Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the rocky-way-to-start-research dept.

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That lawsuit was withdrawn by Snelling on June 28.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.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:03PM (3 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:03PM (#538340)

    Scientists work from the evidence forward.

    Real scientists work from the evidence forward, some scientists are more "real" than others, I doubt any human being is 100% pure scientist in this respect, conclusions are always drawn from a combination of collected evidence and existing knowledge aka prejudice. Even the manner in which the evidence is collected is rarely free from prejudice.

    Do I think this guy is going to find anything "concrete" to back up his purported views? Nope, but when the park service asks why a study is being done, they're already getting into the business of revealing prejudices in the data being collected and analyzed. Good, academically and emotionally secure, scientists would let this guy do his worst and then see if he has come up with anything reproduce-able.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 5, Touché) by mhajicek on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:37AM (2 children)

    by mhajicek (51) on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:37AM (#538581)

    This guy has already stated that no matter what he finds he will not change his mind about his preconceptions. That's as much as admitting he's not doing science.

    --
    The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
    • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Thursday July 13 2017, @11:20AM (1 child)

      by FakeBeldin (3360) on Thursday July 13 2017, @11:20AM (#538660) Journal

      Not only that - he also thinks his rock-finding mission is of no value to science:

      “Even if I don’t find the evidence I think I will find, it wouldn’t assault my core beliefs,” Snelling told The Australian. “We already have evidence that is consistent with a great flood that swept the world.”

      So, according to the guy himself, Grand Canyon rocks are not needed for evidence for his pet theories... so why does he need them again?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 13 2017, @11:35AM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday July 13 2017, @11:35AM (#538662)

        It's a big canyon, and claiming that there is "one true science" would be rather insecure of those who practice it. Yeah, this guy is a wing-nut, but if "the science" can't handle a couple of loose wing-nuts, it needs to grow up and figure out how to.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]