How dishonest can you get?

[Lily]

an enlightening piece


http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/10/26/s ... -meetings/

[Dathi]

Utterly bizarre!

Digging further: http://www.icr.org/ and further yet: School of Biblical Apologetics http://www.icr.edu/soba/about.htm Crikey, even (especially) the Jesuits would shred this stuff.

CFN,

Dathi

[DaRC]

Yep it's shocking
This goes beyond dishonesty IMO into a much more sinister approach of deliberate misinformation in order to support their agenda.

The article poses the moral dilemma that

They deserve to be debated and confronted but we don’t want to get in the game of censoring or rejecting them as non-scientists as long as their abstracts approach their topics in a scientific and professional manner. If we reject them beforehand, they can legitimately claim that they are being victimized and unfairly censored by conventional scientists who won’t give them a fair hearing.

but then their lying means

once more the dishonesty of the YEC takes advantage of the openness and freedom of the scientific community to exploit it to their own ends, and abuse the privilege of open communication to push anti-scientific nonsense on the general population that doesn’t know the difference.

It is at this point, once again IMO, that they have lost re-course to being debated and confronted. They need to be stood up in a scientific court/journal and publicly outlawed for this sneaky, underhand approach.

[Lily]

OTOH, you can't just not let a guy "play" when he presents legitimate science, just because he is personally a YEC. That's what the article also says.

....Nothing in his 15-minute talk hinted at nonstandard geologic thinking.
....the first question following Ross’ talk challenged him on how he could “harmonize this work with [his] belief in a 6,000-year-old Earth.”


Ross answered the question by saying that for a scientific meeting such as GSA, he thought in a “framework” of standard science; ...

Ross pointed out that nothing in his presentation involved Young-Earth Creationism. But he then volunteered that he was indeed a Young-Earth Creationist.

The purpose of getting "legitimate credentials" - to make YECism look legitimate - is of course dishonest.

[DaRC]

I've just remembered where I'd read of this ability to think in 2 frameworks before...Orwell's 1984
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

[DJ Droood]

I've just remembered where I'd read of this ability to think in 2 frameworks before...Orwell's 1984
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

That is interesting, because the whole issue of "willful ignorance" has been on my mind lately...it seems to be a growing trend, and part of a larger political ideology....fascism or totalitarianism, like Mr. Orwell points out, perhaps? I think those systems need a good deal of "cognitive dissonance" to embrace. (although, I suppose, so does capitalism and "democracy".) I mean, what are these people up to? For example, there seems to be a faction of people, including American radio hosts, who believe Gadaffi isn't dead, and he still controls Tripoli and Bengazi
http://libyanfreepress.wordpress.com/20 ... -not-dead/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maIRXZbH-qI

But not all kooks seem to be rightest..there are many "flaky leftists" as well...so maybe it doesn't have anything to do with politics?


I don't believe most of the people who embrace "Creationism/ID", or for that matter, some of the secular fantasies like the Birther/Truther movement, are stupid/ignorant, etc...on the face of it, it is vexing to wonder how someone could seriously hold to these ideas, but then I began to think that they don't really believe it...not in their hearts...it is a piece of of a larger political puzzle, and science and truth are only supporting roles.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

[Twyrch]

I'm not sure why Creation and Evolution have to be at such odds. IMO, it is entirely possible that the word "day" used in the Biblical Creation story could hold any number of meanings, including a Millenia. No one was there and all we have is our limited understanding of the Universe vs. an oral tradition that wasn't written down until approx. 1900 BCE.

Personally, I find it highly unlikely that there wasn't some sort of "intelligent design" at work when the universe came into existence and I have no qualms saying that it is beyond my comprehension, for to assume that I can comprehend the mind of a power so great that it could create/design the universe is laughable. My personal beliefs are more along the lines of Theistic Evolution, where an intelligence beyond our comprehension created everything and over the eons, life has evolved from its initial creation.

I find the YEC group childish and laughable as well. They do a disservice to the scientific arena by trying to pawn off their fundamentalist beliefs on others under the guise of scientific study.

[Lily]

Dear Twyrch,

from a spiritual perspective you can believe all you want, fine with me, call it theistic evolution if you wish.

However, there is a relentless drive to place intelligent design (covert creationism) in the science classroom, not only in the United States - concerted efforts are underway in other countries including mine (even 20 years ago my bio teacher - member in an evangelical church - had the nerve to hint at a creator; no need mentioning that a student at any level of secondary education is not educated enough to critically examine the finer details of evolutionary theory, so why teach a controversy - should there be one - but there isn't one - at all).

To achieve this, any flavor of creationism has to gain scientific credibility. And that is what they are trying to achieve.

Do you agree with that?

Surely the same efforts as in earth science are being made in the biological sciences, i.e. adherents of intelligent design either overtly or covertly presenting at scientific meetings in order to get "credibility" - same tactics - either just presenting regular science, or actually hinting at an intelligent designer in some way or another.
Just that this article was solely about an earth science conference.


http://ncse.com/creationism
http://www.talkorigins.org/

[Twyrch]

I believe that if you are talking about a classroom, all theories should be discussed to give students a broad idea of what to expect in the real world and to give an unbiased view of scientific theory.

In a conference, however, I would hope that whoever is speaking and presenting, regardless of their theory, would present factual evidence and not religious dogma disguised as scientific evidence.

I will not attack anyone's beliefs on the beginnings of the universe, but in most cases the reverse is not the same, regardless of that person's stance.

[DJ Droood]

I guess using the same "everything is equal" educational philosophy, they would have to teach the Stork Theory in Biology class.

"

[DaRC]

But the Stork theory is right!

Well if you follow Viktor Rydberg's reading of the Germanic/Norse creation myths. Loki gave people their looks, Odin gave them their mind and willpower whilst Hoenir gave them their soul which are the fruits of the World Tree. Hoenir is linked by Rydberg with the Stork or the Crane (via the epiphet long-legged) thus Hoenir delivers the child's Soul in the form of a Stork.

[Karl]

Up until the age of about four I understand Stork Theory is the ONLY explaination we are given.

If I had my way when it comes to beliefs and religions they (whoever 'they' are) should summarise the available options on a set of cards and you can choose whatever appeals to you. It might save people a whole childhood of being brought up under one religion only for them to come of age and think 'Hang on a minute, immaculate conception...?"

PS Not that I have anything against immaculate conception or anyone who may or may not choose to believe in it.

[DJ Droood]

Well if you follow Viktor Rydberg's reading of the Germanic/Norse creation myths. Loki gave people their looks, Odin gave them their mind and willpower whilst Hoenir gave them their soul which are the fruits of the World Tree. Hoenir is linked by Rydberg with the Stork or the Crane (via the epiphet long-legged) thus Hoenir delivers the child's Soul in the form of a Stork.

Why do I get the feeling that Hoenir and Loki, or Mbombo, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache, or Coatlicue, who was magically impregnated by a ball of feathers while sweeping a temple, won't make it into a Creationist science classroom? I think there is only one acceptable "textbook" and creation myth that they want to promote.

[DaRC]

I think there is only one acceptable "textbook" and creation myth that they want to promote.

So schools would become one long Sunday school with all of academia merged into a single interminable lesson - I'm heading into Reductio ad absurdum territory here