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That lawsuit was withdrawn by Snelling on June 28.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

Related Stories

Politics: Creationist Geologist Sues the National Park Service Over Grand Canyon Sample Collection 58 comments

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.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:49PM (28 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:49PM (#538275)

    What crappy school did this guy get his PhD from? They really should revoke it: 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.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:01PM (#538291)

      OK. Let's revoke the citizenship of terrorists. You're a terrorist.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:06PM (7 children)

      by Nerdfest (80) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:06PM (#538295)

      The PhD just means that he's capable of thought and reason. It doesn't mean he needs to actually be thoughtful or reasonable.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:12PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:12PM (#538300)

        PhD means he has done original research. It doesn't mean what he's doing at the moment qualifies as scientific.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:35PM (2 children)

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:35PM (#538317)

          Yes, but the degree basically means the school is vouching for him in the degree field (in this case, the science of geology) and claiming him to be competent in that field. He clearly is not.

          Obviously, my idea opens a big bag of worms and really isn't workable: should colleges monitor graduates for decades to make sure they aren't going off the rails? Should a medical school revoke the degree of a doctor who turns into an alternative-medicine-practicing quack? But I would like to point out that in actual professional associations, they absolutely will revoke your license if you prove yourself incompetent. Lawyers who do really rotten things to abuse their position are disbarred and unable to practice law. Doctors who commit malpractice can lost their license.

          • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:46PM (1 child)

            by krishnoid (1156) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:46PM (#538323)

            should colleges monitor graduates for decades to make sure they aren't going off the rails? Should a medical school revoke the degree of a doctor who turns into an alternative-medicine-practicing quack?

            Sure, why not? They could offer a small tuition rebate or gift card for school clothing yearly to anyone who joins the alumni association and keeps their information up-to-date.

            • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:26PM

              by PiMuNu (3823) on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:26PM (#538672)

              In the UK, we have the General Medical Council who license medical doctors to practice. This is effectively what you are talking about. No such provision exists for non-medical doctors

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:57PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:57PM (#538333)

        I thought the PhD just meant that he managed to please his defense committee sufficiently to get them to sign off. There are many ways to please a review committee, and I've met more than one PhD who seemed to get their degree awarded as a way for the committee to get the individual out of the institution where they won't be bothered by them anymore.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2) by drussell on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:25PM

        by drussell (2678) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:25PM (#538359) Journal

        The PhD just means that he's capable of thought and reason. It doesn't mean he needs to actually be thoughtful or reasonable.

        Are you sure about that?

        Have you seen those morons from the Batteriser debacle, for instance? Those guys are PhDs....

        Though, I suppose, maybe they do actually know what they're doing, yet just trying to pull a snowjob on everyone else, but I'm not so sure they're always even as capable of thought and reason as you may suspect...

        :facepalm:

      • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:26PM

        by opinionated_science (4031) on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:26PM (#538671)

        thought and reason at one moment in time. Not sure, it counts when you are not actively using it....

        No point revoking a PhD - the "appeal to authority" is of no use in science, even though there are some egotistical charlatans using it that way to make a crust...

        Don't get me start on the DO's....complete bollocks.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:14PM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:14PM (#538302)

      >"... 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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:31PM (#538313)

        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)

          by mhajicek (51) on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:35AM (#538580)

          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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:16PM (#538748)

            If you can get sufficient public support, probably.

            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:44PM

              by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:44PM (#538756)

              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)

        by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:46PM (#538324) Journal

        How do you know whether he is going to be selective or objective?

        What about "Answers in Genesis" do you not understand?

        • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Saturday July 15 2017, @02:28AM

          by Pino P (4721) on Saturday July 15 2017, @02:28AM (#539439) Journal

          What about "Answers in Genesis" do you not understand?

          Why Phil Collins, SEGA, and Hyundai haven't sued yet.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by FakeBeldin on Thursday July 13 2017, @11:17AM

        by FakeBeldin (3360) on Thursday July 13 2017, @11:17AM (#538659) Journal

        The real question is how does the park service decide who is allowed to collect samples.

        They send out proposals for peer review. From the fine article:

        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. None felt the project provided any value to justify the collection. One reviewer, the University of New Mexico’s Karl Karlstrom, pointed out that examples of soft-sediment deformation can be found all over the place, so Snelling didn’t need to collect rock from a national park. In the end, Snelling didn’t get his permit.

        Moreover, also from the fine article:

        Not that anything he collects will matter. “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 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.

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:24PM (5 children)

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:24PM (#538357)

      It's from the University of Sydney. I don't think they even have schools in Australia, so this is probably fake.

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
      • (Score: 5, Funny) by bob_super on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:40PM (3 children)

        by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:40PM (#538367)

        Geology is critical in Australia: You learn to recognize under which type of rock each deadly creature is most likely to hide to ambush you.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:57PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:57PM (#538379)

          Drop bears hide under rocks too?!

          • (Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:59PM

            by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:59PM (#538382)

            They know you're likely looking up.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:59PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:59PM (#538381)

          And figure out why all the rocks are up in trees.

      • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:08AM

        by MostCynical (2589) on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:08AM (#538609) Journal
        --
        "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
    • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:01AM (2 children)

      by marcello_dl (2685) on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:01AM (#538606)

      > 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

      Yeah but if you start out with a theory you are already convinced of, and interpret evidence to support it, I see no problem. If you see problems with that then go to those guys who interpret the cosmic background radiation as such after it has shown anisotropies and statistical alignment with the earth's ecliptic [wikipedia.org], or go to those guys who are fixing the big bang theory.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:51PM (1 child)

        by frojack (1554) on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:51PM (#538782) Journal

        Add to that that Geology seems to be a pretty hidebound discipline where big names prevail and new ideas are seldom welcomed gracefully.

        The Columbia River Gorge was also thought to be a multi-hundred-million year erosion artifact by the big names in Geology. Then this guy (who was working as a school teacher at the time) came along, and (after going off and earning his PHD) turned THAT Theory on its head [wikipedia.org].

        Bretz's view, which was seen as arguing for a catastrophic explanation of the geology, ran against the prevailing view of uniformitarianism, and Bretz's views were initially held in disregard. The Geological Society of Washington, D.C, invited the young Bretz to present his previously published research at a January 12, 1927 meeting where several other geologists presented competing theories. Another geologist at the meeting, J.T. Pardee, had worked with Bretz and had evidence of an ancient glacial lake that lent credence to Bretz's theories. Bretz defended his theories, and this kicked off an acrimonious 40-year debate over the origin of the Scablands. Both Pardee and Bretz continued their research over the next 30 years, collecting and analyzing evidence that led them to identify Lake Missoula as the source of the Spokane Flood and creator of the Channeled Scablands.

        A rather readable article on that appears here in Nat Geo. [nationalgeographic.com]

        Could something similar have happened in the Grand Canyon? Current Geological theory says flat out NO
        WAY, and certainly not by somebody who starts from a religious point of view. Anyone raising such a theory is going to be met with derision. And if he has a skeleton in his closet, be it race or religion or something else THAT will be the tip of the spear used to attack him.

        40 samples seem to a cheap price to put that theory to rest, or give it a fair hearing.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @06:16PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @06:16PM (#539251)

          40 samples seem to a cheap price to put that theory to rest, or give it a fair hearing.

          Except it won't put it to rest. Even Snelling has admitted that even if the samples don't show what he thinks they will, it won't change his beliefs in a young earth or global flood.

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday July 13 2017, @11:38AM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 13 2017, @11:38AM (#538663)

      However, that's all of the politically polarized social sciences, economics, theoretical physics, some fuzzier theoretical corners of math...

    • (Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Friday July 14 2017, @12:56PM

      by purple_cobra (1435) on Friday July 14 2017, @12:56PM (#539096)

      FWIW, he appeared to be doing actual science to get his PhD, but apparently found there was more money to be made in the religious "science" field. They should have asked him which rocks he wanted then delivered them to him...through every pane of glass in his house.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:54PM (13 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:54PM (#538279)

    Further he promises to publish his findings in a peer reviewed journal. Perhaps even his own journal. Perhaps even his own peers.

    So pretty much like any other scientist. Except those that publish papers with the expensive pay-per-view schemes.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:33PM (12 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:33PM (#538315) Journal

      Pretty sure that was sarcasm...

      Scientists work from the evidence forward. This guy works from his conclusion backwards.

      • (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]
        • (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]
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by HiThere on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:39PM (7 children)

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:39PM (#538365) Journal

        No. Scientists frequently start off with a hypothesis that they intend to prove. That's not what they tell you in high school, but if you read the biographies of famous scientists that's what you'll see. (I'm not counting Einstein here as most of his work was as a theoretician. An exception would be his work on the photo-electric effect.)

        What science depends on is peer review, and the rejection of hypotheses that aren't sustained by the data. The problem here is that creationists have a long history of doctoring the data to fit their hypotheses...so how can you trust the data he publishes. This is clearly prejudicial reasoning on my part as I'm judging him as a member of a group rather than as an individual, but there are reasons why people so often reason from prejudice. As long as you know it and allow for it, it's not unreasonable. Because I'm aware that I'm using prejudiced reasoning, I'm not certain that he's going to doctor the evidence. But that's the way I'd bet.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Wednesday July 12 2017, @10:48PM

          by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 12 2017, @10:48PM (#538411) Homepage Journal

          Einstein did theorize from the data. The photoelectric effect was a straightforward summary of the experimental results, only organised as an explanation instead of a puzzle.

          Same for the special theory of relativity -- the relevant equations, such as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, had been known for ages as a way to make electromagnetic theory work. What Einstein did was put these disparate phenomena together and notice that they yielded a consistent formalism.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:05PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:05PM (#538418)

          Thou shalt not worship thine own hypotheses.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:05AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:05AM (#538453)

          What science depends on is peer review

          No, what is today called "peer review" is a recent thing, there is absolutely no evidence for its utility. It seems to only act to enforce whatever the prevailing thought is (and thus impede all progress).

          http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/ [michaelnielsen.org]
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/ [nih.gov]

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:47AM

            by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:47AM (#538584) Journal

            No, there was always peer review. It's just that previously, the peer review happened after publication, by other people saying what they thought of those ideas.

            --
            The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:50PM (2 children)

          by frojack (1554) on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:50PM (#538804) Journal

          I'm aware that I'm using prejudiced reasoning, I'm not certain that he's going to doctor the evidence. But that's the way I'd bet.

          Glad you can at least admit that.

          Denying permission for any study in advance seems just a (wrong) way to enforce one's own prejudice, and every bit as wrong-headed as starting a study to prove one's own prejudice.

          And, the Park Service restricting access to to samples pretty much aids and abets that, doesn't it?

          After all if the next geologist looking at his data can not refute it, because the Park Service denies them, then the Park service plays directly into his hands, does it not? And had the Park Service maintained their denial, they play directly into the hands of the anti religious bigots.

          Also how much "data" does he get from 40 rocks? A few radio carbon dates? Composition analysis, magnetic orientations, collection site strata, etc., is pretty much all you get in Geology.

          All of these are perfectly repeatable. Provided there is access to samples. (His or in situ replicates).

          I personally doubt he would doctor the evidence.
          That would be too easy to refute (in a normal situation where samples can be acquired).

          But he may well reach unwarranted conclusions. Science is a process, not a thing. We need to Let it Work.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @12:53PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @12:53PM (#539095)

            As he's already said that it won't make any difference to him either way, there's little point in allowing him to take those rocks.

          • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Sunday July 16 2017, @08:22PM

            by FakeBeldin (3360) on Sunday July 16 2017, @08:22PM (#540005) Journal

            Denying permission for any study in advance seems just a (wrong) way to enforce one's own prejudice, and every bit as wrong-headed as starting a study to prove one's own prejudice.

            No, it doesn't. If you want to (e.g.) collect a few rocks to find evidence to support your thesis that Julius Caesar never personally visited the Grand Canyon, based on the premise of "I read this in a SoylentNews comment and was curious", then the value of your study is insufficient to warrant the intrusion it represents.

            Basically, the Park services seem to require that any project has a scientific approach, a scientific goal, and that will contribute to the advancement of science. That in no way rules out a project to support this particular individual's pet hypothesis. I'm not sure exactly what did rule it out, but the individual claiming "we already have sufficient and convincing proof of what I want to prove using these rocks" seems like a great way to get your project denied -- irrespective of what your project is about.

            That is something I wholeheartedly support. Either the Grand Canyon is a free-for-all where everyone can take rocks (fine too, for me), or it's more restricted. If rock-gathering is restricted to scientific endeavors, then the park services have a duty to check that any proposed endeavor is indeed scientific. This one wasn't, according to other scientists.

            Making exceptions just because someone's shouting "religious freedom" is silly and undermines the original restriction on rock-gathering.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:52PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:52PM (#538328)

    And I thought this was going to be a gender-reassignment story. . . .

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:13PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:13PM (#538349)

      Maybe that's why he/it needs a couple (testi)stones.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:11AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:11AM (#538457)

      It is if they throw the rocks at him.

  • (Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:57PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:57PM (#538335)

    > provided that he makes the data from any analyses freely available.

    Psh. I wonder what kind of "analysis" this religitard is going to do? Pray over them, and then listen for voices in his sleep?

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:43PM (2 children)

      by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:43PM (#538371)

      Follow prior successful published works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBb6kkrnIhs [youtube.com]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @10:44PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @10:44PM (#538406)

        Genesis is still a great band, but I wish I'd seen them before Gabriel quit.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @03:36AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @03:36AM (#538544)

          He sings like an angel.

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday July 13 2017, @11:48AM (1 child)

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 13 2017, @11:48AM (#538664)

      I think they're hoping for serendipity which plays a big part in discoveries. Sure he was hoping to prove what we already know which is that every culture on the planet seems to have an almost instinctual great flood myth which is because great floods really suck and are therefore kinda memorable, not that there was precisely one biblical one. But much like the Beverly Hillbillies were trying to poach dinner when they shot a hole into an oil reservoir, well, maybe this dude will completely accidentally discover the best brontosaurus fossil ever, or similar. Its actually even more likely than mere luck, in that he's probably going to look for something "cool" to prove his point, and regardless of his point hopefully his taste and style of whats cool will be decent, so if there's anyone out there who could find fossilized sharks with lasers on their heads, its this dude.

      There's also a big dose of "oh yea of little faith" which is pretty funny, if he tries to reproduce results I'm confident he will get mainstream geological results so I'm pretty chill... A lot of geological work is spending 99% of your time disappointed, so his luck being somewhat worse than normal means he isn't going to suffer all that much more than the average geologist like my old roommate. Its the people who have one foot in each camp that are nervous as hell that this time he might turn out to be correct. Wouldn't that be something?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @02:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @02:52PM (#538706)

        Since they ended up rich from the oil, they must have owned the land. They can hardly be accused of poaching on their own land.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:04PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:04PM (#538416)

    I am a creationist and agree with this decision.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:14PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:14PM (#538426)

      I'm not but yeah giving him his rocks so he can go play quietly in the corner is the best answer. It's not like there's a law that says thou shalt not play with the rocks and there isn't exactly a shortage of them either so...

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by mhajicek on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:41AM (1 child)

        by mhajicek (51) on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:41AM (#538582)

        The problem is the precedent of allowing people who aren't really doing science to come take rocks. Pretty soon every student geologist is going to expect their share.

        --
        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, @02:55PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @02:55PM (#538708)

          Yeah, and when everybody takes some rocks out the hole in the ground, pretty soon the hole goes away. Oh wait, no it doesn't, it gets bigger.
          Samples for everyone, lets make the Grand Canyon Great Again!!

  • (Score: 2) by iWantToKeepAnon on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:48AM (2 children)

    by iWantToKeepAnon (686) on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:48AM (#538507) Homepage Journal

    Further he promises to publish his findings in a peer reviewed journal. Perhaps even his own journal. Perhaps even his own peers.

    A few parting cheap shots?

    --
    "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
    • (Score: 2) by iWantToKeepAnon on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:49AM

      by iWantToKeepAnon (686) on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:49AM (#538508) Homepage Journal
      [oblig] I must be new here.
      --
      "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:57PM

      by frojack (1554) on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:57PM (#538808) Journal

      Those Cheap Shots were sourced from TFA.

      But in this case he does have his own "Journal" in which he and some of his fellow travelers publish. But I'm not posting a link here.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by CZB on Thursday July 13 2017, @03:39AM (2 children)

    by CZB (6457) on Thursday July 13 2017, @03:39AM (#538546)

    Looking past the religious aspect, there is a place for well crafted contrarian research. The current majority viewpoint in geology is gradual effects over long time periods. The opposing view is quick catastrophic shaping of geological features. The interpretation of stones can handle the criticism.

    And from what I've seen in both naturalist and creationist camps, the level of dishonest conclusions and publishing for the money is about the same.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:43AM

      by mhajicek (51) on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:43AM (#538583)

      And his application was peer reviewed and found lacking of merit. What's the problem with that?

      --
      The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:16AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:16AM (#538613)

      he interpretation of stones can handle the criticism.

      Looking past the religious aspect? No can do! How do we interpret these stones? Are they the Shankara stones, each with a diamond embeded so that they glow when put into the skull of Kali-ma? Or are the Black stones, the Negra Lignam or the Ka'aba, a bit of heaven that fell to earth, in order to tell mortals, um, something. Or are they the Stones of the Plains of Salsbury, bluestone laid out in massive scale to help predict exactly when the stupid Christians would get here? Or the Stones of Gall, stones of pain, but stones that once extracted from the sacrificial victim, tell us much about things we know nothing of. Or, at least we think it does. Blarney Stone. Stone of liars. Godstone. Interpret, my stones!

  • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:14AM (4 children)

    by marcello_dl (2685) on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:14AM (#538611)

    > He will be able to collect about 40 fist-sized samples, provided that he makes the data from any analyses freely available.

    Was there the need to sue, to reach this agreement? Would not help his cause if he promised to do so as a religious guy, and then broke the promise, would it? What if his analysis is bogus, would not help his opponent's cause? "Pro science" guys should have lined up to get rocks for him.

    If the national park is afraid of losing too many rocks to geologists make them return those too. There are concepts like down payments that should help in this kind of situation.

    All of this seems manufactured drama, the most interesting part is witnessing who looks more prone to censorship.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @09:57AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @09:57AM (#538648)

      In return, all the scientists ask is a few samples from religious relics. Oops, already did that and found them to be fake garbage.

      • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:47PM

        by marcello_dl (2685) on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:47PM (#538684)

        Are you talking about the shroud? Here some data points.

        Carbon 14 says it is around 1250ad
        Controversy over the procedures involving the sampling
        Shroud barely escaped a fire btw
        Other analysis says it enveloped the same body of shroud of Oviedo
        Shroud of oviedo dating back at least to 900ad and probably much earlier

        The rational conclusion is different from the science bigots conclusion. Not that I care about artifacts, personally I only raised my eyebrow when I learned the shroud was hosted in Turin, the esoteric capital, of all places.

    • (Score: 2) by ilsa on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:15PM (1 child)

      by ilsa (6082) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:15PM (#538766)

      And what exactly are they going to do with the returned rocks?

      The place they were found is a critical piece of information when studying the rocks. Also, if the samples were mishandled in some what, they would be useless for future research. The only thing they could do is unbearably costly forensic analysis on the returned samples, and even then there are no guarantees.

      Once the rocks have been taken, they are no good to anyone else.

      Finally, the guy has flat out said that he isn't planning on doing any genuine research. There is no reason for "Pro science guys" to line up because the guy was flat out full of shit. He wasn't being contrarian trying to evaluate a different angle. He is literally nothing more than a mentally disturbed bible thumper who thinks that a book full of mythical stories is true. Even when his "analysis" is discredited, it will provide no ammunition at all, because religious people are completely immune to things like facts and reason. If he actually cared about the scientific process, Snelling would never have gone down this path to being with.

      The only thing he has and can accomplish with all this is waste the time of a whole bunch of other people who could have better spent it on something more productive. It's not censorship. It's about not wanting to waste precious resources on idiots who have absolutely nothing of value to offer.

      I for one am sorry to see that they backed down. I can understand them throwing their hands up in the air and deciding that the fight was simply not worth it to them, but I'm still disappointed that they did so.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by meustrus on Thursday July 13 2017, @03:50PM

    by meustrus (4961) on Thursday July 13 2017, @03:50PM (#538741)

    Science isn't truth. It is a process of becoming less wrong. We can't deny creationists the tools to do science, because that denies them the opportunity to prove themselves wrong.

    Not that somebody with poor methodology is likely to do that, or that they would publish the results if they did. But if anything, this can be solved by taking him more seriously, not less. Ignoring these experiments makes it look to the illiterati like discrimination against religious viewpoints.

    But if we treat creationism as a potential science, and subject it to the level of criticism required therefore, we will all ultimately become less wrong.

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(1)