BSG conference, June 13-15, 2007
Much has been made of the Baraminology Study Group’s (BSG) activities.
In fact, the BSG’s activities have reached the very halls of the Unted States Congress and the Office of Special Council in the Richard Sternberg affair. See: www.rsternberg.net
Here are my reflections of Thursday, June 14, 2007:
In attendance were 65 people including
Kurt Wise
Paul Nelson
Marcus Ross
Todd Wood
Gordon Wilson
Tim Brophy
Georgia Purdom
David Cavanaugh
Steve Gollmer
There were several others, some of whom I perhaps should not mention since they’re somewhat in Guillermo Gonzalez’s shoes right now if you know what I mean.
[Ironically, I did not have the privilege of meeting Jean Lightner who gives her alternate report here.]
I was only there on Thrusday Evening, June 14, 2007 for the business meeting (election of officers) and the poster session so I will focus on that.
When I walked in to DeMoss hall I saw a very attractive and charming woman talking on her cell phone. It was none other the molecular biologist Dr. Georgia Purdom. Purdom had made some very negative comments about ID at the 2005 YEC mega-conference. Conversely, I had also made some very negative remarks publicly about what she had to say about ID. She recognized me too. OOPS! She was very kind to show me around, and I’ve decide from this day forward, to be much nicer when I crticize Dr. Purdom publicly. 
Most creationist ideas that one reads in the literature is geared toward demolishing naturalistic evolution. BSG is for the most part is not focusing on that. In a manner of speaking, Darwinism is about as relevant to their science as phlogiston is to chemsitry….
Their investigation is not focused on disproving Darwinism (like most everyone else). The question they focus on are:
1. what were the created kinds and how did they evolve into the creatures we see to day. For example, many Baraminologists think Wolves, Jackals, Dogs, and Foxes proceeded from a common ancestor. If this sort of front-loaded evolution existed, then that would solve a lot of problems with all the creatures in Noah’s ark. One can somewhat commically argue, YECs are hyper-evolutionists. [See this great YEC article: Evolution: God’s Greatest Creation.]
2. what sort of things were front-loaded into the organisms. Gordon Wilson and others argue death, disease, thorns, thistles, and all sorts of other miseries were pre-programmed into life. They discuss empirically detecting evidence to support this hypothesis. Plagues, like those today, and those which God used against Pharoah, are the work of Intelligent Design….
3. Systems Biology and Medical Research from a creationist theory. I have pointed out many times at Uncommon Descent, how the Darwinian paradigm continues to incorrectly characterize biology as it operates today (much less as to how it operated in the past). If Darwinists like Ken Miller can so casually dismiss DNA as junk, when in fact it has medical significance, how much better will a creationist biology help advance medical science.
I was impressed that active interest in pusuing medical and industrial science is becoming a major focus versus purely activities of “evanglizing and making war on evil world views”. As creation theory helps advance science, it will help further its acceptance. In the words of the Apostle Peter, there are times hearts are won over without saying a thing…..
I talked to Marcus Ross, and he agreed that 20 years ago, creationist ideas were in horrible shape. The classic example is canopy theory by Henry Morris which dominated (dare I say impeded) creationist theory for 30 years…..
With that thought, I mentioned that creationists would do well to start a journal where fierce criticisms of their theory would be admitted and not censored. I said it would attract readership because it allowed controversy rather than supress it. He thought it was a good idea. [Any one willing to help in this enterprise. hint hint.]
One of the best creationist journals has only 10 submissions, and is available for free online. It is the BSG’s occasional papers. I would be delighted to see one like that, but one that reflects some of the values of the YoungCosmos website, where contrary opinions are welcomed and even sought after.
Most creationists journal will not pass something written favorable to Old Earth or Darwinists. But this scientific research is not about evangelizing or persuading, it is about dealing with tough questions and finding answers. YEC theory will advance by allowing criticism, it will be hindered to the extent it evades and supresses it. YECs will not solve problems with YEC theory unless they are willing to first acknowledge these problems exist.
If God is for the YECs, the theory will prevail in the end, despite human efforts to disprove it. I am officially sympathetic to the theory, but I think as a scientific hypothesis (versus a theological one), it has a long, long way to go.
Finally, I must mention Kurt Wise whom I met for the very first time. Oh my goodness. He had studied under the best paleotologists in the world at University of Chicago (under David Raup) and then got his PhD at Harvard under the tutelage and association of the most famous Darwinsits:
Stephen Gould
Richard Lewontin
Ernst Mayr
E.O. Wilson
Oh, my goodness. Could a creationist have a richer background than that? Wise helped teach some of Lewontin’s classes in statistical biology. He also studied fractals under Mandelbrot. Good gravy, the guy is a scholar. He spoke so glowingly of his mentors like Gould, Lewontin, and Mayr.
If one wonders whether miracles can happen, one only need look at Kurt Wise, the YEC who was awarded a PhD by Stephen Gould and the Darwinists at Harvard.
quiting ultram dj soma online meridia hydrocodone and emergency department use buy 120 10mg 325 hydrocodone adipex p home page adipex p buy adipex c o d ultram lowest price 300ct soma fun buy adipex pay with mastercard ultram liver buy propecia no prescription diet meridia
June 17th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Sal — I am 100% with you on the journal idea. I think the lack of journals is the #1 issue for Creationists. Here is what I would like in a journal:
1) Available both in print and online. Papers get posted online 1 or 2 months after the print articles come out, or immediately for a per-article fee.
2) MUST HAVE an ISSN.
3) Publish monthly
4) Include even marginally-related stuff
5) Try to make it Creation-oriented, but relevant to non-Creationists.
Wouldn’t it be great to have a journal that non-Creationists were eager to read? What if the great ideas for the next several years came from a Creation-oriented journal.
Also, it must have a name that doesn’t immediately shout “Creationism”, simply so that papers that cite the journal aren’t auto-rejected.
June 17th, 2007 at 3:28 am
? June 13-15 ?
June 17th, 2007 at 7:01 am
Benkeshet,
Thanks! I corrected May to June. Goodness, time flies when you’re having fun.
Salvador
June 17th, 2007 at 10:27 am
With that thought, I mentioned that creationists would do well to start a journal where fierce criticisms of their theory would be admitted and not censored. I said it would attract readership because it allowed controversy rather than supress it. He thought it was a good idea. [Any one willing to help in this enterprise. hint hint.]
I think this comment is a bit unfair. Which journal are you referring to? Yes the main YEC journals (J of C, CRSQ) will only publish articles that defend a YEC view. I don’t see why that is a problem since there are hundreds of secular journals available for scientists to publish articles that argue against a YEC view. However, I feel both journals have done a good job of letting YECs that hold to opposing theories dialogue. Some recent examples are here.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1594
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4509/
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp
June 17th, 2007 at 10:51 am
With that thought, I mentioned that creationists would do well to start a journal where fierce criticisms of their theory would be admitted and not censored. I said it would attract readership because it allowed controversy rather than supress it. He thought it was a good idea. [Any one willing to help in this enterprise. hint hint.]
I think this comment is a bit unfair. Which journal are you referring to? Yes the main YEC journals (J of C, CRSQ) will only publish articles that defend a YEC view. I don’t see why that is a problem since there are hundreds of secular journals available for scientists to publish articles that argue against a YEC view. However, I feel both journals have done a good job of letting YECs that hold to opposing theories dialogue. Some recent examples are here.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4509/
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1594
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp
The latest CRSQ printed a sharp critique by John Whitmore on a previous CRSQ article.
Most creationists journal will not pass something written favorable to Old Earth or Darwinists. But this scientific research is not about evangelizing or persuading, it is about dealing with tough questions and finding answers. YEC theory will advance by allowing criticism, it will be hindered to the extent it evades and supresses it. YECs will not solve problems with YEC theory unless they are willing to first acknowledge these problems exist.
YECs are not suppressing problems. I have subscribed to both CRSQ and J of C for over 6 years and have read many technical monographs from the CRSQ. I rarely see the case overstated or tough questions ignored. However, its clear they hold scripture to a higher authority than man’s ability to understand how God created through scientific investigation. This is were I agree with them and where many ID supporters and OECs would differ. Science is a fallible enterprise especially in areas that are unobservable and unrepeatable. There are many YEC theories that are little more than untestable speculation. But sometimes thats the best we can do due to the limitations of understanding the unobserved past. Its the YECs that are often much more honest about science than the uniformitarians who try to claim they have solved all the tough problems and have established the age of the Earth down to 3 significant figures (4.57 billion) Of course more journals with higher quality research would be a plus. Both the real problem is a lack of qualified YECs do to the work and not lack of mediums to discuss science from a YEC perspective.
June 17th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
“[Any one willing to help in this enterprise. hint hint.]”
What sort of help are you looking for?
June 18th, 2007 at 11:39 am
jhappel,
I just got back to the weblog. Please accept my apologies for my delay in clearing your last comment from the spam buffer.
Salvador
June 18th, 2007 at 11:57 am
jhappel,
I appreciate your concern and criticism. I did not mean to be unfair. I am interested in furthering YEC theory by making the YEC community aware of the serious issues it must solve, and there are many.
I do not think the YEC cause is served well by only allowing serious criticisms to come from YEC quarters. Even if a question or problem was posed because someone has evil intent, the empirical and theoretical question remains. Dismissing the objection on grounds that it’s unbiblical will reinforce the perceptions that YEC is indefensible on theoretical and empirical grounds. I do not think such dismissals are consistent with 1 Pet 3:15.
If YEC is true, then nature points firmly to Christianity as the one true religion. I think there is a good chance that God delights to ordain nature to make that conclusion inescapble to empirical science.
As Solomon said, there is a time and place for everything. In the church we gather together based on common beliefs and creeds. We encourage members to leave who do not share our creed. I think a case can be made that it is unwise (perhaps even inconsistent with what God would have us do) to run a scientific enterprise like a church.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Please Note:
ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!
Salvador