How to pull an intellectual scam - 101. Courtesy of Institute for Creation Research.

[KerrMetric]

A commonly referenced piece of "evidence" for a young Universe is the so called "winding dilemma" of spiral galaxies. Here is the link for the ICR article authored by Russell Humphreys where it figures prominently. This article was authored in 2005.

http://www.icr.org/article/1842/

Below I have quoted the references that Humphreys is basing his critique upon. The first is a textbook that describes "density wave" theory circa 1987. And for the evidence that the theory is somehow useless we have a well known (in astrophysical and evidently creationist circles anyway) paper by Zaritsky et al. from 1993 on the observations of the central regions of M51.

1. Scheffler, H. and Elsasser, H., Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352-353, 401-413.
2. D. Zaritsky, H-W. Rix, and M. Rieke, Inner spiral structure of the galaxy M51, Nature 364:313-315 (July 22, 1993).

Notice the 3 dates so far:

1987 for the textbook
1993 for the M51 paper
2005 for the Humphreys PRATT (Points refuted A Thousand Times) list.

Now my purpose here is not to discuss the density wave theory, alternatives, successful predictions or current problems but to show what passes for "research" and the intellectual scam Humphreys and his ilk are performing. As far as I can tell - even though this argument appears again and again in the Creationist literature the above two references are the only ones typically cited and in fact the Zaritsky M51 paper is the only reference they ever use for showing problems with theory on this topic.

So what we have is really a throw the baby out with the bathwater attempt based upon a 12 (now 14) year old reference (which by the way is being taken somewhat out of context.)

If Humphreys was really interested in researching this topic and highlighting problems why only one decade + old reference? If this theory is really so weak and the evidence for the winding dilemma so strong then he can only find a single quibble. Why is there no evidence that Humphreys got off his rear end and actually looked into this subject? Yet this argument appears time and time again in Creationist PRATT lists and AIG/ICR output?

Here for comparison is a modern research paper on spiral arms as density waves:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0511/0511037v1.pdf

And below I quote the reference list in this paper. Notice the BIG difference (besides the fact these guys actually know what they are doing and Humprheys does not) - look at the dates on the references. Think the authors might be a tad more familiar with the subject area? Think they might have done more work than ICR on this? Think they may be more honest?????????

Amaral, L. H., & Lepine, J. R. D. 1997, MNRAS, 286, 885
Barbanis, B., & Woltjer, L. 1967, ApJ, 150, 461

Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic Dynamics, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ
Carlberg, R. G., & Sellwood, J. A. 1985, ApJ, 292, 79
Carr, B. J., & Lacey, C. G. 1987, ApJ, 316, 23
Combes, F., Debbasch, F., Friedli, D., & Pfenniger, D. 1990, A&A,
233, 82
Contopoulos, G. 1981, A&A, 102, 265
Contopoulos, G. 1985, Comments on Astrophysics, Physics, 11, 1
Contopoulos, G., & Grosbol, P. 1988, A&A, 155, 11
Dehnen, W. 1998, AJ, 115, 2384
Dennis, T. R. 1966, ApJ, 146, 581
De Simone, R. S., Wu, X., & Tremaine, S. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 627
Dias, W. S. & J. R. D. Lpine, J. R. D. 2005, astro.ph, 3083
Drimmel, R., & Spergel, D.N. 2001, ApJ, 556, 181
Eggen, O. J., Lynden-Bell, D., & Sandage, A. R. 1962, ApJ, 136,
748
Elmegreen, B. G., Elmegreen, D. M., &Montenegro, L. 1992, ApJS,
79, 37
Fuchs, B. 2001, A&A, 368, 107
Fux, R. 2001, A&A 373, 511
H¨anninen, J., & Flynn, C. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 731
H¨anninen, J., & Flynn, C. 2004, A&A, 421, 1001
Henry, A. L., Quillen, A. C., & Gutermuth, R. 2003, AJ, 126, 2831
Jenkins, A., & Binney, J. 1990, MNRAS, 245, 305
Jenkins, A. 1992, MNRAS, 257, 620
Lacey, C. G. 1984, MNRAS, 208, 687
Lacey, C. G., & Ostriker, J. P. 1985, ApJ, 299, 633
Lecar, M.,Franklin, F., Holman, M., Murray, N. 2001, ARA&A, 39,
581
Lepine, J. R. D., Mishurov, Y. N., & Dedikov, S. Y. 2001, ApJ,
546, 234
Lin, C. C., Yuan, C., Shu, & Frank H. 1969, ApJ, 155, 721
Lowe, S. A., Roberts, W. W., Yang, J., Bertin, G., & Lin, C. C.
1994, ApJ, 427, 184
Lynden-Bell D., & Kalnajs A. J. 1972, MNRAS, 157, 1
Ma, J., Zhao J., Zhang F., & Peng Q. 2000, ChA & A, 24, 435
Mihalas, D., & Binney, J. J. 1981, Galactic Astronomy, Freeman:
San Francisco
Murray, N, & Holman, M. 1999, Science, 283, 1877
Naoz, S., & Shaviv, N. 2005, ApJ, in press, (astro-ph/0503127)
Quillen, A. C. 2003, AJ, 125, 785
Quillen, A. C. & Minchev, I. 2005, AJ, 130, 576
Rix, H. W., & Rieke, M. J. 1993, ApJ, 418, 123
Sellwood, J. A., & Carlberg, R. G. 1984, ApJ, 282, 61
Sellwood, J. A., & Binney, J. J. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 785
Spitzer, L. & Schwarzschild, M. 1951, ApJ, 114, 385
Spitzer, L. & Schwarzschild, M. 1953, ApJ, 118, 106
Toomre, A. 1981 in S.M. Fall, D. Lynden-Bell (eds.), The Structure
and Evolution of Normal Galaxies, Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge, p. 111
Vall´ee, J. 2005, AJ, 130, 569
Velazquez, H., White, S. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 254​

Wielen, R. 1977, A&A, 60, 263

To me this just highlights the difference between real research and the scams ICR and the like perform. One obviously references and builds upon extensive work from credible researchers over several decades and especially using up to date efforts whereas the other is a biased and scanty book report that cherry picks one reference and uses it out of context so as to paint a negative picture that is far from reality.

ICR and AIG are performing an intellectual scam so as to convince lay people that their delusional view of the universe is correct. The fact they are making their livings of this doesn't hurt either. Send out a message the brethren want to hear, facts be damned, and the donations shall keep on rolling in. That makes it far more than just an intellectual scam - it promotes it to a full blown con job.

I think the technical term to summarise the whole shebang is "Lying for Christ".

 

[ApostolicKiwi]

So, would you call people who take the first page of the Bible literal "Liars for Christ?"

 

[KerrMetric]

So, would you call people who take the first page of the Bible literal "Liers for Christ?"

I take it you mean Liars for Christ.

No - but I do call people pretending to be researching scientists who lie about facts, fudge data and invent crackpot notions about science yet claim they are doing the Lords work by that moniker.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Very informative.

 

[ApostolicKiwi]

I take it you mean Liars for Christ.

No - but I do call people pretending to be researching scientists who lie about facts, fudge data and invent crackpot notions about science yet claim they are doing the Lords work by that moniker.

Yes, sorry. That was a typo....

I was just wondering because there are plenty of people out there who would not even have heard about these research institutes and still believe (in YEC).

 

[KerrMetric]

I was just wondering because there are plenty of people out there who would not even have heard about these research institutes and still believe (in YEC).

99% of those people just really don't know any of the science. A sad fact but true is the general public are not clued in. They only are YEC because they have been told to be so (by pastor/parent or whatever) or they somehow believe scripture demands it. I don't call people liars for Christ when it purely ignorance. But when groups like AIG and ICR try to tell folks they are research scientists and that they are authorities on these topics then I do have a problem with that. They have been caught lying, fudging data and all around mischief way to often.

By the way, I think AIG and ICR do a pretty good job of getting pastors information even if the congregation doesn't know the groups directly.

 

[Dannager]

Yes, sorry. That was a typo....

I was just wondering because there are plenty of people out there who would not even have heard about these research institutes and still believe (in YEC).

Because they've been told what to believe by their pastors, who were told what to believe by these research institutes. It all starts with the liars.

 

[philadiddle]

Is that long list of references made up of only secular scientists?

sorry i had to

 

[theQuestionist]

I don't think all people who defend and "research" YEC are liars....I truly believe some of them are just decieved.

I remember when I was at a point where YEC seemed so viable (based on my own "research") that I couldn't even mention the word "evolution" without chuckling in my mind. So I can imagine how some of these "Creation scientists" may have trained their minds to think the same way, as opposed to the idea that they're actively lying about their findings. Even when their "findings" seem illogical or easily discredited, it's easy to understand how their minds refuse to think critically about such things...simply so they can "further their cause" (any findings are good findings, right?*)

However, I do think there is a line that must be drawn, and I certainly believe that there are some YECs who are being deceptive. Personally, I believe Kent Hovind is an example of a truly deceptive YEC.


*no.

 

[KerrMetric]

I don't think all people who defend and "research" YEC are liars....I truly believe some of them are just decieved.

I would agree with that - but I do think the top levels of AIG and ICR often do know the scam they are pulling and they have 6 figure incomes dependent upon it.

I have a 6 figure income dependent upon science but I also have tenure. I could become a star witness for AIG or ICR tomorrow and still keep my job. Of course I would have to lie to become that witness.