Jump to content


Photo

Scientist Refused Access To Grand Canyon


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 775 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 10 May 2017 - 07:28 AM

Here's one more example of science being hindered because of a secular-humanist worldview that explicitly refuses to give anyone with a different view a voice.

 

http://www.wnd.com/2...-being-exposed/

 

Some quotes from the article:

 

A geologist is suing the National Park Service and its operations at Grand Canyon National Park because officials there refused him permission to do ordinary research due to his “Christian faith and scientific viewpoints informed by his Christian faith.”

 

Snelling said the case “is all about giving the freedom for a scientist to do good science without having to undergo a religious litmus test.”

 

“Nonetheless, National Park Service officials denied his routine request to obtain a few fist-sized rock samples from the Grand Canyon after learning of his Christian views about the Earth’s beginnings,” ADF said. “Despite the fact that Dr. Snelling had accomplished prior research in the canyon, Park officials ran him through a gamut of red tape for more than three years.”

 

He condemned Snelling’s plan, arguing “ours is a secular society as per our constitution (sic)” and suggested “inappropriate interests” should be “screened out.”



#2 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,619 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 10 May 2017 - 08:45 AM

Here's one more example of science being hindered because of a secular-humanist worldview that explicitly refuses to give anyone with a different view a voice.

Normally, I'm no friend of creationist scientists.

 

As I understand it, researchers are required to explain the scope or purpose of their research as a part of the application.  I'd really like to see that.  However, Snelling has done previous research in the canyon, so I'm sure he knew how to fill out the paperwork.

 

Based on the information available, Snelling should win.



#3 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,851 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 10 May 2017 - 10:05 AM


However, in Snelling’s case, the lawsuit explains, permit coordinator Ronda Newton insisted on two peer reviews of his plans.
 
He provided three, all recommending his work.
 
But then Newton went to additional lengths and asked for the opinion of a professor from the University of New Mexico, Karl Karlstrom, who demonstrated “antipathy for Dr. Snelling’s religious faith and the religious views of the scientists who provided peer reviews on behalf of Dr. Snelling.”

 

This is the iffy part. For scientific journal papers the applicant should suggest some peer reviewers, but the editor then decides which peer reviewers to include (not limited to the suggested reviewers). 

 

The process should be the same, if not I can get in there with peer reviews from anyone.

 

We'll wait and see. We've only heard 1 side.



#4 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,619 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 10 May 2017 - 10:17 AM

We'll wait and see. We've only heard 1 side.

Yeah.... that's why I included the conditional.   "Based on the information available."

 

So far, I haven't found any reference other than what's based on Dave's post.  Apparently, the park service isn't talking.



#5 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 10 May 2017 - 12:56 PM

from the source:
“With his intended research, Dr. Snelling seeks to gather samples at folds inside the canyon where all the layers were bent, but were not shattered because the rocks were still soft as they folded – supposedly remaining soft over a period of 450 million years.”

Snelling said the case “is all about giving the freedom for a scientist to do good science without having to undergo a religious litmus test.”
- www.wnd.com/2017/05/is-grand-illusion-about-grand-canyon-on-verge-of-being-exposed/

curious.

the article continues:
But then Newton went to additional lengths and asked for the opinion of a professor from the University of New Mexico, Karl Karlstrom, who demonstrated “antipathy for Dr. Snelling’s religious faith and the religious views of the scientists who provided peer reviews on behalf of Dr. Snelling.”
- ibid

the reviewers were creationists?
it seems to me that a totally unbiased review would be comprised of bot creationists and non creationists.

the fact he was denied access to the rocks in the first place says something isn't quite right.

#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,964 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 May 2017 - 04:36 AM

It's an appeal to consequences again. (Like with Armitage) Human people of normal intelligence, operate according to predictable patterns of behaviour. You give someone leverage P, they are not likely going to think according to God's higher way and say; "I will forgive, I will not use this power in my hand." No, what I find from experience is they will, "walk it right to you", as the Americans might say

 

(wake up forumers, I clued you in the first time, you should be able to see it this time)

 

"If creationist enters canyon this will lead to undesirable thing P for evolution theory, as his intentions are creationist."

"Therefore it is correct and true that we should not let the creationist in".

 

Example of equivalent ATC fallacy;

 

"If we say E=MC2 is true that will lead to explosions.

Therefore it is true and correct that E=MC2 is false and we should reject it."

 

Another;

 

"If evolution is true look what it leads to, survival of the fittest mentality and Hitler's eugenics.

Therefore evolution is false."

 

Let's think it through according to a truly scientific and objective criteria; it should not matter if anyone seeks to try to explain scientific fact P, and if evolution is such good science, such strong science as we are told so often, then if I was an evolutionary scientist I would LAUGH at someone trying to use fact P to confirm creation, if creation is weak and evolution is strong, because the scientific and logical arguments for evolution would be much stronger.

 

Conclusion; this is nothing more than prejudice from the secularists, not because of anything scientific, but because they are annoyed because creationists may convince people that obviously bendy rock can bend while soft and then later solidify which makes more logical/scientific sense than solid rock bending over millions of years which would break it. 

 

As for the silly and facetious strawman that says rock would stay soft for 450 millions, we don't argue that, as that would presume that creationists accept eons of evolutionary time. :rolleyes:


  • Mike Summers likes this

#7 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 11 May 2017 - 08:05 AM

It's an appeal to consequences again. (Like with Armitage) Human people of normal intelligence, operate according to predictable patterns of behaviour. You give someone leverage P, they are not likely going to think according to God's higher way and say; "I will forgive, I will not use this power in my hand." No, what I find from experience is they will, "walk it right to you", as the Americans might say

my question is, what does the park service have to fear?

it seems like the park service already knows what these scientists are going to find.

"If creationist enters canyon this will lead to undesirable thing P for evolution theory, as his intentions are creationist."
"Therefore it is correct and true that we should not let the creationist in".

this argument is invalid because these scientist are willing to put all of their findings on the table for everyone to look at.
again, as above, it seems like they already know what will be found.
 

Another;
 
"If evolution is true look what it leads to, survival of the fittest mentality and Hitler's eugenics.
Therefore evolution is false."

these findings WILL NOT disprove evolution, but they WILL go a long way to disproving gradualism.
and as you know, it was the gradualists that ignored waddingtons work, and the very same ones that made mcclintok stop publishing her results on transposons.
 

Let's think it through according to a truly scientific and objective criteria; it should not matter if anyone seeks to try to explain scientific fact P, and if evolution is such good science, such strong science as we are told so often, then if I was an evolutionary scientist I would LAUGH at someone trying to use fact P to confirm creation, if creation is weak and evolution is strong, because the scientific and logical arguments for evolution would be much stronger.

i don't think this has much to do with evolution, it has more to do with upsetting the age estimates.

#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,964 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 May 2017 - 09:07 AM

"What If", it all boils down to evolution, if the rocks of those "eons" were laid down quickly and not over 450 million years but in one year by a flood, then obviously those evolutionary ages become moot and evolution then can't be entertained realistically.

 

Those examples in green are just examples of an appeal to consequences fallacy, the fallacy occurs when someone argues that something is true because if it isn't true it will lead to a negative circumstance. Or that something is false because of a negative consequence.

 

If I argue that E=MC2 is false because it will lead to explosions, splitting the atom, then obviously that does not affect the validity or credence or truth-value of that formula. Obviously if the formula is true and correct, then it is true and correct, no matter what it leads to.

 

In the same way if creationists find facts, that should be fine - facts are just facts, but evolutionists know those facts the creationists will find, will be used to support creation which they see as a negative and bad thing therefore they justify their actions by giving weak excuses for why they banned the creationist but their true argument is an appeal-to-consequences.

 

In logic, it is okay to reveal a person's true argument if it is clear that the one they are giving isn't really what they are arguing. This is not the same thing as a strawman fallacy.

 

Their true argument, what they are really, "about", is not letting creation be supported, they want the empirical facts of the canyon to themselves, so they can tell us the bullzhit story of evolution is supported by them, but if they allow access to creationists then obviously creationists can also use factual evidence for creation. It's as clear as daylight - they simply don't want creationists forming solid arguments based on scientific facts.



#9 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 11 May 2017 - 12:07 PM

what do y'all make of this:
for years, the institute of creation research has made much of its frequent student expeditions to the grand canyon.
since we have so often often published the investigations of other creationist "field research", we began to feel it's time we published one of these.
- https://ncse.com/fil...pdfs/CEJ_20.pdf

#10 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,964 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 May 2017 - 12:56 PM

Are you kidding me? What a rambling, long-winded explanation, covering the personalities of the people of the tour he took. I gave up after reading to a point where I would find an argument somewhere in there, and I never did find one.

 

Perhaps if he has some important points you could highlight them, so I can refute them for you, in my sleep. He starts with the usually propagandist type rhetoric, referring to creation, "scientists" or, "science" in quotes, as if to imply an obtuse no-true-Scotsman fallacy which he has likely never heard of.

 

The point is, "What If", you can present as many articles and blogs saying creation isn't science, as you want, but this won't change the fact that it is a scientific fact that we have seen strata, facies, and canyons cut out within weeks on this planet, and we have seen none of those things happen slowly.

 

Flume experiments have confirmed what Austin argues, that hydraulic sorting can indeed create facies quickly, laminated and stratified. 

 

This is proven scientific fact.

 

So now show me science showing a canyon forming over millions of years, show me science showing strata with fossils forming slowly, show me different type of rock morphology happen slowly, like at Mt St Helens, where you have stratified rock cut off by a flow and create cliffs on top of it that were not stratified.

 

This is what evolutionists are too DUMB to realise - that while they are giving their lengthy rhteorical PHLEGM concerning creation not being science, they haven't actually got any science to show us, proving their absurd MOY story.

 

No direct facts at all - but we have, which is why they can only attack us personally and call us false scientists, because friend, that's the only weak hand they have to play. But one hand they haven't got to play, is any example of these features happening slowly like they claim happened, but we have scientific proof the same features happened quickly. That is our claim, juxtaposed with their story - our claim is proven, that these features can and indeed did happen quickly, so why can't they on a larger scale? But their claim remains a story.


  • MarkForbes likes this

#11 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 11 May 2017 - 05:25 PM

Are you kidding me? What a rambling, long-winded explanation, covering the personalities of the people of the tour he took. I gave up after reading to a point where I would find an argument somewhere in there, and I never did find one.

this particular issue was on my hard drive.
i posted the excerpt mainly to show "creationists" haven't been barred from the canyon in the past.

Perhaps if he has some important points you could highlight them, so I can refute them for you, in my sleep. He starts with the usually propagandist type rhetoric, referring to creation, "scientists" or, "science" in quotes, as if to imply an obtuse no-true-Scotsman fallacy which he has likely never heard of.

i haven't read the issue i posted, i simply noticed that the creationists haven't been barred in the past.
you might try browsing the site where i got the PDF from, it might have some details on what this "student research" is all about.

#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,964 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 May 2017 - 02:37 AM

Fair enough, you have to forgive my rant, I get sick of reading the same thoughtless rhetoric from evo-bloggers.



#13 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,261 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 12 May 2017 - 06:42 PM

....

the reviewers were creationists?
it seems to me that a totally unbiased review would be comprised of bot creationists and non creationists.

the fact he was denied access to the rocks in the first place says something isn't quite right.

 

Shall we do that for all kind of peer review then? Remember the argument:"Creationist articles aren't peer-reviewed". 

 

I'm not familiar with the details of above case, but it sounds like deliberate obstruction to prevent undesired results. Know this from other fields, academics try to defend their pet-paradigm by all kind of means, including political ones.  


  • mike the wiz likes this

#14 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 15 May 2017 - 07:30 PM

Shall we do that for all kind of peer review then?

i believe the best peer review is one comprised of reviewers with different worldviews, yes.
there is nothing wrong at all in a reviewer with a religious worldview.

Remember the argument:"Creationist articles aren't peer-reviewed".

you know, a persons religious beliefs are a matter of personal opinion, and shouldn't even enter the equation.
i would imagine that a large number of scientists have religious leanings, or at least wrestle with the question of creation.

I'm not familiar with the details of above case, but it sounds like deliberate obstruction to prevent undesired results. Know this from other fields, academics try to defend their pet-paradigm by all kind of means, including political ones.

i don't see what the hoopla is all about.
these scientists are willing to lay all of their findings on the table for all to see.
in the interest of intellectual freedom, i can't imagine why the above would be a problem.

#15 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,619 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 15 May 2017 - 08:04 PM

i don't see what the hoopla is all about.
these scientists are willing to lay all of their findings on the table for all to see.
in the interest of intellectual freedom, i can't imagine why the above would be a problem.

 I don't see any problem either.

 

Regardless of who he works for, Snelling is a degreed biologist.  I can think of no legitimate academic or scientific reason he shouldn't be allowed to collect a few dozen fist size rocks.

 

(BTW, what if, it looks like NAIG is back.  When I searched "Snelling creationist," their website was the first hit and the link worked.)



#16 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,415 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 15 May 2017 - 08:19 PM

 

 I don't see any problem either.

 

Regardless of who he works for, Snelling is a degreed biologist.  I can think of no legitimate academic or scientific reason he shouldn't be allowed to collect a few dozen fist size rocks.

 

(BTW, what if, it looks like NAIG is back.  When I searched "Snelling creationist," their website was the first hit and the link worked.)

 

 

Uh. Ahem. No. Snelling is a degreed geologist. ;)



#17 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,619 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 15 May 2017 - 08:27 PM

 

 

 I don't see any problem either.

 

Regardless of who he works for, Snelling is a degreed biologist.  I can think of no legitimate academic or scientific reason he shouldn't be allowed to collect a few dozen fist size rocks.

 

(BTW, what if, it looks like NAIG is back.  When I searched "Snelling creationist," their website was the first hit and the link worked.)

 

Uh. Ahem. No. Snelling is a degreed geologist. ;)

D....t ! ! !    I had it right then somehow in editing mucked it up.

 

I really, really hate when that happens.


Edited by Bonedigger, 15 May 2017 - 08:51 PM.
Borderline Vulgar Language


#18 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 15 May 2017 - 10:08 PM

(BTW, what if, it looks like NAIG is back.  When I searched "Snelling creationist," their website was the first hit and the link worked.)

what a shame.
i don't understand how they can get away with some of their stuff.
this "ayala retraction" is an outright fraud.

#19 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 15 May 2017 - 11:01 PM

 I don't see any problem either.

 

Regardless of who he works for, Snelling is a degreed biologist.  I can think of no legitimate academic or scientific reason he shouldn't be allowed to collect a few dozen fist size rocks.

 

(BTW, what if, it looks like NAIG is back.  When I searched "Snelling creationist," their website was the first hit and the link worked.)

 

 

If he wasn't allowed to take samples because he personally believes in YEC I agree that is wrong, but I am curious as to what the proposal looked like. If the proposal was something like 'let me take samples to show that they are thousands of years old', then I could see why they would reject his proposal as pseudo-science.

 

Considering that he is a geologist and has successfully taken samples before, it seems unlikely that he would have worded his proposal like that. However, if the Park Services had reasonable suspicion that that was his intention even if he didn't explicitly write it I can see why they would still refuse him access.



#20 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,619 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 15 May 2017 - 11:29 PM

 

 I don't see any problem either.

 

Regardless of who he works for, Snelling is a degreed biologist.  I can think of no legitimate academic or scientific reason he shouldn't be allowed to collect a few dozen fist size rocks.

If he wasn't allowed to take samples because he personally believes in YEC I agree that is wrong, but I am curious as to what the proposal looked like. If the proposal was something like 'let me take samples to show that they are thousands of years old', then I could see why they would reject his proposal as pseudo-science.

 

Considering that he is a geologist and has successfully taken samples before, it seems unlikely that he would have worded his proposal like that. However, if the Park Services had reasonable suspicion that that was his intention even if he didn't explicitly write it I can see why they would still refuse him access.

Leaving the WND article for something closer to the primary source .... AIG:

... geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling ... was twice denied a permit by Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) to continue his research at the canyon due to his religious and scientific views.

...Dr. Snelling (PhD, geology), who had requested permission from the GCNP Research Office staff to conduct additional canyon research. After the GCNP refused to issue Dr. Snelling a research and sampling permit to collect about 40 small samples from inside the massive canyon in Northern Arizona,.... The lawsuit also points out that in 25 years of canyon study, "Dr. Snelling has successfully completed 3 prior research projects without complaint from any NPS official within the Grand Canyon."

 

It is telling that Snelling has done "3 prior research projects" in the canyon.  As I understand it, the samples were to be about a half kilogram each .... that would be about fist size.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users