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.
Related Stories
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That lawsuit was withdrawn by Snelling on June 28.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: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @03:41PM (26 children)
I don't see any necessary connection with creationism here. What is the problem with someone exploring this possibility?
(Score: 5, Informative) by https on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:35PM (15 children)
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.
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:52PM (10 children)
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:
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday May 28 2017, @08:15PM (5 children)
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
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
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.
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)
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)
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
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 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)
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
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
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)
Plate tectonics were also ruled out not too long ago.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @06:40PM (1 child)
Are these the same tectonic plates talked about in the bible?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday May 29 2017, @01:43AM
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
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?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @06:12PM (9 children)
The same problem as with exploring the possibility we are all surrounded by invisible clowns: complete lack of evidence for the hypothesis and overwhelming amount of evidence that contradicts it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @06:36PM (7 children)
"Complete lack of evidence?" There are cultures all around the world that have the same story about a huge flood sometime in the distant past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @06:44PM (4 children)
Peoples all around the world also believe in a giant sky fairy who watches to see if we touch ourselves at night and, if we're really good, helps our football team win.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @09:01PM (3 children)
What if we touch ourselves during the day? Or does he only hover over the night side of the earth?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @10:59PM (2 children)
Son, don't touch yourself. It ain't worth it. Be extra careful not to shake off too much after you pee. And as for wiping after pooping... that's a thin sheet of paper away from sodomy. If your finger slips thru, boy you're fucked. He is watching.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @11:42PM
That's why I don't wipe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @12:21AM
I have an important safety tip for this weekend! I'm guessing I'm not the only person eating hot wings, so MAKE SURE to wash your hands THOROUGHLY after you've had your fill! Otherwise the giant sky fairy will give your genitals a sample of the fires of hell when you whack off!
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday May 29 2017, @12:04AM
Right, because destructive floods are so rare and people only recently developed a sense of hyperbole.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday May 29 2017, @12:07AM
Every culture experiences floods even the ones in the driest of deserts. Flood myths would be universal anyway. Thus, the widespread presence of flood myths is not evidence for a global flood. It's just evidence that all parts of the world can flood.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @06:37PM
Why do you hate the invisible dragon in my garage? :(
(Score: 2, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 28 2017, @03:52PM (6 children)
from TFA: "On Jan. 30, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) stepped in on behalf of Snelling, requesting via a letter to NPS Congressional Liaison Elaine Hackett that the permit be issued.
"I am confident there is a misunderstanding regarding the denial or lack of response to Dr. Snelling's request for issuing the permit," Franks wrote. "Because I have the utmost confidence in the integrity of the National Park Service, I am sure there would be no discrimination based on different viewpoints.""
If the park service had a real reason to deny the man a research permit, they would have offered that reason to Rep. Franks. If the service were discriminating against the doctor on religious grounds, they would have caved under little or no pressure. I wonder if the park service would have denied a permit to a Muslim, or a Hindu, a Jew, or any other religion?
Personally, I don't give a damn how old the earth is. I'm only going to be using it for a few more years anyway. If I intended to stay here for several eons, I might be more concerned about the planet's age. It would be a bitch to get comfortable, then have the whole thing just cave in because it's so ancient!! Nahh, I'm just renting, until something better comes along.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday May 28 2017, @05:41PM (3 children)
Well, the complaint submitted by Snelling mentions that the park service sent out his proposal to three mainstream geologists for peer review, who all claimed his "research" was BS. In fact, Snelling seems to be making an issue of discrimination out of the reviewers' comments too, since a couple of them expressed frustration with having to review such nonsense (one of them suggesting that the park service "screen out" submitters with credentials that suggest they have "inappropriate interests").
So, Snelling doesn't just want to go to war against the park service, he wants to claim mainstream geology is basically discriminatory. Which it is. The scientific study of geology has the right to say some things (including some religious views that deny accepted geological facts) are WRONG. That, to me, is where the tension lies here. If Snelling wants to come to the park and collect samples to prove the veracity of Noah's flood, and he submits a proposal to that effect, I'd actually be more likely to support his claim.
But he doesn't want to do that. Instead, he wants to CLAIM on paper that he's a "scientist" (which assumes a certain degree of adherence to empirical methodology) and hide his true aims in his proposal, all the while asserting in his public biographies on the web (noted by one of the reviewers) that he's dedicated to the "ministry" of proving creationism and the literal words of the Bible. Proving a pre-existing theory (where there is no real possibility of disproving that theory, only "ministry" to prove it) may be a research methodology for something, but it is NOT a "scientific" research methodology. Hence, peer reviewers are quite right to question the validity of his proposal, as "geology."
If he wants to come there and do his sampling as a matter of "religious studies" or something, sure, let him. But by doing so, he relinquishes the "stamp of approval" that says what he is doing is recognized as "science" by his peers.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday May 28 2017, @11:43PM (2 children)
Let's say they let him collect those samples -- and have another geologist and a park ranger follow him around. He then chooses the samples, collects them, and splits them at the collection spot with the geologist. Afterwards, he gets to use the samples to prove his point; and the geologist has the option to similarly examine them and provide an alternative, and likely peer-reviewable analysis, against the same rocks -- or make the examination/analysis part of an undergrad lab in a geology class. If you really want to be extra safe, you could require the researchers swap samples after they were done with them.
That wouldn't be discriminatory, now would it?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday May 29 2017, @12:10AM (1 child)
Why? What a waste of time, human resources, money and in the end, no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to make him or other creationists believe they are mistaken. Blind faith is inherently irrational, and it is inherently irrational to expect rational behavior from creationists. Subjecting the proposal to peer review is good enough
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @01:38PM
Why? Because for every loud mouthed holier than thou holy rolling bible thumper who vehemently sticks to their dogma, there are 3 or 4 quieter sitting on the fence I don't really believe all of this and I'm largely doing this because my parents did this types that might actually listen. This man whom I will refuse to call a scientist is obviously one of the dogmatic ones. Those who are completely deluded are lost, but not all are not equally deluded and can change with enough of the right circumstances. No there are not some magical words to say to make the extremely devout instantly disavow their beliefs, but the fence sitters are the ones we need to do the kind of things like a simultaneous peer review. I'd say if one person where to change their thinking then it's with it. We can "save" the fence sitters from "being saved"
(Score: 0, Troll) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday May 28 2017, @07:53PM
Haha, that's pretty good! For anybody who missed it, Runaway is clearly poking fun at the idea of a feminist programming language! Same situation. If it weren't for all the misogynerds and if womyn-born-womyn [wikipedia.org] had designing computing principles and programming languages [wikipedia.org], the feminists say that computer programs wouldn't have any bugs!
(No need to click the links. Everybody here is already aware of their accomplishments.)
Here we have all those damned elitist godless geologists giving a clearly biased smackdown to the equally valid viewpoint that various legendary cataclysms all describe the same event! I mean, clearly the view that the world is 6,000 years old is equally valid, probably more valid!, just like the view that the reason there are no womyn-born-womyn programmers is because existing programming languages reify some kind of rape something or another! In fact, if those PC obsessed geologists would just apply Occam's razor, they'd realize that only one global cataclysm exactly 4,300 years ago that submerged all land on the planet is sufficient to explain what those hoity-toity stuffy pantses insist were only at best continent-scale floods that didn't even submerge Everest!
You're exactly right! If it'd been a Mooooooooslim who wanted to prove the world is 6,000 years old, those bigoted geologists would bend over backwards to falsify over 200 years of earth science!
Er, I assume that's what you're doing anyway….
(One protip! Introducing the idea of a Hindu geologist might be complicated since that religion seems to readily accept that the age of the universe is in the order of billions of years [wikipedia.org]. You don't want to give somebody such an obvious rebuttal as that! My doctor says I have to stay away from drinking games!)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 29 2017, @12:14AM
(Score: 5, Informative) by bradley13 on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:11PM (2 children)
According to his Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org], his last scientific paper on Geology was in 1990. His publications since then (as listed in the complaint) are exclusively in creationist journals. Sorry, but that's just as relevant as publishing in any other "write only" journal.
As such, I expect that the park service does not consider him to be an active scientist, i.e., he would need an especially good proposal to justify collecting his samples. So - again looking at the complaint - he submitted three "peer reviews" of his planned study. But these are also from the fairy tale brigade: Dr. Timothy Clary (Instutute for Creation Research - ICR), Dr. John Whitmore of Cedarville University (studied at the ICR, now teaching at a fundamentalist Christian university), and Mr. Raymond Strom (also associated with the ICR). So no neutral or independent opinions at all - the reviewers are just his good buddies doing him a favor.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:42PM (1 child)
It gets even more bizarre if you click the first reference [noanswersingenesis.org.au] on the Wikipedia page. It appears that early in his career, Snelling lived a sort of "double life" publishing legitimate geology research in mainstream journals that clearly acknowledged the mainstream scientific consensus for the accepted age of the earth, all the while also publishing articles in Creationist sources too that completely disagreed with his mainstream articles. And neither version of this guy apparently ever cited articles of the other version.
So what's the deal here? Was he just pretending to be a "real geologist" for years, adopting mainstream scientific views in his research that he knew to be false while publishing his "real" research in creationist literature? Or does/did he actually believe that the creationist stuff is hokum?
Either way -- whether you believe his creation science or not -- the fact that he cites scientific credentials he obtained saying one thing to bolster his claims saying something completely antithetical doesn't exactly exude credibility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @06:04PM
This is pretty common in biomed, most people just do whatever it takes to publish papers. If you ask they will even tell you this. "Do what you need to to survive", they say.
(Score: 2, Touché) by its_gonna_be_yuge! on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:39PM (9 children)
Just to get this nonsense out of the system, let this creationist go and collect samples alongside a certified parks geologist. Every sample Snelling takes, the parks geologist also takes. And when the creationist puts out his religious tome, the parks geologist can come back with real geology instead of religiously biased tripe.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday May 28 2017, @05:07PM (2 children)
Maybe he will ruin something during collection or open the flood gates to the nut crowd that also wants to collect samples. A lot of sampling can become a big burden in many small steps.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday May 28 2017, @08:30PM (1 child)
Have you actually BEEN to the grand canyon?
Every Geologist on earth could sample that area for the next million years and never make a dent.
Since the sample would remain property of the Park Service they need only stipulate that the samples would be returned or be made available for other geologists to study as well.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday May 28 2017, @09:01PM
Seems they want to throw some sand in this researchers machinery then.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @06:53PM (3 children)
Yeah, that will silence them once and for all.... /slaps_forehead
It will just be fodder for another 10 years of "teach the controversy" public lectures between geology and bible studies. Sharing a platform with this type of quackery really brings creationism into disrepute. The freedom-hating geologists need to start putting good American Christian principles FIRST and quit destroying the traditional family values that our nation has been built upon for over 250 years.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday May 28 2017, @10:06PM (2 children)
I thought family values included the earth being 6,000 years old?
Ok, ok. There's something here. Before my mommy and daddy went completely bonkers, they believed that the account of the creation of the Earth in Genesis was accurate from the point of view that a day to Yahweh may be a billion years long, such as in Hinduism one Brahma day lasting billions of years [wikipedia.org] in human reckoning. Of course, they also believed that the story in Genesis was prescient, and thus was the beginning of the descent into madness.
There need be no conflict between religion and science. There is only conflict because religious nutjobs want there to be conflict. Asshats like this guy who wants to find evidence of a world-wide cataclysm instead of merely one of the major flood events during the end of the last glaciation cycle destroys the credibility of a philosophical tradition that reaches back for thousands of years. If Yahweh must be the one god to rule them all, why must he in the darkness bind them? Why can't Yahweh have created a magnificent universe with dizzying scales to humble even the most ambitious of human imaginations?
Well he can't, because gays apparently. (And why can't gays be included in family values as people who contribute to the capability of a family to care for children? Because reasons. Because apparently every married couple with 2.5 kids are an island. Because those cis+hets I keep hearing about never divorce, though I think I've only met a dozen of these virtuous people who never divorce in my whole life. Only heathens include gays in the extended family.)
I guess we can't have family values unless Yahweh is a small god who is only capable of producing stuff fully created instead of slow-cooking it for billions and billions of years. So, I now dub Yahweh the god of fast food! More important gods like Brahma don't have all kalpa! If it's not ready on a time scale of merely thousands of years, he's going to get ahold of Yahweh's manager and have the punk fired!
Fucking millennial gods. Millennials can't do anything right!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 29 2017, @12:31AM (1 child)
In my father and mother's immediate families, there were 7 siblings in total who all married, of which most (four) have married and never experienced divorce. Their children tend to stick together as well. So I guess, what I'm saying here is that I have more than a dozen such "virtuous people" fairly closely related to me who have stayed married for life. It seems a cultural thing, but there's a lot of people out there who've managed to stay the course and stay life partners. I'm not going to claim that this actually is virtuous or that everyone should do it. To the contrary, I think there are a lot of people who for one reason or another aren't suitable for life-long marriage and it would be immoral to try to shoehorn them into this framework.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday May 29 2017, @02:05AM
That's the most sane, reasonable, and dare I say it enlightened thing I've ever heard you say. I'm genuinely impressed.
...who are you and what have you done with the real Mr. Hallow?!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @12:05AM
> And when the creationist puts out his religious tome, the parks geologist can come back with real geology instead of religiously biased tripe.
Good idea. Is there time to make it happen before Mike Pence becomes president? Because he won't be onboard with the idea.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday May 29 2017, @02:12PM
Yeah, let's let every idiot with a shovel go dig up our national parks.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Funny) by deimtee on Sunday May 28 2017, @05:14PM
Leaving aside his general nutjobbery, what's the problem with collecting samples? The more samples everyone takes the bigger the canyon gets!
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @07:16PM (1 child)
it is religion based discrimination even if he wanted to collect water to prove it's not made of h2o.
How big the samples need to be BTW?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @08:14PM
He wants a rock that's the same size as Ayers rock.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Sunday May 28 2017, @08:46PM (3 children)
Anyway: Why do "scientists" like this feel any need to campaign against actual scientific knowledge?
I mean, the easy answer is "God created the earth to look old". Fine, it all looks like it's billions of years old, but God created it yesterday. There's no disproving such a thing, they can believe it all they want, and the rest of us can quietly ignore them.
Seriously, why do they feel the need to go searching for ways to "prove" their belief? I'm not religious, so maybe I'm missing the big clue here - can someone explain?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday May 28 2017, @09:55PM (1 child)
Except that's not what most "Young Earth Creationists" want to claim. Yes, philosophically, I can literally claim God created the entire universe yesterday. Yes, he implanted memories in you that make you think you lived a life before, but you're wrong -- you were created yesterday. Prove otherwise, I'll wait.
Of course, that sounds absurd even to the most dedicated Bible thumper. They're willing to doubt, but they're generally not willing to accept something that sounds quite that silly. Very few religious folks take seriously the jokes about "God created the dinosaurs to confuse the Satanic scientists..." kind of logic.
It's because they don't view it as a "belief" as you do. They believe it literally happened. It's not a "belief" -- it's HISTORY. Mainstream scientists either don't "get it" because they're all just really bad at interpreting or overlooking evidence, or maybe there's an anti-religious conspiracy of sorts. Just like any conspiracy theorists, they're always in search of one more "fact" that shows them they know the TRUTH.
Also, it's a PR thing, which is why I assume the National Park Service went a little out of its way to deny this in the first place. ALL science is "technical mumbo jumbo" to most people, and Young Earth Creationists are tired of being told "But science says you're wrong!" So, they get somebody else with some credentials to make up some of their own "technical mumbo jumbo" and then say, "We have to teach the controversy! See, there are 'scientists' on both sides!"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Monday May 29 2017, @12:18AM
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Monday May 29 2017, @01:50PM
Because if they can prove that in a fit of pique God summoned a flood to wipe out everyone and everything on the planet except one breeding family and one pair of every single creature in existence, then they can back up their claim that it was all willed into being by the same tantrum throwing deity.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Lagg on Sunday May 28 2017, @09:30PM
There's a 50/50 chance the losers in this state will side with the guy that can't seem to figure out if he wants to science or not. Or if he wants to science at all in the next 30 years. Could also possibly be a reason this is where the lawsuit is. People are aware of how friendly AZ is towards this kind of thinking:
He's taken dozens of trips to the Grand Canyon. Wonder if he's tried shit like this before and it's only been successful because of the political climate. Also I bet 'bout tree fiddy he was chased out of Australia for being a fucking asshole and AZ/America is the only other asshole that'll take him in. Since AZ is a desolate wasteland, the Grand Canyon is the only monument he can attention whore from within these restrictions.
P.S. The asshole refused to say where he wanted to get samples from and the methodology. Because he's a stupid asshole. Even though i'd be perfectly fine with a park service saying no on the basis of flawed methodology - it's not like that. He's steadfastly refusing to do things right. Likely because he knows he's not going to find anything to support his claims.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @11:38PM (1 child)
...is just a plain moron.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @05:09AM
He can collect rocks from his head.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @12:42PM
Does this mean I now have an equal chance as real scientists to book time on the Hubble Space Telescope as long as I'm trying to find God?