Creationist Infiltration.

Turtwig

Creationist infiltration of scientific conferences seems outrageous, but banning them would do more harm than good

WHAT should a scientific society do when creationists want to participate in its conferences? This question faces many scientific organisations in the US. At meetings of the Geological Society of America (GSA) in 2009 and 2010, young-Earth creationists, who think Noah's flood was a historical event and the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, presented posters, gave talks and led field trips.

I attended a number of these events, and I can attest that the creationists were careful to give mainstream presentations using standard geologic methods. They referred to the geologic timeline of millions and billions of years. Nowhere did the words "Noah's flood" appear. Nothing in their presentations revealed that they thought the Grand Canyon's upper rocks were deposited in a year and that dinosaurs and humans once lived together.

It's not surprising that they were able to do so: the presenters had received decent geology educations from legitimate institutions. Geologically, they could talk the talk and walk the walk. But why? What is the point of giving a talk on marine strata in the late Cretaceous, as Marcus Ross of Liberty University, a Christian college in Lynchburg, Virginia, did, when you actually think the Earth is only a few thousand years old?

The point is to be able to claim legitimacy. Creationists have used their participation in conferences to argue that their ideas are taken seriously by real scientists. After the 2009 GSA meeting, for example, Steve Austin of the Institute for Creation Research in Dallas, Texas, proclaimed that creationists had been influential at the meeting. "There are many within the GSA that take seriously the creation and flood narrative text of the Bible," he claimed. After the 2010 meeting, a press release from the fundamentalist Cedarville University in Ohio crowed: "Cedarville leaders talked about alternative views for how the rocks formed, emphasizing short time spans and catastrophic formation... rather than slow formation over millions of years."

Geologists are understandably fuming. After I wrote about attending a creationist-led field trip at the 2010 GSA meeting for the American Geological Institute's magazine Earth, a number of GSA members expressed their outrage. Many proposed that presentations by creationists be banned outright. Scientific conferences, they said, have no obligation to include non-scientific ideas; astronomy conferences do not welcome astrology talks, so why does the GSA tolerate young-Earth creationists who reject the foundational principles of geology? Some cited the GSA's position statement: "Creationism is not science because it invokes supernatural phenomena that cannot be tested."

My view, though, is that a blanket ban on presentations by creationists would be a mistake as it would hand them a PR coup.

Science is a process. The methods of science are much more important than any particular result. Indeed, the self-correcting process of science has on rare occasions resulted in big shifts in thinking. Within living memory, geologists dismissed the idea that the crust of the planet could move as crazy. Now we know that plate tectonics has radically reshaped our planet.

Most outlandish ideas turn out to be wrong, of course, but conferences can be a place for them to be scrutinised by the gimlet eyes of science. As long as research conforms to the standards of the discipline, and involves real data collected by standard methods, then it merits more than summary rejection.

I am not suggesting that the ideas of young-Earth creationism will ever be accepted by mainstream geology. But if scientific societies impose bans, then the creationists win an important victory: they will be able to make a plausible claim of censorship and discrimination.

Creationists have already shown themselves to be ready and willing to take advantage of such claims. In the US they are especially litigious. The California Science Center in Los Angeles recently paid out $110,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by the creationist-sympathising American Freedom Alliance after the centre cancelled a private AFA screening of the intelligent design film Darwin's Dilemma. AFA claimed that the decision violated its right to free speech.

While the exclusion of creationists can pose problems, their inclusion at conferences does little harm. The reputations of scientific organisations are largely unaffected, as few people even notice. Creationists will use their participation to claim acceptance, but most scientists understand that a 15-minute talk or a poster presentation does not carry the same weight as a paper in Nature or Science. A few posters hardly challenge an entire scientific discipline.

The GSA is not the only organisation facing this issue: the Society for Developmental Biology, the Entomological Society of America and the American Society for Cell Biology have all encountered similar problems. And it's not just at these relatively informal meetings that creationists have surfaced. Peer-reviewed scientific journals, such as the Journal of Paleontology and Geology, have published - almost certainly without being aware of the authors' true views and motivations - papers by creationists arguing minor details of what they imagine occurred during Noah's flood.

Scientific organisations will continue to experience creationist infiltration; this week's GSA meeting will include several presentations by creationists. But it is important for scientists not to overreact and to remember that science is far stronger than any creationist attempts to undermine it.

Source.

I'm not sure science is stronger than creationist attempts. The process maybe, but not the humans who undertake the task everyday. Creationists are deliberately attempting to obfuscate the line between pseudoscientists and scientist. I find it a little terrifying that they go to these conferences and then lie through their teeth about them afterwards. While, I agree, science can never ban these bastards something needs to be done to combat this growing, almost epidemic nonsense ideology. Personally, one thing that I think educators need to do more of is show how evolutionary theory branches into other disciplines and how other scientific disciplines can be used to explain evolution. I only learned about evolution in the last few years and I have to say that it is such a beautiful theory that doesn't deserve the cold shoulders and taboo it faces in places.:(

MrPudding

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm not sure science is stronger than creationist attempts. The process maybe, but not the humans who undertake the task everyday. Creationists are deliberately attempting to obfuscate the line between pseudoscientists and scientist. I find it a little terrifying that they go to these conferences and then lie through their teeth about them afterwards. While, I agree, science can never ban these bastards something needs to be done to combat this growing, almost epidemic nonsense ideology. Personally, one thing that I think educators need to do more of is show how evolutionary theory branches into other disciplines and how other scientific disciplines can be used to explain evolution. I only learned about evolution in the last few years and I have to say that it is such a beautiful theory that doesn't deserve the cold shoulders and taboo it faces in places.:(

It is hard to fight against these people when they are willing to lie and act dishonestly. I despair.

MrP

magicbastarder

creationists do face the test of peer review though, and that's a hurdle they'll find hard to overcome.

Dades

magicbastarder wrote: »

creationists do face the test of peer review though, and that's a hurdle they'll find hard to overcome.

Not if there's enough creationist peers.

Galvasean

magicbastarder wrote: »

creationists do face the test of peer review though, and that's a hurdle they'll find hard to overcome.

This appears to be a clever way of sidestepping it. Go to conferences using proper science. Get peer reviewed that way. Use said peer reviews as a badge of honor. Then go on to talk Creationist nonsense and use said badge as your argument from authority.

Reminds me of that Creationist Paleontologist (whose name i don't care to recall) who is fully qualified after graduating with flying colours after writing a scientific paper on Cretaceous mosasaurs - despite not believing in the cretaceous. He now uses his degree in Paleontology for evil to promote Creationism.

Where's Thomas Huxley when you need him?

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Not if there's enough creationist peers.

And creationists are nothing if not full of pee.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

Honesty has never been a religious requirement and it's unlikely to be one any time soon.

What was that Commandment..... no wait, it's gone.

ShooterSF

robindch wrote: »

And creationists are nothing if not full of pee.

I never knew Bear Grylls was a creationist.

sponsoredwalk

That geology infiltration stuff is hilarious!

They are most certainly going to do far more devious things in the future:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UmDaSz8MeE

This thread is great timing btw, dealing with sickness & deleriousness has
me watching Robert Trivers Kent Hovind lectures

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dTxfbqFJrg

Turtwig

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This thread is great timing btw, dealing with sickness & deleriousness has
me watching Robert Trivers Kent Hovind lectures

And there was me thinking I had no life. At least I'm spending my late night reading some valid science journals. :P

Manach

I'm a tad unsure what this thread end motivation is besides talking up the creatationist bogeyman, thus encouraging group cohesion against a common foe. My own geology degree, whilst great fun achieving had the personal economic benefit of zero, but at least I get to enjoy TV shows Terra Nova.

ShooterSF

Ah here the bogeyman's a creationist too?! This thread is depressing the crap out of me.

Turtwig

Manach wrote: »

I'm a tad unsure what this thread end motivation is besides talking up the creatationist bogeyman, thus encouraging group cohesion against a common foe. My own geology degree, whilst great fun achieving had the personal economic benefit of zero, but at least I get to enjoy TV shows Terra Nova.

I just saw an article in NewScientist that I deemed relevant for this forum, the, pardon the pun, evolving techniques of creationists are always interesting to observe. Though, I do fear that one day they will figure out a way to subvert peer review somewhat effectively.
Also,why don't you guys set up a geology forum that would be awesome ya'know.:D Sad to hear about the degree being of no economic value but at least you enjoyed it, many don't.:)

dead one

the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, presented posters, gave talks and led field trips.

i agree it is absurd to prove that "Earth is less than 10,000 years old" --- -
It contradicts science --- Doesn't it mean i don't believe in God:)

UDP

I would worry that, while the scientific process works, it is not always scientists that get the final say on things such as funding etc. It is usually politicians and the perception in public that gets a say. So my concern here would be that these creationist "scientists" get stuff out in the media etc to push their agenda while being able to claim they are experts as they had a published paper or spoke at an important conference. It is often very difficult to explain that an idea is wrong if the reason why is scientifically complex requiring an existing knowledge on the subject.

sbsquarepants

Can find the link right now, but i remember seeing a clip of a public access show in the states, the guy was a creationist and he had "indisputable proof" that evolution was wrong. "Behold", he says, (cue dramatic music) "the evolutionists nightmare" and then produces a banana!:D
Apparently the fact that a banana fits nicely in your hand was the "inisputable proof". Well i certainly couldn't dispute it, i was too busy cleaning up the mouthfull of tea he caused me to spit out laughing!
I don't worry about the creationist threat!

Logical Fallacy

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Can find the link right now, but i remember seeing a clip of a public access show in the states, the guy was a creationist and he had "indisputable proof" that evolution was wrong. "Behold", he says, (cue dramatic music) "the evolutionists nightmare" and then produces a banana!:D
Apparently the fact that a banana fits nicely in your hand was the "inisputable proof". Well i certainly couldn't dispute it, i was too busy cleaning up the mouthfull of tea he caused me to spit out laughing!
I don't worry about the creationist threat!

Tremble in fear at the mighty banana.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A

Dades

In other news, it's Kirk Cameron's birthday today...

He's 41 in science years, which, by my calculations, makes him about one second old in creationist years.

Happy birthday loser!

Galvasean

Manach wrote: »

My own geology degree, whilst great fun achieving had the personal economic benefit of zero, but at least I get to enjoy TV shows Terra Nova.

Surely the more you know about science the LESS you will enjoy Terra Nova?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Apparently the fact that a banana fits nicely in your hand was the "inisputable proof".

The banana also appears to be designed to be inserted up a man's anus. Indisputable proof that God endorses sodomy?

Knasher

Malty_T wrote: »

Though, I do fear that one day they will figure out a way to subvert peer review somewhat effectively.

It may eventually become necessary to issue licenses to scientists in much the same way the medical and law professions work.

Galvasean

Knasher wrote: »

It may eventually become necessary to issue licenses to scientists in much the same way the medical and law professions work.

To paraphrase legendary palaeontologist O.C. Marsh, "Science isn't for the people, science is for scientists!"

Knasher

Dades wrote: »

In other news, it's Kirk Cameron's birthday today...

He's 41 in science years, which, by my calculations, makes him about one second old in creationist years.

Unless he is counting his birthday in creationist years, which would make him over 30 million real years old. It would certainly explain why his ideas are stuck in the stone age, it's actually remarkably forward thinking for him.

Dades

Galvasean wrote: »

Surely the more you know about science the LESS you will enjoy Terra Nova?

I wonder is there's a creationist version of Terra Nova where they substitute "10,000" for "85 million" every time they mention the time travel thing...

Sarky

No matter how much science you know, dinosaurs will always be awesome.

ShooterSF

Sarky wrote: »

No matter how much science you know, dinosaurs will always be awesome.

and you could say the most scientific thing to do with Terra Nova is how it has set out to test that statement.

Turtwig

Ok all this thread I've been going "Wtf is Terra Nova?"
So, what is it, is it worth the google?

Dades

Yes, if your like dinosaurs and suspending disbelief.

Galvasean

It's like Avatar but with dinosaurs.... except Avatar sort of had dinosaurs....

Eh...............

Tell you what here's the concept:

the future - humanity faces a crisis so people go back in time 85 million years to the time of the dinosaurs.... the safest time of all times???

Logical Fallacy

Galvasean wrote: »

the future - humanity faces a crisis so people go back in time 85 million years to the time of the dinosaurs.... the safest time of all times???

No doubt man, nothing could possibli go wrong...I mean possibly go wrong.

That's the first thing that has ever gone wrong.

Sarky

Also I swear half the props were nicked from the set of Starship Troopers.

Chuck Stone

Evolution will sort them out.

MrPudding

Galvasean wrote: »

the future - humanity faces a crisis so people go back in time 85 million years to the time of the dinosaurs.... the safest time of all times???

And don't forget the paradox limiting, and quite handy for them detail, that whilst they have gone back in time it is a separate timeline.

MrP

sbsquarepants

Galvasean wrote: »

The banana also appears to be designed to be inserted up a man's anus. Indisputable proof that God endorses sodomy?

Tell that to the people of sodom!

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok all this thread I've been going "Wtf is Terra Nova?"
So, what is it, is it worth the google?

They've spelled it wrong Malty, it should say Terra Patrick. Google away my friend

Dades

Sarky wrote: »

Also I swear half the props were nicked from the set of Starship Troopers.

Nobody say anything bad about Starship Troopers!

*cocks weapon*

legspin

Dades wrote: »

Nobody say anything bad about Starship Troopers!

*cocks weapon*

Read the book years ago but it wasn't until I saw the film that I realised just how right-wing it is.
Preferred Stranger in a Strange Land myself.

Dades

legspin wrote: »

Preferred Stranger in a Strange Land myself.

I read the "author's cut" version of that a few years ago and find it a bit drifty! Still good though.

swampgas

legspin wrote: »

Read the book years ago but it wasn't until I saw the film that I realised just how right-wing it is.

I saw the film and assumed that it was a subversive satirical attack on the right-wing ... there was quite a bit of debate on it at the time.

nozzferrahhtoo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Evolution will sort them out.

You have seen Idiocracy... right?

legspin

swampgas wrote: »

I saw the film and assumed that it was a subversive satirical attack on the right-wing ... there was quite a bit of debate on it at the time.

I may have been Poe'd but I thought it was played pretty straight.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

*cocks weapon*

Huh huh, cock....

Huh huh, weapon....

the_syco

Malty_T wrote: »

Though, I do fear that one day they will figure out a way to subvert peer review somewhat effectively.

IMO, they only need the peer review to appeal to the masses. Once they have the masses they don't need the peer reviews, as they can(/have?) just make their own peer reviews that science will fail, but their bulsh|t will pass.

Sarky wrote: »

Also I swear half the props were nicked from the set of Starship Troopers.

Aye, I saw that

Improbable

You could try convincing them that argument from authority doesn't work. Oh wait... :mad:

Galvasean

Actually hang on, since when did Creationists even need peer review? Didn't they tow the line that you don't need evidence when you have faith?

the_syco

Galvasean wrote: »

Didn't they tow the line that you don't need evidence when you have faith?

My take on it is that once they have a peer review, they can get some scientists to "their side".

Without going to CT, I'd nearly think they wanted to get rid of science as we know it!

The Mad Hatter

Galvasean wrote: »

Actually hang on, since when did Creationists even need peer review? Didn't they tow the line that you don't need evidence when you have faith?

Like all evidence when it comes to creationists, it's unnecessary and/or invalid until they have it.

Turtwig

the_syco wrote: »

My take on it is that once they have a peer review, they can get some scientists to "their side".

Without going to CT, I'd nearly think they wanted to get rid of science as we know it!

It is not altogether entirely inconceivable that creationists with expertise in areas outside biology gain academic stature and end up on the top scientific organisations. If enough of them were to end up in the Royal Society for example then that would be a very bad thing. One thing is clear, they're never going to get their narrow minded ideology accepted into mainstream science as it works currently, so they're not going to quit until they subvert the process or value of science entirely. Long may they fail.