Dallas researchers are out to scientifically prove the biblical version of creation

[TexasTowelie]

Most scientists believe Darwin got it right: Single-celled creatures evolved into complex ones, a process of natural selection and genetic adaptation that over eons turned a primordial swamp into shape-shifting cells, into ape-like primates, into people.

His theory is taught in virtually every science classroom in the world. It is used to demystify the complexity of life, translate the language of DNA, and make sense of geology, biology and paleontology.

Scientists call evolution a unifying theory, a weight-bearing wall that frames our understanding of the natural world.

But at the Institute for Creation Research in northwest Dallas, a group of nine Ph.D.s from places like Harvard and Los Alamos National Laboratory say all that molecules-to-man stuff is nonsense. And they’re out to prove it.

Read more: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20140814-dallas-researchers-are-out-to-scientifically-prove-the-biblical-version-of-creation.ece

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Well, let 'em have at it, and...

while they are wasting their time there, they won't be denying climate change.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. Oh, I'm sure they'll do a bit of moonlighting, what with all that funding they are going to have.

What a huge waste of resources.

(Evolution doesn't speak to the origins of life anyway, just the vast diversity of life.)

[arcane1]

28. $7 million annual budget, per the OP.

Money well wasted, I suppose.

[bravenak]

3. Great!! More money down the drain.

Can't use i to feed the poor. Of course not. I wonder if Ray Comfort and that kid from TV Kirk Cameron are doing the science part.

[Igel]

18. Meh.

It's said that Keynes, the guy who formulated much of the idea under one of the two big schools of economic theory today once was arguing about job creation in a bathroom. He saw a heap of towels (this was when nice bathrooms had stacks of cloth towels for patrons' use) on the counter. He swept them onto the floor and crumpled them, and said that he'd just helped create jobs by creating demand.

The point is that any money spent, even on work that is unnecessary and pointless, would increase demand and have a stimulative effect. It's not what it's spent on that's the stimulus effect (although there are wiser and less wise "investments"--if we feel we have to make it about us and get something for ourselves out of it). It's the act of spending that's at the core of the theory.

There were earth-moving machines back in the '30s. Yet the CCA and WPA often just used men with shovels, intentionally inefficient, because inefficiency required more employees.

View this as not "money down the drain," but money that wouldn't have been spent and instead would have been hoarded now used to provide jobs. Those workers will need to buy food, pay for shelter, and demand services. In so doing, they will increase demand and therefore help drive the recovery.

It's not money down the drain. It's a Keynesian stimulus.

[bravenak]

19. Fine!!

[cbayer]

21. I don't think I have ever heard such a clear explanation of this.

Economics is definitely not my strong suit, so I greatly appreciate the simplicity of lessons such as this.

Thanks!

[cbayer]

4. Watch the video. Embarrassing.

Here's the best line in the piece:

ICR’s professors are pariahs among their peers, their positions are ridiculed as “pseudo-science” by researchers around the world, and even many pastors reject the group’s literal reading of the Old Testament.

[silverweb]

5. This should be entertaining.

[Lordquinton]

6. "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" nt

[cbayer]

7. From a lecture on theistic evolution.

Had to look that up. Very interesting source.

[DetlefK]

8. They could start with a few basic problems:

* Are we getting the speed of light right? Why do we measure that some stars are more than 10,000 light-years away?

* Take an early-stage solar-system without planets. With the laws of gravity, as put forth by experiments such as dropping stuff and the gravitational quadrupole-moment of Mercury, how long would it take for a planet to form?

* If humans indeed got that old as the Bible says, there should be evidence for that in skeletons from ancient times.

* Exactly how does the C14-method fail?

* What amount of water did it take to carve the Grand Canyon? How fast was that stream when it had to happen during the one year the flood lasted? Where is the basin that stream carved at the end of the Grand Canyon?

[cbayer]

9. Lol, I think you should forward that to them and ask that they reply.

[Maedhros]

33. The Carbon-14 age dating technique fails for samples older than 50,000 years

owing to the relatively short half-life of C14.

The oldest rocks on Earth were dated using the Pb-Pb Isochron, which is very accurate even with samples billions of years old:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/pbpb.html

[safeinOhio]

10. they should start with something simple, like

taking a simple trip to find the 4 corners of the world

Isaiah 11:12, Isaiah 11:12

[cbayer]

11. Are you proposing something like the earth being round??

[safeinOhio]

12. It is…..

the Gospel truth.

[cbayer]

13. Is that the national claw hammer association that you are president of?

[safeinOhio]

14. Yes, it's the one

that searches out contracts for hidden claws.

[cbayer]

15. Those are a particular problem with Santa Claws.

SANTA CLAUS SERVICES AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT, by and between Santa Claus (“Santa”) and Children of all ages (“Recipients”), is for the continuation of traditional holiday gift determination and delivery services.

[tanyev]

16. That should keep them busy and out of trouble for a very long time.

[cbayer]

17. As noted in the article, they are not likely to be hired by any legitimate

organizations after joining up with this one, so hopefully they all have tenure.

[BillZBubb]

29. There is ALWAYS a job for a right wing pseudo-scientist.

[cbayer]

31. Other than the ICR, there really aren't that many.

Most legitimate institutions and labs would steer clear of these guys.

[BillZBubb]

35. You're kidding right?

The tobacco industry kept them employed forever, the coal and oil and gas industries are full of them. They are religious nuts like ICR, but they are right wing fanatics who misuse science.

[cbayer]

41. Full of religious fundamentalists that deny evolution and claim the world is 6000 years old?

I don't think so.

[TygrBright]

20. OMG... "We can't prove all these negatives and no one else can either, so we're right."

"Scientists?"

Srsly...?

Also, Dallas News needs to hire an editor. I live right down the road from LANL and I am utterly positive it is not now, and never has been, a degree-granting institution.

OK, well... a lot of BS, yes. But no B.S. degrees and CERTAINLY not PhDs.

Editing 101 Fail.

wearily,
Bright

[cbayer]

22. Ok, I found the page that lists their scientist members

http://www.icr.org/research/team/

There is one guy who worked at LANL for a while before joining ICR, but no one who got a degree there.

To be honest, the credentials on these guys are pretty remarkable. You really have to wonder what is up with them personally.

[TygrBright]

23. Creativity takes a multiplicity of forms.

Not all are useful or benign to the community of humanity.

regretfully,
Bright

[gcomeau]

26. Religion is up with them personally. It's not that mysterious.

They have been indoctrinated in religious beliefs that are at complete odds with reality, are unwilling to let go of those beliefs, and so look for any possible way to twist and turn and rationalize and deny all the conflicting information reality bombards them with.

All the while using the amount of effort they have to go through to (miserably fail to) do this as proof of how "strong their faith is".

[cbayer]

27. It seems so amazing that they have had some of the most elite

educational experiences and come out at this extreme.

They are very unusual, in this sense, and it has a lot more to do with their individual personalities and backgrounds than with any general "indoctrination".

Bottom line - they are odd. Very odd.

[gcomeau]

30. They're not all that unusual unfortunately.

They only seem unusual to you because you consider most religious beliefs which appeal to, to be clear *equally* whacky magical claims and phenomena about the nature of reality (all powerful superbeing impregnated a virgin with it's offspring and said offspring is now the vehicle through which humanity can be granted eternal life anyone?)... to be ok. While you recognize these whacky magical claims about the nature of reality to be insane.


Every religious scientist I have ever met engages in mental compartmentalization to various degrees. "Science is great! Until it collides with my religion, then it's excuse making time for why this or that data or test process or fundamental principle either doesn't apply to what I believe or has to be "reinterpreted" to be consistent with what I believe..."

[cbayer]

34. Yes, they are quite unusual.

As the article notes, they would be shunned by almost all legitimate organizations.

You are way too hostile and I am not at all in the mood for it.

[gcomeau]

36. I was not in any way hostile, let alone "way too" hostile.

I pointed out, completely calmly and with no shouting or cursing or anything, that there is no functional distinction between the craziness of one group of people making unjustifiable magic-based claims about the nature of reality and another group of people making unjustifiable magic-based claims about the nature of reality.

You seem to have a predisposition to viewing any statement you don't like as angry and hostile and an attack upon you. But the bottom line is you haven't addressed the substance of the statement. Yes, this particular group is shunned by other groups because their particular brand of crazy magic-based claims is more widely recognized *as* crazy, but that doesn't mean anything.

[WovenGems]

24. Well

What won't a guy do to get laid?

[gcomeau]

25. And by "prove the biblical version of creation"...

...they mainly mean "Write nonsensical articles declaring every other scientist is wrong while conducting no actual legitimate research and spending all our time playing for positive press exposure from gullible scientifically ignorant journalists who don't belong on a science beat"...


These idiots have a long history in this area.

[immoderate]

32. It's a family business...

Employing six members of the Morris family.

And they are touted as spending a small percentage of their income on administration. So what is it spent on?

---imm

[Prophet 451]

37. This should be amusing

Let's see them actually gather and present evidence the,

[TexasTowelie]

38. What do you foresee,

thine prophet?

[Prophet 451]

39. Gaze into my crystal balls

I foresee that this new endevour will involve them writing a lot of stuff that has either already been answered (PRATTs) or that science admits are as yet unknown, a lot of harping on about already acknowledged hoaxes and an eventual collapse into outright fraud when no-one cares. Naturally, they shall be championed by Rick Perry, Kirk Cameron, Roy Comfort and Conservapedia.

[goldent]

40. I'd be OK with this kind of thing if

the work was done rigorously, of which I have doubts. Having some researchers trying to disprove Darwin is just as valuable as researchers who would love to disprove Einstein (more than a few of those!).