…and this is a 
Creationist Physics 101
Category: Creationism • Kooks
Posted on: January 1, 2008 11:57 AM, by PZ Myers
A weird anti-evolution crank seems to be ramping up his efforts around the blogosphere recently: C. David Parsons has been leaving comments at Florida Citizens for Science, and Wesley Elsberry directly addresses his "conflict driven" views. Parsons has apparently been trying to raise his profile because he has a new book out, and he wants creationists to buy it.
It's being put out by Tate Publishing, which seems to be a vanity press dedicated specifically to bilking Christian authors. If you have $40 and a complete lack of sense, you too can be the proud owner of The Quest for Right: The Adventure of a Lifetime, although I think you can tell from the title that it's not going to be well-written. If you need a further clue, the author lists his qualifications on the cover: "Biblical Scholar and Scientist Extraordinaire." I wonder if that's anything like a super-scientist?
Anyway, you can browse through the table of contents and a sample excerpt. It's bizarre. C. David Parsons is a young-earth creationist and biblical literalist; he doesn't like those Christians who try to shoe-horn dinosaurs into the bible. I suspect he's alienated a lot of his potential audience right there. He also has some peculiar notions about the origins of the earth.
Unveils the fundamental truth, based on the scientific record of creation, that the earth accreted from a watery nebula; the great surging mass of water and chemicals had no particular shape and covered thousands of square miles of interstellar space.
The "watery nebula" is probably an invention to rationalize the flood myth, but I'm afraid I don't have any of the details. I also suspect some profound innumeracy: shouldn't we be concerned about cubic miles in a volume of space, and "thousands of square miles" doesn't sound like much—the earth formed out of a sheet of water a hundred miles on a side?
The book looks to be full of ranting against a conspiracy out to bury the truth, variously called a "scientific council" and the "league of scientists". I wish. Wouldn't it be cool to be a Super-Scientist in the League of Scientists?
I'm afraid, though, that most of his book isn't for me. He doesn't seem to say much about biology or evolution, but instead focuses the bulk of his complaints on — and this will thrill some of the readers here — physics. He doesn't like quantum mechanics. He dedicates a whole chapter to debunking the photoelectric effect — photons aren't real. Heck, this guy is going right down to the basics: he rejects Rutherford and Bohr, wants nothing to do with electrons, and wants us to know that God is doing it all.
The backbone of obstructionism is electronic interpretation, the tenet that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electronic structure of the atom which, in turn, can be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics as outlined in quantum mechanics. The philosophy rejects any divine intervention. Scientific obstructionism is judged on these specifics: electronic interpretation and quantum mechanics. Conversely, the view of separatists that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied. The view, however, is not tested by the definition of science, as determined by the court, but by the weightier principle of verifiable truths.
You've got to appreciate an honest kook. He knows that, in order to support biblical creationism, it's not enough to critique biology — you've got to get right down to the roots and revise all of physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy to take down the perfidious lies of the League of Scientists.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | January 1, 2008 12:10 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | January 1, 2008 12:19 PM
Dude! A League of Scientists would be awesome! I mean, you guys could have a lair beneath a volcano, and maybe you could get your hands on a secret super-jet prototype that fires lasers and smart bombs. You could hide it beneath the basketball court.
I think we need to create a League of Scientists.
Posted by: Dan | January 1, 2008 12:20 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | January 1, 2008 12:22 PM
Damn it. I spent all those years at university, and now am undone by a crackpot theory based on a book written by sheep-shaggers some two to three thousand years ago. When will I learn?
Posted by: carey | January 1, 2008 12:25 PM
The possibilities are unlimited for kooks like this; their imaginations are bound only by the need to make their stories sound sciency enough to fool the lowest rung on the intellectual ladder. Might as well just say that God made a gigantic cistern full of water, suspended it over the earth, and tilted it to make the flood. That makes slightly more sense than a Watery Nebula, but it doesn't sound like something a Scientist Extraordinare would say.
Posted by: Jim Wynne | January 1, 2008 12:26 PM
I think that should be the League of Extraordinary Scientists which is, of course, led by a Super Scientist.
Posted by: Rasputin | January 1, 2008 12:26 PM
This is hardcore crackpottery. He has god pushing electrons around and transporting photons and so on. There are a lot of atoms, electrons, and photons in the universe.
Sort of demotes god to a quantum mechanical substitute keeping matter and energy in existence and doing what they do. Not seeing it. Surely on omnipotent, omniscient deity has better things to do with its time. Hmmm, maybe the deities invented quantum mechanics and the rest of physics so they could spend their time tinkering with evolution or creating disobedient children that people are supposed to stone to death but never do.
This nutcase's theology is so wacko, it is hard to take it seriously enough to think through the corralaries. But if god is everywhere, everything, doing everything, then where is free will? Makes existence look completely arbitrary and pointless.
Posted by: raven | January 1, 2008 12:30 PM
Conversely, the view of separatists that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied.
Okay, I'll bite! Sure, God did it all, but is the phenomena consistent and able to be explicated mathematically? Than we can use it for our piddling secular purposes. When you can short-cut this by affecting the phenomena of the universe through prayer, get back to me. If it's repeatable and consistent it could be useful.
Posted by: Mooser | January 1, 2008 12:35 PM
"League of Extraordinary Scientists"!
Good one, Rasputin.
Posted by: Hank Fox | January 1, 2008 12:35 PM
C. David Parsons can't demonstrate that he exists. At least, that's the ramification of the reasoning in his spam. Therefore, I conclude that he is actually J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | January 1, 2008 12:40 PM
Posted by: miller | January 1, 2008 12:40 PM
Nothing personal, but I don't think you would look good in spandex.
Very few people do. Honestly, I'm of the opinion that the material should be banned for the manufacture of clothing.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 1, 2008 12:41 PM
PZ... I don't care what anyone says. You'll always be my super-scientist.
Posted by: James | January 1, 2008 12:43 PM
I wish I had more time and money. I have a bookshelf wheezing under the weight of such books, but I can always use one more. That one sounds like fun.
Posted by: Phil Plait, The Bad Astronomer | January 1, 2008 12:49 PM
...I'll leave this one to Roy Zimmerman:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs
Posted by: Elf | January 1, 2008 12:50 PM
wow.
Posted by: alex | January 1, 2008 12:51 PM
Very few people do. Honestly, I'm of the opinion that the material should be banned for the manufacture of clothing.
But those few who DO look good in spandex wear it very well.
Posted by: natural cynic | January 1, 2008 12:59 PM
I know that I'm always thrilled to see another religious zealot telling me that 'truth' trumps facts. The next one that can tell me how to arrive at 'truth' will, of course, be the first.
Posted by: freelunch | January 1, 2008 12:59 PM
I am pleased with the revelation of watery nebulae and look forward to the discovery of tomato saucy nebulae. All praise to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | January 1, 2008 1:01 PM
The nice thing about Mr Parsons is that if he meets the minimum standard for being a "scientist extraordinaire", then so do all of us.
Posted by: Mike from Ottawa, Scientist Extraordinaire! | January 1, 2008 1:03 PM
good thing he's not a libertarian too!!
Posted by: Dave | January 1, 2008 1:05 PM
If I run across this book on my own, I would have assumed it was a parody. Still not sure it is not.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | January 1, 2008 1:05 PM
I want a super-scientist cape. :(
Posted by: Carlie | January 1, 2008 1:08 PM
ROFL! Scientist extraordinaire.
Posted by: The Ethical Atheist | January 1, 2008 1:09 PM
PZ, may I be your padawan in the League of Scientists?
Posted by: The Ethical Atheist | January 1, 2008 1:14 PM
PZ, you really must bone up on your Bible. The watery nebula has nothing at all to do with Noah's flood:
Genesis Chapter 1
1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
...
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Posted by: writerdd | January 1, 2008 1:19 PM
So... when will www.leagueofscientists.com be online? And when will there be a logo that we can display on our blogs and stuff? I am eager to show my support and eventually (as I earn my degree) join the League!
Posted by: Felicia Gilljam | January 1, 2008 1:21 PM
I don't think his "watery nebulae" have anything to do with the flood myth. I recently read the first few lines of Genesis 1. It says there was water, and then light and earth was created.
Genesis 1 is so clearly a standard creation myth, comparable to the ones of many nature religions. "Earth" in Genesis 1 most likely originally referred to "the flat ground that we are sitting on", just as it did in e.g. Norse and Shinto creation myths.
Posted by: Bjorn, James Bjorn | January 1, 2008 1:23 PM
PZ: "...I wonder if that's anything like a super-scientist?"
Think "Super genius"...as in Wile E Coyote. This guy sounds about as challenged scientifically speaking.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | January 1, 2008 1:28 PM
Carlie: "I want a super-scientist cape. :("
NO CAPES!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M68ndaZSKa8
Posted by: MikeG | January 1, 2008 1:28 PM
I'm sorry, I'm just not following. How exactly is science _different_ to evaluating ideas based on whether they're verifiably true? I think that's what he's saying, anyway. Does he think there's some International Conspiracy of Scientists (perhaps a "League of Scientists"?) who decide what the scientific orthodoxy is? Some kind of Vatican II?
"Very well, gentlemen. On the matter of the existence of the luminiferous aether, the nays have it. Michelson, Morley, this council expects you to publish a number of papers to that effect. *bangs gavel* Adjourned."
Posted by: Snoof | January 1, 2008 1:31 PM
Wait, wait! Parsons says that God controls each particle personally? Uhm. It sounds like Parsons' God is actually Maxwell's demon!
I'd guess the book reviews will run both hot and cold.
Posted by: Calladus | January 1, 2008 1:33 PM
The earth has approximately 196 MILLION square miles of surface area. It has, approximately, 26 BILLION cubic miles of material.
There is no fracking way his theory even reaches the tier "bone-head stupid." Hell, it's so wrong that the expression "it's not even wrong" fails to encompass the error.
(And, bwa-ha-ha, all those geology and oceanography electives pay off!!! So it took me seven years to get a bachelor's degree...)
Posted by: Moses | January 1, 2008 1:35 PM
@31:
Yes, really, they do think there are international/global/national conspiracies determined tp oppress them *SPECIFICALLY* and *BY DESIGN*. This can be seen in the panacea of fear-mongering conservative world view. The thesists constitute a conspiracy, as do the gays, the lesbians, scientists now, social unions of any sort outside of Christian conservative ones, opposing political parties, etc. I can't honestly think of an evil the religious conservatives have ever identified that didn't at one point constitute a dark shadowy conspiracy greater in scope than the person or persons that identified it.
It's the assumption of the truth-telling righteous underdog messiah mantle they so love bathing in. Think the guy that stands on a busy Vegas strip street corner holding up a sign about the coming armageddon and to reserve your seat in Heaven ASAP. It's a more institutionalized form of that.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | January 1, 2008 1:56 PM
a conspiracy out to bury the truth
Curses, Batman -- he's on to us!
Posted by: Martin R | January 1, 2008 1:57 PM
Holy ball of gibberish, batman: "Scientific obstructionism is judged on these specifics: electronic interpretation and quantum mechanics" Can anyone parse that for me?
Posted by: Dave Bacon | January 1, 2008 2:00 PM
Here's a new word for you all:
Occasionalism
This is the name for the basic premis this moron supports.
This is a theory of causation which purports that no cause actually has an effect. instead when a cause happens god sneaks in and makes the effect happen.
It looks like our 'Scientist extraordinaire' is proposing the physics equivalent.
Here's the wikipedia article on occasionalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism
Heh, you may not like philosophy too much, but at least we name ways of being stupid pretty well :P
-An occasional cat
Posted by: Cat of many faces | January 1, 2008 2:06 PM
You've got to appreciate an honest kook.
Honest?! He's saying "There is no electricity, only
ZuulGod" and seemingly hasn't insisted on the worship of electricity as the divine Hand of God, or the relevance of Thor and Zeus to that particular faith. =/Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | January 1, 2008 2:07 PM
You'd think.
Posted by: Skemono | January 1, 2008 2:16 PM
So... when will www.leagueofscientists.com be online?
I feel inspired - and I just bought the domain. Watch this space. ;o)
Posted by: Elf | January 1, 2008 2:21 PM
It's very weird that everyone can mock and taunt this book when no one has read it yet. Shows me that none of you know anything about this book and are just making up a bunch of "negative, silly comments" because you're afraid of what it might be bringing forth in the way of the Truth. The Truth always scares people and especially people who have believed a lie for so long they call it truth.
Posted by: truthseeker | January 1, 2008 2:24 PM
Hey PZ, you plan on having auditions to pick a plucky side-kick?
You have to admit the headline "PZ and Beagle Boy Defeat Dr. Evil-devo" reads a whole lot better than "Science Blogger Takes On Creationist."
Posted by: Todd | January 1, 2008 2:28 PM
@truthseeker:
wht we see stinks.why should the book
be any differe,huh,Mr Troll ?
Posted by: astrolieber | January 1, 2008 2:35 PM
Come on, PZ. This guy isn't a total nut. Sure he's a little off the edge, but we all have our little quarks.
Posted by: Chris Thompson | January 1, 2008 2:37 PM
@truthseeker (#41):
Kindly define "Truth" and supply examples.
Posted by: Elf | January 1, 2008 2:37 PM
:rollseyes: Oh please, give me a fraking break. You're so goddamn inane in your concern trolling, or whatever the hell you call it, that it is a damn joke.
We're talking incredible order magnitudes of wrong in materials with his creation of the earth from the "water nebula" creation story. Nobody who calls himself a "scientist extraordinaire" should make that kind of error.
It would take BILLIONS, if not TRILLIONS, of cubic miles (not thousands of "square miles" with which you don't make volume measurements anyway) of nebula to come close enough just to make the Earth. THEN there's the whole problem of the moon and the rest of the solar system which wasn't addressed in the quote nor my mocking of his idiotic error.
It's like claiming all the lumber you need to build a 4,000 square foot home can be found in a small box of matches. A claim that would, frankly, a prime example of pulling stupidity out of your ass.
Posted by: Moses | January 1, 2008 2:39 PM
MikeG - I know, but they're so swishy! And quite slimming. Besides, if you were wearing a spandex outfit, wouldn't you want a cape to cover it up with?
Posted by: Carlie | January 1, 2008 2:44 PM
Super Scientist, after conferring with the League of Scientists via cell phone flies to Florida (in an Airplane). Once in Florida, he drives to a particular location by employing his vehicles on-board computer with internet access and GPS unit. Arriving at a local church, he finds the bespectacled Scientist Extra Ordinary masticating on the front steps and surrounded by the boys choir. He is creating BABTOBOTS(TM)!!! Super Scientist steps out of his mirror black Chevy Volt, iridescent cape coruscant in the sunlight and balmy Florida breezes, silver-white spandex rippling, as in Days of Yore(TM) with the de- and re-polarization of a billion neurons.
"Curses," says SEO in a fulminating rage, "How did you find me".... and makes good his escape while the Super Scientist is helpless- convulsed with laughter.
Posted by: mothra | January 1, 2008 2:44 PM
#44: Owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww....
And yet, I feel compelled by the great Ceiling Cat to say this: Teh book haz a flavor, and it is strangely charming.
Posted by: Falyne | January 1, 2008 2:45 PM
A CULTURAL NOTE ABOUT AGNOSTICS AND ATHIESTS. The following text is lifted from Volume 1 of The Quest for Right, a series of 7 scientific textbooks designed for the public schools.
"A marked distinction separates men who profess to be disciples (followers) of Christ and adherents of the Bible and those who profess to be outside Christianity (called unbelievers). Regarding the current definitions of agnostic and atheist, the text of the New Testament refutes the associated attributes, specifically the possibility that man (for whatever reason) either does not believe in the existence of God or else believes it is beyond one's mental ability to decide if there is a God. Countering the claim, the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, penned,
"For the invisible things of him [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they [men who 'hold the truth in unrighteousness'] are without excuse" (Romans 1:20-22).
The things God created are aptly referred to as "the glory of God." In deference to the biblical precept, the eternal power and Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are clearly evidenced (seen and understood) by the things that God created and made. One only has to observe his or her surroundings; for instance, a wilderness setting with stately trees reaching skyward, colorful wildflowers dotting the meadows, wood ducks by a pool, and animals scurrying about in the underbrush, to realize the knowledge of the existence of God.
There are, however, men who do "not like to retain God in their knowledge" (Romans 1:28), and cast down every thought of God. Regrettably, the course of action is not without due penalty:
"Because when they knew God [everyone has known God at one time in his or her life], they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:21, 22).
In light of the foregoing scriptures, the current definitions of agnostic and atheist are wholly inept: men who hold the biblical precept to be patently false, professing either not to believe or know that there is an eternal power, are neither agnostic nor atheist, but willfully disobedient - willful, "done on purpose; deliberate."
Concurring with the biblical principle, Darwin may be charged with being willfully disobedient, as observed in his criticism of the tenets of Christianity. Of one certainty the reader may be assured, Darwin did not speak objectively when it came to Christianity -objectively, "uninfluenced by personal feelings, prejudices or agendas." In a bitter denial of Christianity, Darwin complained that he "could hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." Why was Darwin so embittered? Read Revelation 20:11-15; 21:7, 8.
In order to access an online, audible Bible, and to read the biblical verses in context, go here: http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html
You may wish to bookmark the site. RealPlayer is required to listen to the Audio Bible.
Darwin once confessed to being a theist, the belief in the existence of a god or gods, in particular the belief that God both created and rules all earthly phenomena. After the publication of the Origin, Darwin charged his original belief in God to the "constant inculcation" (instruction or indoctrination) in a belief in God" during his childhood, which was as difficult to cast down as "for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake."
With self-assurance, Darwin purposed in his heart that he would no longer retain God in his knowledge, resolving instead to become an "agnostic." The reader is, therefore, cautioned that, whenever reading books and articles about Darwin, most, if not all, biographical authors are predisposed to depict him in a favorable light, oftentimes allowing pro-evolutionist sentiment to prejudice their work.
The Old Testament did not escape Darwin's inflamed rhetoric; concerning the validity of biblical histories (in particular, the Genesis account of creation), Darwin pointedly declared that "the manifestly false history of the earth....was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos (sic), or the beliefs of any barbarian." Thus, Darwin likened the creation of the first man, Adam (Genesis 2:7-25), to a mere fairy tale.
As an alternative to the counterfactual history, he summarily disposed of both creationism and God by declaring in the Origin that, once the reader entertains the "volumne (sic) on the origin of species...light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history," meaning that man and apes diverged from a common ancestor through the agency of evolution without the aid or influence of God - there is no God.
The comprehensive assessment will be fully justified in the full text of Volume 1 of The Quest for Right. http://questforright.com.
Posted by: C. David Parsons | January 1, 2008 2:46 PM
My New Year's resolution is to find and mock one troll a week. Truthseeker(#41), you get the honor of being the first one.
I call baloney on your persecution complex. Even the run of the mill creationist should be laughing at the author. There's is Biblical literalism and than there is outright quackery. This guy, he's a quack and I don't need to read his tripe to know it.
Posted by: Heather | January 1, 2008 2:51 PM
No he isn't! Go away and learn some history of biology, the theory of evolution did emerge in the 18th Century.
Posted by: Thony C. | January 1, 2008 2:56 PM
I think that should be the League of Extraordinary Scientists which is, of course, led by a Super Scientist.
oh! oh!
can i be the invisible scientist?
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 1, 2008 2:57 PM
Not really. C.D. Parsons is the internet equivalent of some guy dressed in 3 coats, holding a bottle shaped brown paper bag, sitting in front of a shopping cart filled with plastic bags, and ranting and raving.
It is possible the homeless guy is really a new prophet or an alien from an advanced civilization as he claims. More likely he is a victim of a malfunctioning brain and what appears to be gibberish is, in fact, gibberish. The odds favor the latter by almost infinity to 1 and it is not worth the time to figure out what he is saying.
What is odd is people who can sit around in 2008 surrounded by technology developed by modern physics, using a computer connected to the internet thanks to modern physics, and denying that modern physics even exists. Like it or not, understanding physics has lifted us from the stone age. Parson's theory might get one committed to an insane asylum if anyone believed it or run over by a car which, according to him, doesn't really exist or work.
So truthteller what is your connection to Parson? My guess, you are either Parson himself or a mental patient who is too fogged up to make up their own delusions and has to borrow someone elses.
Posted by: raven | January 1, 2008 3:01 PM
No he isn't! Go away and learn some history of biology, the theory of evolution did emerge in the 18th Century.
you are either referring to the very idea of evolution itself (which debatably in one form or another, came much earlier), or you, like the author, are mistaking 18th century for 1800's.
*psst*
the 19th century covers the 1800's.
Darwin published Origin in 1859.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 1, 2008 3:01 PM
Besides, if you were wearing a spandex outfit, wouldn't you want a cape to cover it up with?
NO SPANDEX!
Posted by: MAJeff | January 1, 2008 3:04 PM
Did you notice that the Parsons book is labeled "Volume 1"? Oh, joy! We can expect sequels!
Posted by: Zeno | January 1, 2008 3:06 PM
I feel inspired - and I just bought the domain. Watch this space. ;o)
cool.
so many interesting things could fit there, aside from the obvious graphic novel interpretation.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 1, 2008 3:06 PM
@51. Is your hostility based on ignorance?? Evolution as a idea goes back to Aristotle (or further). The mechanism of evolutionary change known as natural selection was proposed by Darwin in the 19th century. When CREATIONISTS use the term "theory of evolution" or "Darwinism" they are referring to Darwin's proposal
Posted by: mothra | January 1, 2008 3:09 PM
Is your hostility based on ignorance??
I rather think it's based on advertising, given what his professed interests are if you visit the link attached to his sig.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 1, 2008 3:13 PM
36: "...Can anyone parse that for me?"
Sure. Here's how I would rewrite Parsons' "Scientific obstructionism is judged on these specifics: electronic interpretation and quantum mechanics" passage:
"Because in reality I find real science difficult and too shattering of my religious indoctrination to accept, its active obstruction of my beliefs leads me to challenge it by arbitrarily selecting two metrics upon which I place immeasurable weight, so that if (or when, as I see it) the obstructing party fails one metric or the other, the guilt of the offending party is obvious."
41: "It's very weird that everyone can mock and taunt this book when no one has read it yet. Shows me that none of you know anything about this book and are just making up a bunch of "negative, silly comments" because you're afraid of what it might be bringing forth in the way of the Truth. The Truth always scares people and especially people who have believed a lie for so long they call it truth."
Anyone passing himself off as a "Scientist Extraordinaire" on the cover of his book deserves overt mocking and derision. Did Einstein ever fancy himself a "Scientist Extraordinaire"? Hawking? Darwin? Those two words together make me almost laugh. It's an absurd claim from someone thinking absurdly. And what qualifies any scientist as "Extraordinaire"? I didn't know that term was something more than a meaningless adjective with unverifiable weight. If I sleep, eat, breath and talk am I "human extraordinaire"? Parsons is self-congratulatory (like pretty much all creationists who think they can deconstruct reality with a single insipid question) before even reading the book.
As to your presumptive statements on truth, you seem to think you know it more than anyone here, or at least that you detect this Parsons person is on to something most of the rest of Humanity has missed. Further, what lie are you referring to? You are horribly unclear. As for fear, the only thing most rational posters here fear is the proliferation of idiocy as intelligent thought or scientific work.
On the contrary, there are many trolls that come in here expressing fear about science, the "evils" of evolution, and all kinds of other things they have no experience or expertise in. They fear discovery in favor of top-down revelation (otherwise known as being told what to believe in). You've doubtless already found that few here tolerate such errant thinking. That you haven't yet learned is instructive.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | January 1, 2008 3:14 PM
I am eagerly awaiting www.leagueofscientists.com. I expect to be made honorary member, of course, on account of having spawned the idea. ;)
Posted by: Felicia Gilljam | January 1, 2008 3:18 PM
A 'watery nebula' -- presumably he misunderstands the likes of this from 1998:
Discover of Water Vapor Near Orion Nebula Suggests Possible Origin of H20 in Solar System
A team of U.S. astronomers, including a member of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has discovered a large concentration of water vapor within a cloud of interstellar gas close to the Orion nebula.
The concentration is 20 times larger than that measured previously in other interstellar gas clouds and may provide an important clue to the origin of water in the solar system.
The discovery was reported in an article published Monday in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.
Using the European Space Agency's Infrared Space Observatory satellite, ISO, which was launched in November 1995, the astronomers observed water vapor within the Orion Molecular Cloud, a giant interstellar gas cloud composed primarily of hydrogen molecules. The new observations were carried out in October 1997 with the Long Wavelength Spectrometer, one of four instruments on board ISO.
"The Orion Molecular Cloud is a site of particularly active star formation within our galaxy," said Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, a member of the team that reported the finding. "Several thousand stars have been born in this region in the last million years -- which is very recent from the cosmic perspective.
"For reasons that aren't entirely understood, when stars are born, their birth is accompanied by a strong outward wind of gas and dust. When this outflowing material eventually impacts the surrounding gas, the shock waves that are created compress and heat the gas. The water we observe is rapidly produced in this warm dense gas."
The concentration of water vapor measured by the U.S. team was some 20 times larger than that measured previously in other interstellar gas clouds.
"An enhanced concentration of water is precisely what we expected in this gas cloud," said Melnick "We are looking at a region of interstellar space where shock waves have made the gas abnormally warm. For the past 25 years, astrophysicists have been predicting that whenever the temperature exceeds about 200 degrees Fahrenheit, chemical reactions will convert most of the oxygen atoms in the interstellar gas into water. And that's exactly what we've observed in Orion."
Melnick also noted that the strength of the water radiation detected from Orion was in perfect agreement with theoretical predictions.
The high concentration of water measured in Orion may have
implications for the origin of water in the solar system. "The interstellar gas cloud that we observed in Orion seems to be a huge chemical factory, generating enough water molecules in a single day to fill the Earth's oceans sixty times over," said Professor David Neufeld of Johns Hopkins University. "Eventually that water vapor will cool and freeze, turning into small solid particles of ice. Similar ice particles were presumably present within the gas cloud from which the solar system originally formed; it seems quite plausible that much of the water in the solar system was originally produced in a giant water vapor factory like the one we have observed in Orion."
Copyright 1998 President and Fellows of Harvard College
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | January 1, 2008 3:29 PM
If you need a further clue, the author lists his qualifications on the cover: "Biblical Scholar and Scientist Extraordinaire."
He forgot "Head of the Spaceology Department at the Correspondence College of Tampa."
Posted by: MAJeff | January 1, 2008 3:29 PM
"Spandex is a privilege, not a right." -- Anon.
Scientific obstructionism
Love it!
-- CV
Posted by: CortxVortx | January 1, 2008 3:31 PM
This guy is trying to sell his books to school teachers!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fsm77OlgIBg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FLyH35jBsBk
Note the "Fsm" in the first url. Do I sense the effect of a noodley appendage?
Posted by: flounder | January 1, 2008 3:31 PM
Oh, joy! The only thing that diminishes my delight in reading Mr Parson's excerpts -- and I agree that they are so incoherent and flatline brain dead that they fail to even reach the level of Stupid With a Capital 2 -- is the thought that somewhere, somehow, some inbred lackwit is going to decided that these are just the perfect books for homeschooling her kids.
Posted by: ZenMonkey | January 1, 2008 3:33 PM
Carlie, MAjeff,
How about this: everything modern Batman-style moulded rubber (nipples optional). He's been brought up in this thread already, and is the closest superhero to being a scientist, plus he has all kinds of cool toys.
I don't know how we overcome the tights tendency, though. The cape will naturally have to be break-away. We're SuperScientists, so we should be able to figure that out. Besides, a cape would be a good place to put our Science Scouts badges. Maybe those could be our rank designators?
Posted by: MikeG | January 1, 2008 3:38 PM
The Theory of Evolution dates back to the Greeks and Romans. The Ancient Greek philosopher Anaxiamander (611-547 B.C.) and the Roman philosopher Lucretius (99-55 B.C.) coined the concept that all living things were related and that they had changed over time. The classical science of their time was observational rather than experimental so Evolution, like many other Greek discoveries didn't progress further. It was primarily the Christians who were stuck with their "biblical inerrancy" and "special creation" of the world in a literal six days that kept the Theory of Evolution suppressed for over 2,000 years.
As for your 18th Century assertion, I'm guessing you're talking about Darwin's Theory. It was published in the 1800's which is correctly referred to as the 19th Century.
Posted by: Moses | January 1, 2008 3:39 PM
Oh. My. God. Please, please, please, in the name of all that is holy, go check out his promos on youtube. You too will be enlightened about the "Dark Forces of Quantumm Mysticism." At one point he even gets the formula for the area of a triangle wrong.
Posted by: ZenMonkey | January 1, 2008 3:45 PM
San Bernardino County in California has an area of 20,000 square miles, which perhaps make it larger than the 'watery nebula' his tiny little mind imagines to be unimaginably large. Is he one of those people who've never been more than 10 miles from where they were born?
Posted by: Watt de Fawke | January 1, 2008 3:58 PM
"When man does not regard the creator, the results of his studies will always contain errors." - C. David Parsons
This statement perfectly sums this whole thing up. Start with a conclusion and work backwards.
Posted by: Kevin | January 1, 2008 3:58 PM
in the name of all that is holy, go check out his promos on youtube.
the very first comment on the first promo is one I wish I had made myself:
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 1, 2008 4:04 PM
(nipples optional)
Oh, no they're not! They're awesome toys....oops, I've said too much.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 1, 2008 4:22 PM
Although Greek biological writings contain thoughts that are in some ways related to the later concepts of evolution, biological evolution in the modern sense first emerges in the 18th Century in the works of various natural historians most notably Bonnet, Monboddo and Buffon. Erasmus Darwin's Lamarckian theory of evolution was first published in 1796.
Posted by: Thony C. | January 1, 2008 4:23 PM
The 'watery nebula' is obviously his attempt to account for
Genesis 1 ii-x:
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
Lo, and behold, the 'watery nebula'!
Posted by: Fragano Ledgister | January 1, 2008 4:24 PM
MikeG - I like that idea, as long as the rubber is Neoprene. Might as well be acid-resistant while you're at it, and then there's no annoying outfit changes when you do work in the fume hood! MAJeff, yours can have nipples if you want. :)
Posted by: Carlie | January 1, 2008 4:34 PM
While we're talking about "creationist physics", I note that Sal Cordova is still trying to fool people into thinking he knows anything about quantum mechanics. He hasn't really progressed beyond his "Darwin was a puppy-killer" phase, but now he has 150% more physics jargon!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 1, 2008 4:37 PM
Maybe, ZenMonkey. Maybe not. I suspect Parsons just copied a bunch of formulas down and might not be aware what they represent. The expression b*h/3 could be a mistaken version of b*h/2, the area of a triangle, or it could be a correct version of the volume of a pyramid (where b is the area of the base of the