological make-up, or if it is primarily the case that the religions make people that way after they become immersed in these religions.

People who grow up in it abandon creationism if they become educated.

Trying to talk people out of false convictions is like trying to talk them out of an allergy. It’s as useless as cutting water with a knife.

My dearly beloved sister has conversations with our dead parents, quite often. She is absolutely convinced that they still watch over us, worry about our diet, want us to get enough exercise, and tell us that it'll be all right, just as they used to do. She sees them, hears them.

How am I supposed to react to that? I said, once, plainly, that I think she is deluded. She shook her head and said that she was sorry that I could not see. And that was that.

Lately, she won a contest run by a magazine, and the prize (get this!) was a "reading" from John Edward, the "psychic", by phone from California. The only comfort is that she wasn't spending her own money for this.

She was convinced he'd told her things he couldn't know. I first explained some well-worn cold reading techniques, then asked for details of the conversations. Sure enough, Edward had been using the old tricks of the trade, and she didn't know.

But here's the thing. She still thought he could have been really doing it. Even with the facts staring her in the face, she couldn't shake the strong feeling - not a certainty, but enough to be worth the effort - that Edward might be genuine.

The essence of the con game, ladies and gentlemen. The mark must want it to be true. I wonder how much of that applies to creationism?

My dearly beloved sister has conversations with our dead parents, quite often. She is absolutely convinced that they still watch over us, worry about our diet, want us to get enough exercise, and tell us that it’ll be all right, just as they used to do. She sees them, hears them.

have Carlin lecture her:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PiZSFIVFiU

Dave Luckett said: My dearly beloved sister has conversations with our dead parents, quite often. She is absolutely convinced that they still watch over us, worry about our diet, want us to get enough exercise, and tell us that it'll be all right, just as they used to do. She sees them, hears them. How am I supposed to react to that? I said, once, plainly, that I think she is deluded. She shook her head and said that she was sorry that I could not see. And that was that. Lately, she won a contest run by a magazine, and the prize (get this!) was a "reading" from John Edward, the "psychic", by phone from California. The only comfort is that she wasn't spending her own money for this. She was convinced he'd told her things he couldn't know. I first explained some well-worn cold reading techniques, then asked for details of the conversations. Sure enough, Edward had been using the old tricks of the trade, and she didn't know. But here's the thing. She still thought he could have been really doing it. Even with the facts staring her in the face, she couldn't shake the strong feeling - not a certainty, but enough to be worth the effort - that Edward might be genuine. The essence of the con game, ladies and gentlemen. The mark must want it to be true. I wonder how much of that applies to creationism?

I think you're a malicioius idiot, henry.

*malicious*. Do not type when angry.

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said: See, its a level playing field or no field. Easy as pie. Look, if you want to push the envelope, fine. Just remember Truman's words, 'if you can't take the heat........'.

Speaking of not being able to take the heat; you ran away from having to demonstrate that you understand any of the “science” of your ID/creationist heroes. Here is Lisle’s “theory” using “relativity” to make the universe 6000 years old. You owe us and explanation of this paper and a step-by-step walkthrough proving to us you understand and can justify the “concepts” there. You also owe us a similar explanation of the Dembski and Marks paper . It seems that you chickened out on us. Too hot for you, eh?

Haven't read all the comments but this is cosmically stupid. Science created modern Hi Tech 21st century civilization. It works. It works even if one doesn't believe in it. No one who lives in a house with electricity, posting on the internet from a computer, driving a car, or going to a doctor has to have faith in science. They know it works without giving it any thought whatsoever.

Paul Burnett said:

Steve P. said: Actually, YECs are working overtime to undo decades of the Burnetts of this world sneaking in their secular humanistic/atheistic worldviews through the back door by surreptitiously inserting clever slants into certain sections of biology textbooks.

That's true - the YECs want to go back to the Dark Ages of ignorance and scientific illiteracy. YECs deeply resent the intrusions of rationality that have been disrupting their program - not just for the last few decades but the last few centuries. YECs like Steve P and FL and other saboteurs of civilization are useful idiots for forces that have busy trying to roll back the Enlightenment since the 18th century. And it's not just the biology textbooks, it's the history textbooks, too - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_(author) for an example. The Tea Baggers and the Rethuglicans now think they have a mandate to take America back to the Stone Age.

Seriously, now. Christianity is the enemy?

Ichthyic said: My dearly beloved sister has conversations with our dead parents, quite often. She is absolutely convinced that they still watch over us, worry about our diet, want us to get enough exercise, and tell us that it’ll be all right, just as they used to do. She sees them, hears them. have Carlin lecture her...

When I got confirmed at 12 years old, I was told that I was now a 'soldier of Christ'. I didn't really understand it until now.

"Gimmy my Nikes, Ma! I got some pavement to pound."

"Sound the alarm! The 'anything but that Judeo-Christian God' people are comin'!"

Steve P. said: Seriously, now. Christianity is the enemy?

Steve P. said: ...how much and what type of criticism has the latest Dembski/Marks paper received?

Steve P. said: When I got confirmed at 12 years old, I was told that I was now a 'soldier of Christ'. I didn't really understand it until now. "Gimmy my Nikes, Ma! I got some pavement to pound." "Sound the alarm! The 'anything but that Judeo-Christian God' people are comin'!"

Steve P. said: Seriously, now. Christianity is the enemy?

Steve P. said: Raven, er science and technology are different animals. Er, I think you want to say that technology is responsible for the hi-tech pleasures we enjoy. Yes, they do work just fine. My Iphone 4 is a marvel and the best fone I've ever had except for the antenna blooper. That is what I argue. Technology as a derivative of science, is very successful. But lets not misconstrue the success of technology as evidence for the power of science to enlighten us as to what reality is.

Haven't read all the comments but this is cosmically stupid. Science created modern Hi Tech 21st century civilization. It works. It works even if one doesn't believe in it. No one who lives in a house with electricity, posting on the internet from a computer, driving a car, or going to a doctor has to have faith in science. They know it works without giving it any thought whatsoever.

Steve P. said: That is what I argue. Technology as a derivative of science, is very successful. But lets not misconstrue the success of technology as evidence for the power of science to enlighten us as to what reality is.

Steve P. said: Raven, er science and technology are different animals. Er, I think you want to say that technology is responsible for the hi-tech pleasures we enjoy. Yes, they do work just fine. My Iphone 4 is a marvel and the best fone I've ever had except for the antenna blooper. That is what I argue. Technology as a derivative of science, is very successful. But lets not misconstrue the success of technology as evidence for the power of science to enlighten us as to what reality is.

Haven't read all the comments but this is cosmically stupid. Science created modern Hi Tech 21st century civilization. It works. It works even if one doesn't believe in it. No one who lives in a house with electricity, posting on the internet from a computer, driving a car, or going to a doctor has to have faith in science. They know it works without giving it any thought whatsoever.

Steve P. said: Raven, er science and technology are different animals. Er, I think you want to say that technology is responsible for the hi-tech pleasures we enjoy. Yes, they do work just fine. My Iphone 4 is a marvel and the best fone I've ever had except for the antenna blooper. That is what I argue. Technology as a derivative of science, is very successful. But lets not misconstrue the success of technology as evidence for the power of science to enlighten us as to what reality is.

Robin said: While science and technology are different animals, you got their relationship and even their category differentiation wrong, Steve-o. The fact is, technology is a product of science and engineering; technology is not a discipline unto itself. Further, your criticism of Raven's comment is categorically wrong given her entire second paragraph. But of course, you ignored that. Bottom line, our modern 21st century hi-tech world does prove the power of science in enlightening us to what reality really is. It also, by association, proves the worthlessness of fundamental Christianity for doing so.

Flint said:

JMeert said:

Somewhere down deep in their psyches they must be a bit uneasy about their dogma. I suspect that the need to prop up sectarian dogma with a pastiche of science reveals a fundamental insecurity and inferiority complex among these scientist wannabes.

That's really the rub isn't it? Their faith must be extremely weak if they require scientific verification.

Not at all. Their faith trumps reality. What they seek is not verification, but validation. I'm quite sure Philip Johnson was sincere in his belief that, with properly focused scientific effort, the scientific method really had no choice but to validate his delusions - and if it has not done so, it's because the atheistic scientific establishment MUST be blind to God's Truth. They must be Doing It Wrong. But by now, they seem aware that (a la Behe), this atheistic establishment is NOT going to find God they way they're going about it. They must be Creationists FIRST, to open their eyes to Truth. Science cannot serve theological purposes unless science is first harnessed to theological purposes. People without that faith seem to feel that if Creationists ignore all evidence, if their convictions are manifestly goofy, if they attempt to bend and distort science (and all else) to their faith, they MUST be dishonest and greedy. After all, if WE acted like that, that would be OUR motivation. Therefore it must be theirs. But we are projecting inappropriately. These people really mean it. We are like professional athletes watching the Special Olympics and concluding that those people aren't really trying, they MUST be faking it. If we performed that poorly, WE would be faking it, therefore there's no other possible explanation.

Steve P. said: Raven, er science and technology are different animals. Er, I think you want to say that technology is responsible for the hi-tech pleasures we enjoy. Yes, they do work just fine. My Iphone 4 is a marvel and the best fone I've ever had except for the antenna blooper. That is what I argue. Technology as a derivative of science, is very successful. But lets not misconstrue the success of technology as evidence for the power of science to enlighten us as to what reality is.

Haven't read all the comments but this is cosmically stupid. Science created modern Hi Tech 21st century civilization. It works. It works even if one doesn't believe in it. No one who lives in a house with electricity, posting on the internet from a computer, driving a car, or going to a doctor has to have faith in science. They know it works without giving it any thought whatsoever.

Steve P. said: Seriously, now. Christianity is the enemy?

Sorry, you were ignored for obvious reasons. How many contributors and posters here understand the math? I mean even you and Prof. Felsenstein disagree why/where Dembski is wrong.

Moreso, how much and what type of criticism has the latest Dembski/Marks paper received? It seems Dieb has only been able to nitpic here and there but nothing substantial.

Seriously, now. Christianity is the enemy?

I know I'm in the minority here on this, but yes, I think Christianity IS the enemy, as are ALL other religions. They are the enemy to ration, to reason, to nature, and are entirely unnecessary and wholly responsible for much of the bigotry and animosity in the world. There is nothing so detrimental to human growth and cognitive development as having one's mind artificially limited by the imposition of absurd mythologies that are often taken as historically or scientifically accurate.
I will now be slipping into my asbestos tuxedo and awaiting my admonitions.

Steve P. said: Sorry, you were ignored for obvious reasons. How many contributors and posters here understand the math? I mean even you and Prof. Felsenstein disagree why/where Dembski is wrong. Moreso, how much and what type of criticism has the latest Dembski/Marks paper received? It seems Dieb has only been able to nitpic here and there but nothing substantial.

This Meert huy is just doing another species of EXPELLED to fight what they can't fight intellectually.
These guys attack creationists for not enough degrees and then attack after degreedism is fulfilled.
YEC getting degrees is indeed a common thing for the future yet not needed.
There is no need to do anything but take things on the merits of it.
I do that and do very well.
It just shows another lame story of authorities holding onto wrong ideas by power and not persuasion or research or evidence.
Creationism will overthrow evolutionism, as it is now, within our time.
Simply smarter intersested people are paying more attention and smelling there is achievement in attacking and destroying these old biological ideas from ancient days.

When rubes get this agitated, it is evidence that something has struck their one remaining neuron.

Mike Elzinga said: The ID/creationist arguments are doubly wrong (at the very least). Each part of such a bogus argument is sufficient to discredit it without the need to consider any other part of the argument.

but in our family we don’t regard mockery as admissable for discourse, not even when we think another is wrong.

maybe the fact that your family apparently takes their delusions seriously is the reason you can't find a way to talk to your sister about hers?

just a thought.

Robert Byers, disgrace to Canada said: This Meert huy is just doing another species of EXPELLED to fight what they can't fight intellectually. These guys attack creationists for not enough degrees and then attack after degreedism is fulfilled. YEC getting degrees is indeed a common thing for the future yet not needed. There is no need to do anything but take things on the merits of it. I do that and do very well. It just shows another lame story of authorities holding onto wrong ideas by power and not persuasion or research or evidence. Creationism will overthrow evolutionism, as it is now, within our time. Simply smarter intersested people are paying more attention and smelling there is achievement in attacking and destroying these old biological ideas from ancient days.

A point for degreedism and another for equating 'asking a speaker questions' (what actually happened) with 'expelling them.' Two points for smelling achievement. But really, not your best effort. A mere 4.0 on the crazy scale.

Robert Byers said: Creationism will overthrow evolutionism, as it is now, within our time. Simply smarter intersested people are paying more attention and smelling there is achievement in attacking and destroying these old biological ideas from ancient days.

4.5

Not very entertaining, but "Creationism will overthrow evolutionism, as it is now, within our time" ranks quite high on the pathologically self-deluded scale.

Robert Byers said: Simply smarter intersested people...

...are paying more attention and smelling there is achievement in attacking and destroying these old biological ideas from ancient days.

No, Ikky, not a thought. A sneer. Learn the difference.

whatever, Dave.

don't bother to mention your family relationships on a public thread if you don't want comment.

ridicule is indeed a valid and time tested technique of persuasion.

sometimes pain teaches, if that's your concern.

If you isolate ideas as untouchable for feeling's sake, just how much progression do you expect?

The example of your own family is instructive as to just how far accomodationism will get us in actually solving these kinds of conflicts long term.

Ikky, do you realise that what you've just admitted is that you think that (a) you can change people's ideas by using pain, and (b) that would be a good idea?

Fact is, I don't think "progression" is really your concern at all, after that, far less the evils of "accommodationism", whatever they may be.

Robert Byers said: Creationism will overthrow evolutionism, as it is now, within our time.

Ikky, do you realise that what you’ve just admitted is that you think that (a) you can change people’s ideas by using pain, and (b) that would be a good idea?

are you so simplistic to think otherwise?

did you ever burn yourself or get stung by a bee?

did you learn anything from those experiences?

Fact is, I don’t think “progression” is really your concern at all, after that, far less the evils of “accommodationism”, whatever they may be.

you're evidently too clueless to even guess at what my concerns are.

keep on truckin' there, Dave. let me know how it works out for ya in the end.

raven said:

henry lying: It’s interesting that you would complain about the loss of science and technology in the US, but totally ignore that evolution has been taught exclusively in our government schools for over 50 years now. Plus, you have the mainstream media and legal system on your side.

A lie and not even a good one. Evolution is rarely taught in public schools and creationism often is, illegally. I went to mostly good public schools back in the Dark Ages and only had evolution mentioned once. In the 5th grade by a Returned Mormon Missionary science teacher of all things. The legal system is on the side of the US constitution. That is a problem for you unless you move somewhere else or overthrow the US government. The MSM media is not on our side or anyone's side. They are profit making companies that exist to make money for their owners and that is it.

henry proving nothing: According to some humanists, the education of American children isn’t the top priority. It’s getting rid of their religious superstition.

Citation needed here. Sounds like something made up by a right wingnut kook. According to Worldnut Daily in an article today, Obama is a communist who intends to cancel the 2012 elections and set up a Marxist dictatorship. Which is hotly disputed by those who insist he is a Kenyan born, Moslem terrorist who will institute Sharia law any day now. You can cherry pick or make up statements to prove anything. Which ends up proving nothing.

Just Bob said: 4.5 Not very entertaining, but "Creationism will overthrow evolutionism, as it is now, within our time" ranks quite high on the pathologically self-deluded scale.

I can guess, not at your concerns, but at your motivations, Ikky. Let me know your research on using pain, mockery, derision and scorn as an inducement to learn works out, in practice. Maybe you'll reverse the findings of the last hundred years or so of education theory, just like Byers with biology. And if you don't, no doubt you'll enjoy trying.

Let me know your research on using pain, mockery, derision and scorn as an inducement to learn works out, in practice.

I sent you a form to fill out in the mail.

Henry wrote:

"It’s interesting that you would complain about the loss of science and technology in the US, but totally ignore that evolution has been taught exclusively in our government schools for over 50 years now. Plus, you have the mainstream media and legal system on your side."

What we have is the Constitution of the United States on the side of science. Do you really want that to change? We have had creationism exclusively taught in tax free churches for over two hundred years now because of the same Constitution. Do you really want that to change?

"According to some humanists, the education of American children isn’t the top priority. It’s getting rid of their religious superstition."

Actually all real educators care about is educating. If you take care of that, you won't have to worry about religious superstitions now will you? Once people learn the value of logic, critical thinking and empiricism, you won't have a problem with superstitious nonsense anymore. Why would you want people to deny reality and believe in lots of mutually exclusive fairy tales anyway? Do you really think that that will make the world a better place?

henry said:

raven said:

henry proving nothing: According to some humanists, the education of American children isn’t the top priority. It’s getting rid of their religious superstition.

Citation needed here. Sounds like something made up by a right wingnut kook...

http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Chief-Barack-American-Socialism/dp/1439155089#reader_1439155089

Is this thread degenerating?

RBH said: Is this thread degenerating?

RBH said: Is this thread degenerating?

Dave Luckett said: Let me know your research on using pain, mockery, derision and scorn as an inducement to learn works out, in practice.

Ron Okimoto said:

Just Bob said: 4.5 Not very entertaining, but "Creationism will overthrow evolutionism, as it is now, within our time" ranks quite high on the pathologically self-deluded scale.

In the documentary about the Dover ID case Philip Johnson admitted that he had given up on anything changing within his lifetime.

Just Bob said: Oh, but Robert Byers is way smarter than that Johnson guy.

Science Avenger said:

Dave Luckett said: Let me know your research on using pain, mockery, derision and scorn as an inducement to learn works out, in practice.

FWIW, I've seen it work, and I've had it work with me. Is it not similar to motivating in sports? Some players need some hand-holding and encouragement to get with the program, others need a swift kick in the ass. I would tend, however, to defer to family members' judgement as to what would work best for their's.

Dave, you keep saying "pain and suffering" when you mean "being told that you are wrong". Why?

This Meert huy is just doing another species of EXPELLED to fight what they can't fight intellectually.

These guys attack creationists for not enough degrees and then attack after degreedism is fulfilled.

Creationism will overthrow evolutionism, as it is now, within our time. Simply smarter intersested people are paying more attention and smelling there is achievement in attacking and destroying these old biological ideas from ancient days.

My dearly beloved sister has conversations with our dead parents, quite often. (...) She sees them, hears them. How am I supposed to react to that? I said, once, plainly, that I think she is deluded. She shook her head and said that she was sorry that I could not see. And that was that.

have Carlin lecture her: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PiZSFIVFiU

I know that this is somewhat foreign to your worldview, Icthyic, but in our family we don’t regard mockery as admissable for discourse, not even when we think another is wrong.

maybe the fact that your family apparently takes their delusions seriously is the reason you can’t find a way to talk to your sister about hers? just a thought.

ridicule is indeed a valid and time tested technique of persuasion. sometimes pain teaches, if that’s your concern.

Is it not similar to motivating in sports? Some players need some hand-holding and encouragement to get with the program, others need a swift kick in the ass.

This is actual physical assault.

because of course "swift kick in the ass" has to be literal, right?

you're an unbelievable twit sometimes, Dave.

If I've got the wrong idea about Science Avenger's plain meaning, let him withdraw the words. I notice you haven't withdrawn yours, Ikky.

True, I can be over-literal sometimes, especially about bullying. It revolts me. If that's being a twit, then colour me twit. Coming from you, Ikky, I regard the term as a compliment.

I regard the term as a compliment.

you're welcome, then.

are we friends now?

... I would like to note that while I started with an offhand reference to a bit of ridicule regarding the delusions of "the dead looking after us" (Carlin is DAMN funny, I miss him), you have proceeded to take this all the way to the implication that those that disagree with you are promoting physical violence as a means of educating someone.

You might want to ask yourself why you did that.

ridicule is indeed a valid and time tested technique of persuasion. sometimes pain teaches, if that’s your concern.

That you think that ridicule and the deliberate infliction of psychological and emotional pain is a legitimate aid to learning.

http://www.iwp.edu/news_publications/detail/ridicule-an-instrument-in-the-war-on-terrorism

ridicule is an instrument that has been used for eons to influence the beliefs and behaviors of others.

it IS an effective technique.

Think of what happened to the board members in Dover, Dave. why did they get voted out on their arses after the Kitzmiller trial became public? Why did the same thing happen to the board members in Kansas after they had the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt, and tried to change the definition of science itself?

because they were tired of being ridiculed for being the next creationist stronghold; of being the butt of the joke; of being cast as rubes.

yes, Dave, sorry to break it to you, but ridicule has indeed been very effective in modifying behavior historically.

it's YOU that chose to focus on the "pain" issue.

I merely presented a technique, in humorous form no less, that actually MIGHT WORK to cure your sister of delusional behavior.

so, now I say, fuck off with your accusations and your strawmen, I'm tired of making fun of them.

Ichthyic said: This is actual physical assault. because of course "swift kick in the ass" has to be literal, right? you're an unbelievable twit sometimes, Dave.

Stuart Weinstein said:

Ichthyic said: This is actual physical assault. because of course "swift kick in the ass" has to be literal, right? you're an unbelievable twit sometimes, Dave.

Perhaps you two need a room?