>> Creationists certainly are capable of being scientists, unless they start
>> arguing that there are no Precambrian metazoan fossils (like Gish), that the
>> second law of thermodynamics proves evolution wrong (like Henry Morris),
>> that the depth of moon dust indicates a young earth (like Barnes), that the
>> Grand Canyon can be compared to gullies in Mt St. Helens ash (like Austin),
>> that dinosaurs were vegetarians (like Ken Ham), etc. ad nauseum...
>
> Do they cease being scientists because they start arguing, or because you
> don't agree with their arguments, or because you think they have violated
> some principle of science by holding these positions. Certainly their
> taking these positions by itself cannot be grounds for your dismissing them
> from the halls of science. I assume it is because you do not care for the
> methods they employ in the development of their arguments, etc.
What methods? The errors, halftruths, and distortions made by many ICR type
YECs have been comprehensively detailed in many books (see, for example,
Arthur Strahler's 1987 "Science and Earth History")
Let me use a concrete example of why I believe that many at the ICR do not
do real science (I like concrete examples much better than convoluted
philosophical arguments about the nature of science)...
I'm reading Steve Austin's "The Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe"
(1994, Institute for Creation Research) and came across a reference to you
Art. Don't worry, I thought you were the one doing the good science :).
I can't resist using this example in replying to your challenge.
On page 137, the supposed occurrence of vascular plant pollen and spores
from the Precambrian Hakatai shale is discussed. Of course, conventional
science claims that vascular land plants didn't exist during the Precambrian.
Here's the story...
In 1966, C. L. Burdick published a paper in the Creation Research Society
Quarterly (V.3 pp.38-50) claiming that vascular plant pollen had been isolated
from the Hakatai (you basically dissolve the shale in hydrofluoric acid and
examine the residue under a microscope). The pollen isolated was pine,
juniper, and Mormon tea. These are plants which grow today in the region.
Can you say "contamination" boys and girls?
Arthur V. Chadwick tried to duplicate Burdick's work in 1981 (Origins, V.3,
pp. 7-12). He collected 50 samples from the same locality, sealed the shale
at the site, washed the samples in filtered water, trimmed the samples to
remove the exterior surfaces, and took care to analyze his samples in a clean
and sterile lab. Guess what? No pollen.
You think that would be the end of it. But the intrepid "scientists" at
the ICR continued...
In 1988, G. F. Howe, et al., (Creation Research Society Quarterly, V.24, pp.
173-182) found pollen in two of the ten Hakatai samples they analyzed. But
listen to what YEC Steve Austin himself (p. 137) says about this...
"Pollen from pine was identified in the two preparations, which came from
either one or two rock samples of Hakatai shale. Less care was taken than
by Chadwick to avoid contamination, but the proceedure appears adequate.
The sample, or samples with pollen, were collected by chipping into three
inches of solid, 'unweathered' shale."
and...
"Are Howe, Williams, Matzko, and Lammerts confident that such small objects
as pollen grains did not infiltrate into the shale along fractures and between
mineral grains after the rock was lithified? They are confident, but not
certain."
Unbelievable!
Let me explain why this isn't science for those lacking common sense...
1. If Burdick had sent his paper to any reputable scientific journal, it
would have been sent back with a little note from an editor or reviewer
asking "What precautions did you take against modern-day contamination
of your sample?" I guess the CRSQ doesn't much care if the research
was sloppy or not.
2. The work by Howe, et al., was interesting in that they were willfully
lax in their procedures such that they didn't guard against contamination
as much as Chadwick did. Also note that Austin (a YEC) admits that
the positive results came from "either one or two rock samples." Don't
they even know?
3. I wonder why the two studies giving positive results were published in
the CRSQ while Art's paper was published in Origins. I'd be interested
in knowing, Art, if you originally sent a manuscript to the CRSQ and
why you chose to publish in Origins?
Additionally, I have, in my possession, a little tract by D. Russell
Humphreys called "Evidence for a Young World" (published by Answers in
Genesis) sent to me by a local young-earth creationist organization (the
Creation Science Association of Central Illinois). There is no date on the
tract, but the most recent references in the reference list are from 1991 so
I assume it was written around that time. It says...
"According the the evolutionary time-scale, pine trees could not have
appeared earlier than 350 million years ago. But fossil pine pollen has
been found in the Grand Canyon Precambrian Hakatai Shale, supposed to be
about 1.5 billion years old and definitely before any land life was supposed
to appear. The original research has been carefully repeated and checked
under strictly controlled conditions by a committee of scientists who
examined the fossil pollen with scanning electron microscopes and obtained
independent evaluations by other experts."
He then gives a reference to the paper in the CRSQ by Howe, et al. The
above statement by Humpreys is flat-out dishonest and Christians should be
ashamed of themselves for distributing this type of material and pawning it
off as "science."
Let me add that I'm doing geochemical work for my Ph.D. research. My
dissertation will have an entire section devoted to analytical procedures
and sample preparation. Why? Because your analytical results are worthless
if you don't take care in how you collect, prepare, and analyze your samples.
Any graduate student doing work like Burdick or Howe, et al., would fail their
dissertation defense and not receive a degree (at least not at the schools
I've attended).
Explain to me, Art, why the work by Burdick or Howe, et al., should be
considered "science."
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich Callsign KB9LCG s-schim@uiuc.edu Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 245 Natural History Building, Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 244-1246 http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/s-schim Deus noster refugium