I just received the following update from the National Center for Science Education, which states the newest tactic that creationists are attempting to employ in pushing their ideas as “science”. The latest tactic is to have some creationists attend professional geology conferences and sometimes host a field trip afterward where they use cleverly disguised creationist language (meant to hide their overtly non-scientific notions) and then “Voila!” declare after the fact that they “presented creationist ideas at a geology conference.”
Of course, this is just plain silly, because they aren’t really presenting creationist ideas at these conferences; in fact, they are actively trying to conceal their creationist ideas except by making the most subtle references (so subtle that most people miss the references entirely!) Had they actually presented creationist ideas, such as the so-called “evidence” for Flood Geology, they would have likely been laughed out of the room because – as this link to Talk Origins shows – mainstream geological science has found creationism to be wholly flawed.
The NCSE elaborates on this latest trick up the sleeves of the creationists…
“Creationism creeps into mainstream geology,” a report by NCSE’s Steven Newton, is the cover story of the July 2011 issue of Earth, published by the American Geological Institute. In his article, Newton discusses a geological field trip conducted during the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in 2010. He explains, “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.”
“During the trip,” Newton relates, “the leaders did not advertise their creationist views, but rather presented their credentials in a way that minimized their creationist affiliations,” adding, “the field trip leaders were careful not to make overt creationist references. If the 50 or so field trip participants did not know the subtext and weren’t familiar with the field trip leaders, it’s quite possible that they never realized that the leaders endorsed geologic interpretations completely at odds with the scientific community.” But clues — such as referring to Cambrian outcrops as rocks that are “called Cambrian” and hinting at the continental extent of a “massive marine trangression” — were abundant “if you knew what to listen for.”
I particularly like the last section of the article, for it points out how open and accommodating scientific conferences can be. Even though mainstream scientists may ridicule and roll their eyes, believe it or not, the argument is made that creationists should actually be welcomed to come present their ideas openly at these meetings. Just because they are heard, however, doesn’t mean they should expect to be taken seriously…
Creationists love to boast about their participation in scientific meetings, Newton observed, even when it consists only of conducting field trips or presenting unrefereed papers and posters. But he suggested that it would be counterproductive for societies such as the GSA to exclude creationists from participation in their meetings, however, arguing, “We let a thousand flowers bloom, weeds and all. The best ideas from the meetings are further subjected to peer review in journals, which is where theories are built; conferences are more freeform. Geology will not suffer if creationists participate in our meetings, but the public relations damage from the misperception that we are systematically hostile to any view — especially religious views — is real.”