Are young earth creationist experts favored new hires for oil exploration companies?

[MrsLurking]

If young earth creationists have the correct view of earth history and mainstream geologists have it wrong, do oil exploration companies favor young earth creationists when hiring? After all, understanding the role of Noah's flood in burying enormous quantities of biomass to produce oil deposits would surely be essential in finding them.

Oil exploration companies spend massively on studying geologic strata because even a test drilling is extremely costly. So a skilled geologist can tell oil engineers where to drill for the greatest likelihood of a profitable strike. Wouldn't a correct understanding of earth history---and a YEC's recognition that Noah's flood buried those deposits just a few thousand years ago---give young earth creationists a tremendous advantage in finding oil?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

A college buddy of mine received his Ph.D. from a UC in Cali, and works for a large oil company in Texas now, but he's not a YEC.

 

[MrsLurking]

A college buddy of mine received his Ph.D. from a UC in Cali, and works for a large oil company in Texas now, but he's not a YEC.

Perhaps he could order a lot of materials from Ken Ham---and get a big "leg up" on the competition.

 

[AV1611VET]

If young earth creationists have the correct view of earth history and mainstream geologists have it wrong, do oil exploration companies favor young earth creationists when hiring?

They would be in violation of federal law if they did.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

They would be in violation of federal law if they did.

Good thing it's against the law, because we'd still be riding horses and bicycles if it were up to YEC's to find oil.

 

[AV1611VET]

Good thing it's against the law, because we'd still be riding horses and bicycles if it were up to YEC's to find oil.

Don't count on that.

YECs would have probably found a cure for cancer by now, using proceeds from oil God showed them.

 

[jayem]

Considering the cost of petroleum exploration, I can't see the big oil companies risking their money on pseudoscience.

 

[NoPostDocFrock]

They would be in violation of federal law if they did.

And what federal law would that be?

The supposed motivation for oil companies hiring someone who believes the earth is just 6,000 years old would be that holding a CORRECT view of earth history in terms of chronology would provide oil exploration advantages. There is no law against that. The fact that most people who consider the earth to be 6,000 happen to be Christian, Jews, Muslims, and a few other kinds of religious traditions is irrelevant. I once met an atheist who claimed the earth was 12,000 years old.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

YECs would have probably found a cure for cancer by now, using proceeds from oil God showed them.

There's still time. Get to work!

 

[MrsLurking]

There's still time. Get to work!

They are the only ones who know the actual caused of cancer, right? It was Adam's sin. But how does that give YECs an advantage in finding a cure?

By the way, I found this hard to believe that this was a common myth in creationist circles (and science-illiterates in general) but a young earth creationist friend told me this with a straight face:

"Coal comes from plants buried by Noah's flood. Oil comes from dinosaurs buried by Noah's Flood."

I thought it was a joke based upon the old Sinclair oil commercials back in the 1950's, where the "brontosaurus" was associated with gasoline. But I found that some people are genuinely serious about oil coming from dinosaurs. And THAT makes me start to shudder when I think of America's science-education rankings world-wide. I won't blame it on creationism but it is mind-boggling and scary any way you look at it!

Perhaps someone can console me and tell me that this is just a big joke.

 

[AV1611VET]

And what federal law would that be?

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) contains a number of prohibitions, known as prohibited personnel practices, which are designed to promote overall fairness in federal personnel actions. 5 U.S.C. 2302. The CSRA prohibits any employee who has authority to take certain personnel actions from discriminating for or against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability.

 

[AV1611VET]

By the way, I found this hard to believe that this was a common myth in creationist circles (and science-illiterates in general) but a young earth creationist friend told me this with a straight face:

"Coal comes from plants buried by Noah's flood. Oil comes from dinosaurs buried by Noah's Flood."

I thought it was a joke based upon the old Sinclair oil commercials back in the 1950's, where the "brontosaurus" was associated with gasoline. But I found that some people are genuinely serious about oil coming from dinosaurs. And THAT makes me start to shudder when I think of America's science-education rankings world-wide. I won't blame it on creationism but it is mind-boggling and scary any way you look at it!

Perhaps someone can console me and tell me that this is just a big joke.

Why are you telling an atheist this? are you a Judas goat or something?

(Now watch her go tell others I said she was a Judas goat.)

 

[Loudmouth]

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) contains a number of prohibitions, known as prohibited personnel practices, which are designed to promote overall fairness in federal personnel actions. 5 U.S.C. 2302. The CSRA prohibits any employee who has authority to take certain personnel actions from discriminating for or against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability.

There was a post doc who was fired because he refused to apply evolutionary principles as part of the grant he was working under. He was fired, so he sued. He lost the suit.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...tionist-postdoc-loses-lawsuit/flagPost/42792/

 

[AV1611VET]

There was a post doc who was fired because he refused to apply evolutionary principles as part of the grant he was working under. He was fired, so he sued. He lost the suit.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...tionist-postdoc-loses-lawsuit/flagPost/42792/

I thought we were talking about hiring -- not firing?

 

[jayem]

I thought it was a joke based upon the old Sinclair oil commercials back in the 1950's, where the "brontosaurus" was associated with gasoline. But I found that some people are genuinely serious about oil coming from dinosaurs. And THAT makes me start to shudder when I think of America's science-education rankings world-wide. I won't blame it on creationism but it is mind-boggling and scary any way you look at it!

Perhaps someone can console me and tell me that this is just a big joke.

I think you're right on about the dinosaur connection. IIRC, petroleum actually comes from algae and plankton. But they wouldn't make for a very good corporate logo.

 

[Loudmouth]

I thought we were talking about hiring -- not firing?

Perhaps this snippet from Glenn Morton will help you out:

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either.

--Glenn Morton
​

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps this snippet from Glenn Morton will help you out:

Okay ... thanks.

I can take a hint.

 

[MrsLurking]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET
I thought we were talking about hiring -- not firing?

Perhaps this snippet from Glenn Morton will help you out....

AV1611VET changes the subject to job discrimination....and then complains when someone else responds by mentioning a job discrimination lawsuit. Amazing. Does AV1611VET ever think logically?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does AV1611VET ever think logically?

Yes -- theologically.

Try it sometime.

 

[MrsLurking]

There was a post doc who was fired because he refused to apply evolutionary principles as part of the grant he was working under. He was fired, so he sued. He lost the suit.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...tionist-postdoc-loses-lawsuit/flagPost/42792/

CONSIDER THESE SCENARIOS:

Suppose you were chairman of the Geography Department at a major university and a candidate tells you that even though he is willing to TEACH the idea that the earth is a sphere/obloid, he believes that the earth is actually aligned on a single plane and is flat---and only because of a complex series of illusions are scientists fooled into thinking it is approximately a sphere. Would you be inclined to put him on the short list of candidate finalists for the new Associate Professor of Geography position?

Suppose you are hiring at the Center for Disease Control. A candidate has excellent academic degrees and experience but during the interview tells you that he is willing to conduct policy as if communicable diseases are caused by various microorganisms and viruses but privately he believes that all such diseases are caused by invisible elves which live inside the loops of shoe laces. Can he do the job?

An applicant for Professor of History was #1 in the doctoral program at Cambridge and his dissertation became a best-selling book and turned into a TV mini-series that may excite university donors. But privately he tells you that he believes the world began in 1503 when aliens seeded the human race and planted within their brains a world with "embedded age" where everyone assumes a history which never existed but blends perfect int the actual history which began in 1503. Do you hire him?

Is an impressive C.V. enough? Do glowing recommendations and proof of excellent job performance and teaching awards in previous positions qualify someone for the new post? Or does questionable LOGIC and EVEN BELIEFS/WORLDVIEWS matter?