---

From: Usenet To: All Msg #95, Feb-02-93 09:10AM Subject: Creation Research Facilities Organization: University of Lowell From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu Message-ID: <1993Feb2.121007.1@woods.ulowell.edu> Newsgroups: talk.origins Somebody wanted to know if Creationists were actually doing research, and if so where. The Creation Research Society has two research facilities, plus another soon to be opened. They are: Grand Canyon Experiment Station- Paulden, Arizona Grasslands Experiment Station- Weatherford, Oklahoma Van Andel Research Center- Chino Valley, Arizona They do research in the following areas (and probably others too): Reevaluation of geology and origin of the Grand Canyon Limits in the variation of animal and plant populations Reevaluation of the fossil record Complete study of geological dating methods Origin of the universe Composition of ancient atmosphere --Ray ====================================================== Imagine that! Scientific research done by creationists. I look forward to seeing results published in refereed scientific journals. I imagine we will be treated to witnessing stunning research techniques like the following: (The following was written by Rob Day a couple years ago) One creationist, E. Norbert Smith, wanted to prove that water-dwelling animals would have survived the flood by staying in the water. This is a problem as there are both salt-water and fresh-water marine organisms. (Stop me if I'm going too fast for you, Bob.) Smith's conjecture was that, despite the cataclysmic, overwhelming, earth-shattering, mountain-forming (you get the idea, Bob?) deluge, the salt water and fresh water would not have mixed completely, and that there would have been pockets of salt water (that the saltwater fishies would have somehow found and hung out in), and ditto for the freshwater fishies. Smith's attempt to prove this was to take a small aquarium, put some sand in it, fill it partially with salt water, and put a crab in this. He then (in an attempt to simulate the conditions during the cataclysmic, overwhelming, etc., etc. flood), FLOATED A PIECE OF PAPER ON THE SALT WATER, filled the rest of tank with fresh water and, finally, for realism, put a small goldfish in the fresh water. To his chagrin, he found that, after several days, the water mixed quite thoroughly. Anyone with the sense of a urinal deodorizer disc would have concluded that the experiment was a failure. But not E. Norbert Smith, oh no. What Smith lacked in common sense, he made up for in tenacity. He repeated the experiment, this time LEAVING OUT THE FISH. To his glee, there was a difference in salinity levels after several days. Success! Vindication! (Bozo logic). - Brett J. Vickers bvickers@ics.uci.edu ================================================================= So it seems, from the above list, that the creation "research" is in fact doing NO research, but merely attacking the research and methods used by everyone else under the label "re-evaluating". While I find this actually beneficial in one sense -- science is hardly perfect, and I appreciate people who find errors whatever their motivations -- this is not doing science or research. And why should I trust the evaluation of scientific research by people who are demonstrably incapable of doing any of their own? Furthermore, the attempts they have made at "re-evaluating" are clearly biased by religious pre-conceptiong, hidden agendas, and political motivations. An institution which REQUIRES a faith in a particular belief system in order to carry out "research" is as much as a demonstration of this as is necessary. Finally, most of these attempts at re-evaluating are limited to misunderstanding, misquoting, misinterpreting, and occaisionally outright lying. Often, the arguements are thinly veiled ad-hominem attacks on the originators/supporters of the theories being evalutated -- witness the "evolution leads to communism, child abuse, and tooth decay" blather that is often repeated here. (Aside: a while back, someone visited the creationist "museum" in California, and this type of attack was a common theme.) This sort of nonsense is not even relevant to the science that is claimed to being evalutated. In short, creation science isn't science. At least not as done by these institutions. >--Ray Benjamin T. Dehner Dept. of Physics and Astronomy btd@iastate.edu Iowa State University Ames, IA 50011

---

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank