SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Remember when we discussed Rocks Request Rejection issue back in May? The discussion was nothing if not spirited.
Andrew Snelling, who got a PhD in geology before joining Answers in Genesis, continues working to interpret the canyon in a way that is consistent with his views. In 2013, he requested permission from the National Park Service to collect some rock samples in the canyon for a new project to that end.
...
The National Park Service sent Snelling's proposal out for review, having three academic geologists who study the canyon look at it. Those reviews were not kind. Snelling didn't get his permit. Snelling sued.
Well It turns out the guy gets to harvest his bag-o-rocks because the the National Park Service has decided its easier to give a few rocks than take the religious flack.
That lawsuit was withdrawn by Snelling on June 28. According to a story in The Australian, Snelling withdrew his suit because the National Park Service has relented and granted him his permit. He will be able to collect about 40 fist-sized samples, provided that he makes the data from any analyses freely available.
Further he promises to publish his findings in a peer reviewed journal. Perhaps even his own journal. Perhaps even his own peers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:14PM (7 children)
>"... you can't be a real scientist if you start out with an answer and then selectively interpret evidence to support the answer which you're already convinced of."
A real scientist can start out with an answer and objectively interpret evidence in order to judge whether or not it is correct. How do you know whether he is going to be selective or objective? The real question is how does the park service decide who is allowed to collect samples. Do they have a limit on how much is collected per year? If so, do the applications exceed that limit? Are they denying Snelling priority, or are they trying to quash the propagation of his beliefs?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:31PM (3 children)
Removing anything at all from the Grand Canyon is generally prohibited. Having every tourist grab a souvenir would strip very scientifically valuable material from the site. Taking any samples for research is very restricted. A few scientists per year are allowed to take small samples for qualified projects. Initially the idea of letting some crackpot young-earth nut to try to prove his ridiculous, totally discredit hypothesis was not granted for obvious reasons. But then here come the Bible-thumpers, and they raised such a fuss that the Park Service relented.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:35AM (2 children)
I wonder if I could get a bag of souvenirs if I say I'm looking for evidence of the FSM.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:16PM (1 child)
If you can get sufficient public support, probably.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:44PM
I kind of wonder whether those exact same 3 peer reviewer scientists would support him.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:46PM (1 child)
What about "Answers in Genesis" do you not understand?
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Saturday July 15 2017, @02:28AM
Why Phil Collins, SEGA, and Hyundai haven't sued yet.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by FakeBeldin on Thursday July 13 2017, @11:17AM
They send out proposals for peer review. From the fine article:
Moreover, also from the fine article:
So he himself does not think that these rocks would be scientifically interesting - they can only substantiate a thesis that he believes already has sufficient evidence, but not refute it.
So basically, he thinks his rock collection is not of any scientific value. That's a point the reviewers and he agree upon.