God said, let the dry land appear...: Baumgardner in New Scientist

Turner

unread,

Dec 7, 2006, 12:21:28 PM12/7/06

to

The science magazine New Scientist have published an interview with
creationist John Baumgardner, focusing on his career and "work".

I'm in two minds about the article. It is very balanced and presents
Baumgardner in an unbiased way, but I can't help thinking that it gives
too much credit to his ideas, almost making the global flood model look
reasonable, especially since New Scientist generally opposes
creationism to my knowledge.

Baumgardner clearly does his best to come across fair and open minded,
but a bit of the creationist idiocy shines through in the final
paragraph:

"Yet the [American Geophysical Union] has stated that "creationism is
not science".
There are ideological people who lobbied to get that in there. I have
protested. To give free rein to these atheists to bash people of faith
is simply not the way the AGU should conduct itself. All I can do is
say this is not appropriate. But I derive great benefit from being a
member of the AGU."

Inappropriate to insist that creationism is unscientific? Let's hope
that nobody reading it takes him too seriously. Probably the only
benefit he derives from being in the AGU is that it makes his crackpot
ideas seem more credible.

You can read the first few paragraphs of the article here:
www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19225812.100-lone-voices-special-god-said-let-the-dry-land-appear.html

Grandbank

unread,

Dec 7, 2006, 7:50:42 PM12/7/06

to

In one of those too perfect coincidences, the online snippet is cut off
mid sentence:

"My original training was in electrical ..."

Gosh, *whatever* could the next word be?

KP

Robert Carnegie

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 11:40:29 AM12/8/06

to

"Stimulation"?

Chimp

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 12:06:45 PM12/8/06

to

Turner wrote:
> The science magazine New Scientist have published an interview with
> creationist John Baumgardner, focusing on his career and "work".
>
> I'm in two minds about the article. It is very balanced and presents
> Baumgardner in an unbiased way, but I can't help thinking that it gives
> too much credit to his ideas, almost making the global flood model look
> reasonable, especially since New Scientist generally opposes
> creationism to my knowledge.

It gave him rope to hang himself. He admitted that he needed
divine intervention in a couple of places to make his ideas
fit the data. And he admitted that he needed to overturn
much of physics to make radioisotope ages fit his ideas.

Chimp

John Vreeland

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 12:23:53 PM12/8/06

to

They gave him rope, yes, but they make it clear that he was just making
stuff up? Anyone can stand on a chair and scream that his science is
better, but if they aren't looking when he kicks the chair out from
under himself they might walk away thinking he had a real point.

Grandbank

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 4:42:15 PM12/8/06

to

In one of those *too perfect* coincidences, the article cuts off in the
middle of this sentence:

"My original training was in electrical ..."

Trust me, no need to Google, it does say what you just knew it would.

KP

Stuart

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 5:32:02 PM12/8/06

to

Errr. Not so fast. I know John personally.

John holds a Ph.D. in Geophysics from UCLA.

Stuart

Grandbank

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 5:41:07 PM12/8/06

to

Well that's interesting. This post was written Thursday AM shortly
after the topic opened, disappeared without a trace (prompting me to
repost), then appears out of the blue Friday afternoon. Thank-you
Google.

KP

Grandbank

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 5:51:35 PM12/8/06

to

Stuart wrote:
>
> Errr. Not so fast. I know John personally.
>
> John holds a Ph.D. in Geophysics from UCLA.
>
> Stuart

>From AIG:

"John Baumgardner was working on a Ph.D. in electrical engineering when
he discovered the reality of Jesus in a dramatic way through a group
Bible study of the Gospel of John. After a four-year tour of duty at
the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, where he was engaged in gas dynamic
laser research, he joined the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ.
Observing the deliberate use of evolution to assault and destroy the
faith of Christian college students, Dr. Baumgardner began to develop
and present classroom lectures and evening forums to expose evolution's
false claims.

Upon realization that Noah's Flood involved a planetary-scale
tectonic catastrophe, he entered a Ph.D. program in geophysics at UCLA
in order to obtain the expertise and credentials to address the problem
of the mechanism of the Genesis Flood at a professional scientific
level."

So he joins the list of creationists who start with a religious
conclusion and phony up scientific research that pretends to support
it. He should have stayed in E.E., then he could have at least
masqueraded as uninformed: Informed, honest, creationist - you only
get to be 2.

KP

Grandbank

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 6:16:58 PM12/8/06

to

Stuart wrote:
>
> Errr. Not so fast. I know John personally.
>
> John holds a Ph.D. in Geophysics from UCLA.
>
> Stuart

Stuart

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 6:21:21 PM12/8/06

to

Grandbank wrote:
> Stuart wrote:
> >
> > Errr. Not so fast. I know John personally.
> >
> > John holds a Ph.D. in Geophysics from UCLA.
> >
> > Stuart
>
>
> >From AIG:
>
> "John Baumgardner was working on a Ph.D. in electrical engineering when
> he discovered the reality of Jesus in a dramatic way through a group
> Bible study of the Gospel of John. After a four-year tour of duty at
> the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, where he was engaged in gas dynamic
> laser research, he joined the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ.
> Observing the deliberate use of evolution to assault and destroy the
> faith of Christian college students, Dr. Baumgardner began to develop
> and present classroom lectures and evening forums to expose evolution's
> false claims.
>
> Upon realization that Noah's Flood involved a planetary-scale
> tectonic catastrophe, he entered a Ph.D. program in geophysics at UCLA
> in order to obtain the expertise and credentials to address the problem
> of the mechanism of the Genesis Flood at a professional scientific
> level."
>
>
>
> So he joins the list of creationists who start with a religious
> conclusion and phony up scientific research that pretends to support
> it.

In his defense, he has done some good mainstream sceince. His problem
occurs when he tries to force his models to be Biblically correct. At
that point John ceases to be interesting, geophysically speaking, but
more entertaining. The fluid mechanics of some of his creationist
models is mildly interesting but have no relevance to the Earth.

He should have stayed in E.E., then he could have at least
> masqueraded as uninformed: Informed, honest, creationist - you only
> get to be 2.

LOL.

Stuart