Dr Snelling teaching in Grand Canyon, 2008
Article image and caption
Posted on 05/11/2017 2:30:23 PM PDT by fishtank
Creation Geologist Fights Secular Bullies
May 11, 2017
David F. Coppedge
He has every credential a geologist could wish for, but the consensus bullies will not even let him collect rocks that might question their dogma.
Dr Snelling teaching in Grand Canyon, 2008 Dr. Andrew Snelling has a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney. He has published in peer-reviewed journals. He has taught geology on numerous trips through the Grand Canyon. He wrote a two-volume book on geological evidence. But when he applied for a research permit at the Grand Canyon to collect samples, the secular uniformitarian consensus said no. They denied his application purely on grounds that his views are not consensus views. This time, though, he is not going to take being Expelled lying down. He is fighting back with a lawsuit, supported by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). Bob Unruh reported the story on May 9 in WND.
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
Dr Snelling teaching in Grand Canyon, 2008
Article image and caption
From the article:
“One of them (National Park Service) said,
“ours is a secular society as per our constitution (sic)”
and suggested “inappropriate interests” should be “screened out.”
This is clear viewpoint discrimination.”
As if they’re going to care.
If something is extremely enough opposed to the common world view, it’s going to have to fight from behind a miasma of persecution. But if it is really of God, it won’t need to be whined into acceptance. It will shine of its own merit to people who will see it in spite of all.
We got a bigger problem in that most Christian practice is a shadow of its own self. We have little real motivation to believe things for the sake of God, because our Christianized world, or what is left of it, is still so nice.
Understanding how the creation is a God-imbued creation is needed, or people won’t care whether the biblical week was 24 hours x 6 days in our own time frame or whether it was a metaphorical handful of billions-of-years ages. They won’t even be thinking the bible itself is a candidate for making sense.
Evolution is so staunchly defended by its believers, that anyone that questions it commits the equivalence of heresy.
“This time, though, he is not going to take being Expelled (sic) lying down. He is fighting back with a lawsuit...”
Stand up and be expelled.
Incidentally — and I’m looking at your tag — liberalism used to exist in a classic form, which believed that each person could validly seek for truth and beauty. That worked great as long as God was embraced into the midst of it. The modern form has even vitiated its own stated goal, becoming illiberal, because God has been dismissed rather than embraced.
Liberalism’s problem today is that most of its followers are doing it ungodly. God is very clear that we should be liberal towards our neighbors. Some of the admonitions that God made towards sinning Israel were along the lines of defending the orphan and the widow.
By making the entire concept anathema (as is very popular on FR) we have thrown the baby out with the bath water, and then we wonder why we can’t seem to have a Christian society any more! It’s because we’ve been trying to define heaven in terms of the things on earth.
This goes beyond mere evolution, this goes to a particular reading of the scripture.
Old earth creationism theories, which are more harmonious with science as we know it sans evolution, don’t really help theories of evolution. Life as we know it is programmed to do a random walk, with some lucky stumbles on the order of developing minor features once in a while. Not to give us some progression of begetting from bacteria to man. The first theories of this kind of evolution were propounded (how soon we forget) by SUPERNATURALISTS, they just were not godly supernaturalists. They believed in little sprite-like beings.
This has a closer similarity to Global Warming dogma. Rather than pursuing a course of free and open debate, Global Warmists invest their time and energy in silencing opposing views. Here we see evolutionists doing likewise. It’s a strategy that derives from insecurity.
Iow, if the facts back you up, why fear debate or competing theories? But if your facts are problematic, silencing the opposition is absolutely the best option.
But of course that same shoe goes on the other foot.
The philosophy that would bully in the majority, whines in the minority.
But instead, some people on FR screech against "Darwinists" and "Evolutionists" and insist that anyone who has the temerity to suggest creation might be more than ~6000 years old shall be declared ANATHEMA.
A person calling himself a creation geologist is not a geologist
At best. , he is a geologist pretender
Yes!! HERETIC!!! Let him be ANATHEMA!
“Evolution is so staunchly defended by its believers, that anyone that questions it commits the equivalence of heresy.”
The same is and has always been true of Creationism.
Unless a Christian believes all of the chapter and verse on creationism then, sure as the day is long, some idiot will appoint himself as the final arbiter of the other person’s faith.
Speaking for myself, I am a Christian. I believe that God created the universe. I also believe that His Magnificent Plan was executed over a longer period of time than teeny little human minds can even begin to grasp.
See, Creationists insist the universe is a few thousand years old. Evolutionists insist it’s billions of years old.
I insist that God is Eternal and that His plan for us is timeless beyond understanding. He made possible my family and my day and this very moment.
To limit Him in any way is to me the greatest heresy.
To try to prove that He can fit in the box of human understanding is heresy.
To simply accept His works by closing your eyes and reaching out with the gratitude of your heart is faith.
And faith is all you need.
Period.
I think this young earth brand of creationism is just flat out wrong, nutty, and it doesn’t matter anyway to anyone’s salvation.
That said, the US government telling him he may not collect a few rock specimens because he is outside the mainstream of science is bigoted and corrupt. If he was Islamic, it would have been immediately granted. And if he is outside the mainstream, who cares? Science used to be about proof.
This Park Service azzwipe would have turned down galileo for wanting to build a telescope. After all, is against the mainstream.
I think old earth creationism can hold its own quite well in the marketplace of both faith and science ideas.
One crucial question that has to be asked about the creation week is: who’s keeping the calendar and in what frame of reference?
At the beginning we don’t even have a recognized sun to delineate days as we know them. God is going to have to be keeping the calendar in heaven, or there just isn’t a calendar at all. Expecting the same calendar to be the point of reference through the whole process, then, is not unrealistic theology. And that calendar won’t be tied to the sun and earth. It will be sui generis. It could rack up one day while a creation was racking up billions of years in its own frame of reference.
Ah, the objectivity of “science”.
I’d certainly want to be “liberal” in the classic sense about this. Let him explore his current idea of truth, as long as he isn’t materially defacing the park in order to do that. I think that was the intent here.
If we don’t let people explore mistaken ideas, they will never really be sold on ideas that are better.
I’m not commenting on the theories themselves. I’m merely noting the difference between a defensive, insecure posture and a robust stance that welcomes all comers.
Look at it this way. How many debates with highly qualified ‘deniers,’ has Al Gore engaged in?
Zero.
Yet ‘skeptics,’ as they’re called, are beside themselves to debate Gore. Lord Monkton, to name but one, would debate him any time, anywhere, if only Gore would agree.
I don’t know, but I’d imagine it’s the same with Creationists vs Evolutionists. No one can convince me there aren’t Creationists chomping at the bit for a high profile debate. Maybe there have been some? If so, I haven’t heard about them.
I don’t necessarily disagree with any of that, but it’s beside the point. My point is that you can find folks on “both sides” of this debate just pointing at the other side and screeching “HERETIC!!! ANATHEMA!!!” And then you can find folks collecting data, reading Scripture, analyzing evidence, and following where it leads. If that’s what Dr. Snelling is doing, I support him even if I don’t necessarily agree with him.
Fully agree with you. For me, this clearly falls into the “disagree with what you say...defend to the death your right to say it....or study it”.
Every, Single, Bar none, advance in science has come from something once considered wrong. A crackpot scientist should be left alone. They should be affectionately, and lovingly left alone.
Think of the alchemists. They actually advanced science in many ways with their errors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.