16 June, 2011

Lying Liars and the Creationist Bastards Who Lead Field Trips

It's be a while since we've had the Smack-o-Matic off the woodshed wall.  I shall now proceed to lift it down reverently, blow the dust from it, give it a loving polish, and proceed to administer it to some very deserving bottoms.

If you are one of those people prone to troll about "tone" and has to look for a fainting couch whenever a Gnu Atheist is the slightest bit mean to those poor ickle Christians, you'd best exit the cantina now.  I have now prepared the Smack-o-Matic for maximum smackage, and I am about to be very Not Nice.

Check out this dastardly bunch of outrageous liars:
In almost every way, the “Garden of the Gods at Colorado Springs” excursion at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America (GSA) last year was a normal — even enjoyable — field trip. Standard geologic terminology was used in the accompanying field trip guide, and throughout the trip itself. The trip leaders discussed past events in terms of millions and billions of years. At each stop along the trip, the guides relied on orthodox geologic thinking, including a standard examination of sedimentary features and the nature of contacts between units.

But in reality, the trip was anything but a normal geology field trip. Instead, it was an example of a new strategy from creationists to interject their ideas into mainstream geology: They lead field trips and present posters and talks at scientific meetings. They also avoid overtly stating anything truly contrary to mainstream science.

But when the meeting is over, the creationist participants go home and proudly proclaim that mainstream science has accepted their ideas. 
Who led the field trip? 

Lesse... we had not one but two buffoons from the Institute for Creation Research: Steve Austin and Bill Hoesch.  Marcus Ross, formerly of that noxious bunch of anti-evolution fucktards who plague my beautiful city of Seattle, also known as the Discovery Institute.  He's currently teaching at Liberty University, which is so anti-intellectual I'm not sure how anyone calls it a "university" without laughing themselves to death.  John Whitmore, who's with Cedarville University in Ohio, stuffing liberal Christian students' heads with nonsense.  Lest you be persuaded by the "liberal" part that there must be some sanity at that school, consider this factoid: "Cedarville’s official doctrinal statement declares, 'We believe in the literal six-day account of creation' and requires that all faculty 'must be born-again Christians' who 'agree with our doctrinal statement.'"  Oh, yes, liberal.  Liberal stupidity, perhaps.

The last, Tim Clarey, gets hardly a mention in the article, so I did a quickie on Google.  All I can say is, Delta College in Michigan must be really fucking hard up for geology professors if they let the editor of  "Proceedings of the Second Conference on Creation Geology" (.pdf) teach.  Oh, but he's fun and stuff and he doesn't make you use the text book.  I wonder why that is....

I have something against these arseholes.  No, it's not because they're the kind of dumbshit Christian who tries to shoehorn 4.5 billion years of geology into 6,000 years and one really big flood (instead of "God did it!" at every turn, with creationist geologists, you hear "the Flood did it!"  All. The. Time).  They're welcome to be as stupid as they like.  They can play with their Magic Sky Daddy and believe the Bible's really really real and true and totally accurate even in all those bits that are flat-out wrong or completely contradict other bits of the Bible.  They're even welcome to come to conferences and present their "science" along with all of the supposed data they've amassed.  Go on, give us a laugh.  And if they've got real data, solid data, data that proves what they're saying beyond a reasonable doubt, bring it!  It's science, baby. 

Now, they haven't got that data and the chances they ever will are roughly on par with my waking up tomorrow and actually deciding that my day job is the best job in the whole universe, but still, let 'em try.

No, what I have against them is the fact that they're lying little shits who do their damnedest to snow everyone.  They're deceptive ratfuckers who, when among the real scientists, pretend they're down with this millions-of-years stuff.  They use the big geology words and sometimes even salt their bullshit with a little actual geology to disguise the taste of what they're serving up.  Just check this out:
Field trip 409 was not the first such creationist-led geology excursion at a GSA meeting. At the 2009 annual GSA meeting in Portland, Ore., four of the five trip leaders (Austin, Whitmore, Clarey and Ross) organized a field trip to Mount St. Helens to examine catastrophic erosion resulting from the 1980 eruption. After that trip, the Institute for Creation Research ran a headline bragging, “Christian Geologists Influential at GSA Meeting,” noting that Austin’s “peer-reviewed manuscript was published by GSA.”

In truth, every field trip guide that year was published in the book “Volcanoes to Vineyards.” Austin’s guide, “The dynamic landscape on the north flank of Mount St. Helens,” followed normal geologic thinking and contained no direct creationist arguments — though attempts to link Mount St. Helens to the Grand Canyon erosional processes might have proved puzzling to attendees. 
That, my friends, is despicable.  It's behavior beyond the pale.  These people pretend to be really real scientists, if slightly weird ones, with nary a mention of their Young Earth beliefs and their 6,000 year timeline and they don't breathe a word of Noah's Flood, all so that they can get their photo taken with actual really real scientists and pretend they've wowed 'em - and they lie about their supposed publications, and they deceive the folks back home, the poor innocent little fucktards in the pews, into thinking actual fucking geologists respect their Biblical bullshit.

Just one more example shall suffice to show what two-faced ratfucking rat bastards these assholes are:
“Millions of years” was a phrase that also appeared in Ross’ talk on Late Cretaceous marine stratigraphy; many of his slides used normal geologic time, with millions of years clearly labeled on axes. Nothing in his 15-minute talk hinted at nonstandard geologic thinking. Because most of the audience probably did not know Ross’ background, it must have been puzzling to them when the first question following Ross’ talk challenged him on how he could “harmonize this work with [his] belief in a 6,000-year-old Earth.” (This question came from University of Florida geology professor Joe Meert, who blogged about the exchange.)

Ross answered the question by saying that for a scientific meeting such as GSA, he thought in a “framework” of standard science; but for a creationist audience, he said, he used a creationist framework. Judging from the reaction of the audience, this answer caused more confusion than enlightenment. Ross pointed out that nothing in his presentation involved Young-Earth Creationism. But he then volunteered that he was indeed a Young-Earth Creationist.  [Outraged emphasis added]

Is it just me, or is that an insult to both the geological profession and the Christian faith?  I mean, seriously.  Is there anyone they won't lie to?

That's the reason I have not refrained from using the naughty words in abundance when referring to this merry band of despicable fucktards.  They don't even have the courage of their convictions.  They can't stand up and say, "I believe this, and here's the evidence I've found that might support that believe if you squint a lot and drink some Drano and pretend that radiometric dating doesn't exist."  They have to lie to us, and then they lie to believers who have no idea how science works but get a thrill up their leg when they think that their Bronze-Age beliefs are validated by actual scientists.  And that offends me on so many levels I can't explore them all.

The writer of the article describing this atrocity thinks we should allow them to continue to infest conferences.  And I say, "Yes.  By all means - if they are required to proclaim, baldly, up front, and without prevarication, just precisely what it is they believe."  None of these games where they play the Serious Scientist at professional, mainstream geology conferences and then spew Young Earth creationism all over the Christian circles back home, all the while proclaiming that because they didn't get run out of the conference on a rail, that means genuine scientists believe them.

But they'll never be honest, because they know real geologists will never accept them if they tell the truth.  So the liars for Jesus will continue to lie.  And geologists, like biologists, will have to expose their Trojan-horse antics before, like termites, they undermine the foundations.


Suzanne said...

*standing on chair clapping wildly*

well said dana

Dr. Jerque said...

Nicely done. Fun reading.

Chris R said...

Well said. This two-faced approach has been brewing for a while, I think, with Marcus Ross being a case in point: he got a PhD by quite explicitly not attempting to inject his (unsupportable) creationist beliefs into his research -a small point that is generally glossed over in creationist circles, where they try to give the impression his 'unimpeachable research' was proof of the biblical flood, or something.

The problem is, of course, that we're damned if we do and damned if we don't: we call them out, they cry persecution, we ignore them and they claim acceptance. Perhaps we should covertly give funds to allow a few of their creationist victims to attend a conferences where they are making an appearance...

Karen said...

An excellent use of the smack-o-matic.

Andrew Alden, Oakland Geology blog said...

I think the Socratic method (addressing them in their own terms) is an effective tool when stealth creationists show up at a meeting, but there's usually only 2 minutes at most for discussion after the talk, so the stealthers have the advantage. Short of that, free speech is also a good remedy.

Cujo359 said...

These guys sort of remind me of Michael Behe. Mild-mannered professor by day, creationist crazy person by night.

artiofab said...

Two summers ago, the North America Paleontological Convention took place in Cincinnati. As this was a city near the Creation Museum, the organizers of the meeting decided that allowing a field trip to the Creation Museum was a good idea.

I honestly regret not sending an email to the organizing committee telling them that that was the stupidest fucking idea ever.

If those of us who don't hate science want science to win, the least we can do is boycott organizations which are intent on destroying science.

In re: these stealth creationists; not much can be done. Mostly because GSA (and other professional scientific societies) can not exclude people from membership because of religious beliefs, because doing so makes them as intolerant as the creationist's organizations/schools are. I think that pointing out the unequal level of tolerance should be done at all occasions where creationists / intelligent design proponents / global warming contrarians / AIDS=HIV deniers / etc. pretend to be martyrs. If they were truly being discriminated against, they would not be allowed to publish or belong to scientific societies. And yet it is they who form "scientific" journals who demand Biblical literalism, and it is they who teach at schools demanding it.

Malcolm V L said...

I think a big problem lies with the general audience. You know, the scientific illiterate one that in many places is responsible for doling out funding.

These guys are master talking-heads. They create a story that is so meticulously constructed to match creationism, and they have their own circles which self-congratulate themselves on their work, thus calling it credible. The average bloke can't critically examine two interpretations of the geomorphology of a region, and quite frankly the creationist one is far simpler to grasp because it is 'simple' by all definitions.

I believe it comes down to not a lack of understanding of earth sciences, but a lack of understanding of the scientific method. How can we compete against a group that will redefine the method to start with Theory and work backwards towards a Hypothesis?

Rockdawg said...

I believe in God and I believe in evolution. I find if you quote the bible back to these idiots you can usually shut them up. One of my favorites is to quote Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in in your sight are like a day that has just gone by." If you believe the world is 6000 yrs old then 6000 x 1000 = 6,000,000 years by Gods standards which is closer to 4.5 billion years by evolutions standards than by creationist standards of 6ooo years.
Mess with their minds like that and they have a hard time coming up with reply's. Most of them have not been taught to think for themselves and just give the rhetoric they were taught.
I used to have more quotes from the bible but have forgotten them. But there are a lot more about change and things like that in the bible that support evolution than not, if you really study the bible its hard not to believe in evolution.

Brian Romans said...


The easiest way to test their hypothesis that a global flood is responsible for all these sedimentary deposits is to design a field trip in which the correlation of these sedimentary units is demonstrated. They didn't do that. The description of this trip had nothing to do with correlation, but cherry-picking some sed facies w/out any time-space context that seem to support the idea of vigorous sed transport. Had they been honest and proposed their trip like that people would've scoffed. Instead they did a vague 'geotourism' type of trip (e.g., the geology of such-and-such an area). Very unscientific.

Unknown said...

Very well said!