Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Sunday May 28 2017, @03:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the why-so-choosy-about-rocks? dept.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/creationist-geologist-sues-us-park-service-after-it-rejects-request-collect-samples

The Interior Department is facing a lawsuit from a Christian geologist who claims he was not allowed to collect rocks from Grand Canyon National Park because of his creationist beliefs.

In the suit filed earlier this month, the Australian geologist, Andrew Snelling, says that religious discrimination was behind the National Park Service's (NRS's) decision to deny him a permit to gather samples from four locations in the park.

Snelling had hoped to gather the rocks to support the creationist belief that a global flood about 4,300 years ago was responsible for rock layers and fossil deposits around the world.

NPS's actions "demonstrate animus towards the religious viewpoints of Dr. Snelling," the complaint alleges, "and violate Dr. Snelling's free exercise rights by imposing inappropriate and unnecessary religious tests to his access to the park."

The lawsuit was filed May 9 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. NPS has yet to respond to the allegations.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by https on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:35PM (15 children)

    by https (5248) on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:35PM (#516784) Journal

    The problem is that it has been ruled out. Sedimentation and erosion rates are well-understood by, well, people who build safe bridges. Calling it a "possibility" reveals either willful ignorance or an agenda to fuel willful ignorance.

    --
    Offended and laughing about it.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:52PM (10 children)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:52PM (#516795) Journal

    Not to mention that the guy is one of the most outspoken "creationist geologists" in the world. Claiming that there might not be a "necessary connection to creationism" here is being blind to who this guy is. Here's his most prominent web bio [answersingenesis.org], including the following statement:

    His very firm conviction in the authority and veracity of the Scriptures brought him to the creation/evolution controversy early in his teens, so that by the commencement of university studies, Andrew already had a clear scriptural perspective on the literalness of Creation and Noah’s Flood, and an unmistakable call from the Lord for a life-long involvement in creationist ministry.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday May 28 2017, @08:15PM (5 children)

      by frojack (1554) on Sunday May 28 2017, @08:15PM (#516860) Journal

      being blind to who this guy is

      So why is that justification for letting him collect a hand full of rocks? Assuming he follows the same restrictions as other geologists.

      If he has actual geologist credentials, doesn't it amount to something like a hate crime to say no to him, based solely on his belief system?

      Would you like it if your belief system was brought into question if you wanted to gather harmless amounts of data on property that happened to belong to all citizens. Do you also suggest maybe religious tests would be appropriate?

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @09:13PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @09:13PM (#516876)

        he could just as easily ask Navajo or Hopi for permisssion to get samples outside of GCNP. Or ask a private landholder alomg the Colorado River.

        He's grandstanding on purpose, to try and create an awkward position for everyone. At thrle very least gives him ammo to say "see? we're being persecuted by the godless athests and bureaucrats!"

        He changed his name from Richard C. Hoagblum it looks like, moving on from NASA coverups of ancient alien architecture on Mars...

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday May 28 2017, @09:30PM

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday May 28 2017, @09:30PM (#516881) Journal

        If he has actual geologist credentials, doesn't it amount to something like a hate crime to say no to him, based solely on his belief system?

        No, it's not a "hate crime" to refuse a proposed scientific study that is unscientific, as determined by peer review. He needs to justify that his study has the potential for scientific merit, whether he's credentialed or not. I would ask the same of any scientist applying to do similar studies. I have absolutely no problem with any person who adheres to any faith doing scientific research. When such beliefs, however, contradict the foundations of the entire scientific discipline which he claims to be part of AND are a central issue in a proposed study, that's a problem -- even then, though, it's up to his peer scientists to determine the validity of such research. They determined this was not a productive scientific study.

        Would you like it if your belief system was brought into question if you wanted to gather harmless amounts of data on property that happened to belong to all citizens. Do you also suggest maybe religious tests would be appropriate?

        As I already noted in another post here, I don't necessarily have a problem with him gathering materials from a public site if he admits the true purpose of his study, i.e., to manufacture evidence that will go to support a predetermined religious theory. If he applies for a grant under "religious studies" or perhaps permission to gather materials for "creative fictional writing," maybe we give him the okay.

        But that would require him to be honest about what he's actually doing here: "I propose to remove samples from the Grand Canyon to prove the Bible is the literal word of God." Instead, he wants to pretend to be an objective scientist, who might actually disprove his theory -- except his own public biography openly admits that he's already predetermined what the evidence MUST conclude. That's not science.

      • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday May 29 2017, @12:01AM (2 children)

        by hemocyanin (186) on Monday May 29 2017, @12:01AM (#516922) Journal

        I believe farting unicorns blew out the Grand Canyon as part of religious belief system. I deserve a permit to go in and dig up what belongs to all Americans to further my religion. Thank you for your support.

        • (Score: 2) by Justin Case on Monday May 29 2017, @05:11PM (1 child)

          by Justin Case (4239) on Monday May 29 2017, @05:11PM (#517225) Journal

          You infidel! It was the Flying Spaghetti Monster that dug the canyon. I will be applying for a permit to keep chopping up the canyon rocks until I find the spaghetti fossil evidence.

          (Hint: If you start from an "ism", like Creationism, you aren't a scientist. The Canyon has millions of visitors per year, and the National Park Service doesn't hand out permits for everyone who wants a sample to take one home.)

          • (Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Tuesday May 30 2017, @11:09PM

            by Osamabobama (5842) on Tuesday May 30 2017, @11:09PM (#517966)

            It was nothing as grand as the mythical events described. The Grand Canyon was created by throngs of tourists removing rocks as souvenirs. Over time, this led to significant erosion of what was once a high plain.

            --
            Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday May 28 2017, @08:33PM (3 children)

      by frojack (1554) on Sunday May 28 2017, @08:33PM (#516864) Journal

      By the way, its odd you chose to rant on this subject after choosing a Nom-du-Soylent of a guy who was was a German Jesuit scholar and polymath who published around 40 major works, most notably in the fields of comparative religion, geology, and medicine.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by t-3 on Sunday May 28 2017, @09:32PM (1 child)

        by t-3 (4907) on Sunday May 28 2017, @09:32PM (#516883)

        The majority of (western) science was funded and conducted by the Catholic church in those days... Science was viewed as a way to better understand God by better understanding of Creation. The crazy reality-denial is a relatively new thing in Christianity, and still nowhere near mainstream.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday May 28 2017, @10:24PM

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday May 28 2017, @10:24PM (#516897) Journal

          still nowhere near mainstream

          I have to disagree there. While the most recent Gallup poll [gallup.com] shows a decline, 38% of Americans still agree with the statement that: "God created humans in present form within the last 10,000 years."

          It's definitely a mainstream view. That's why stuff like this matters -- because "Creation science" promoting the "Young Earth" theory is something a significant portion of the public believes in, even if 99% of scientists think it's mostly nonsense.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday May 28 2017, @10:14PM

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday May 28 2017, @10:14PM (#516896) Journal

        You're really barking up the wrong tree here. It was barely a week ago on this site that I vigorously defended [soylentnews.org] the possibility of doing science and religion at the same time, particularly historically. I even came to the defense of my 17th-century Jesuit colleagues. In the present case, though, this guy stopped doing science about 25 years ago and only wants to do religion, while pretending it's science.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by kaszz on Sunday May 28 2017, @05:37PM (2 children)

    by kaszz (4211) on Sunday May 28 2017, @05:37PM (#516819) Journal

    Plate tectonics were also ruled out not too long ago.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @06:40PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @06:40PM (#516839)

      Are these the same tectonic plates talked about in the bible?

      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday May 29 2017, @01:43AM

        by kaszz (4211) on Monday May 29 2017, @01:43AM (#516962) Journal

        No idea. But plate tectonics was not accepted science fact in the 1940s. Not until 1967 did it became more or less established.

  • (Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Sunday May 28 2017, @07:38PM

    by jimtheowl (5929) on Sunday May 28 2017, @07:38PM (#516850)
    Really just curious..

    Are you claiming that a global flood about 4,300 years ago has been ruled out because people building bridges have done the research, or that a global flood has been ruled out all together?