Comments on: Creationist in Boston: Recap!

By: Joshua

Joshua — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:40:36 +0000

Oh, cool! Turns out my “He’s a big, fat lying liar who lies” theory was correct! YAY ME!

By: i.log.r

i.log.r — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:53:43 +0000

Nathaniel Jeanson started at ICR yesterday. They have put up a profile page on him –

http://www.icr.org/article/new-icr-research-associate-nathaniel/

which says:

He went straight to Harvard Medical School, which he said “sounded like it would be useful for credentials and evangelism.”
…
Playing a big role in his science education were teaching materials from the Institute for Creation Research. “I’m a second generation creationist, you might say,” he said. He explained how he saw that “salvation was inherent in creation science” and that it could be used as a tool for evangelism, another passion of his.
…
With a promising and lucrative career in medical research open before him, Jeanson said he underwent a career shift at Harvard. “I asked myself, ‘How can I use and abuse my training to influence eternity, rather than for temporary gain?’”
….
None of this suggests cognitive dissonance but instead indicate, by his own admission, a deliberate attempt at propagating obfuscating pseudoscientific claims with a “Harvard PhD” seal of approval for the greater goal of evangelism. He is not a stupid or cognitively dissonant creationist. Harvard University, beware. There will be many more to follow.

By: Chet Twarog

Chet Twarog — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 13:01:10 +0000

There’s too much to comment on. I’ll just focus on two:
“Everywhere we look at galaxies, we appear at the center, so….” Well, from where I am, everywhere I look I appear to be at the center of a flat terrain, therefore, the Earth is flat and I’m at the center… Well, obviously, everyone everwhere is at the center of the map no matter where you are, or the galaxy, or Universe. Why wasn’t it obvious that there is no “center”?
Everyone gets the 6K years old Earth incorrect.
Based on the Hebrew calendar (since they “composed” the OT), today is Sat, 22 August 2009 = Hebrew 2nd of Elul, 5769 [http://www.hebcal.com/converter] . The Hebrew culture began 5769 years ago and is based on their own particular history–no one else’s.
Additionally, a little research shows that they had used the Lunar Year calendar of a lunar months: therefore, Noah ( a fictional character) died at age 900 (lunar months old) , would actually have been 70 Solar Years old. So while Biblical Creationists use the ages in the OT (Noah 900; Adam 930; etc), they got (Bishop of Ussher) Adam “created on October 23, 4004 BC at 9:00 am” . However, Biblical Creationists are (were) mixing two different calendar dating systems. I’m not going to redo the calculations but if you convert their Lunar calendar to the Solar one (Adam dies at 72 years old), the Earth and Universe would be @ 3K years old!!!!

By: Jeff Eyges

Jeff Eyges — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 00:54:52 +0000

When you put a creation myth in a 3,000 year old book up against the entirety of modern science, you’re either ignorant, stupid or pretty much dishonest to embrace the former as literal truth. As a Harvard Ph.D., he is neither ignorant nor stupid.

Chris, there’s also cognitive dissonance and denial. His mind may be so compartmentalized that he actually believes what he says, even though he “knows” it contradicts the evidence.

By: Chris Cathcart

Chris Cathcart — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:56:30 +0000

I don’t think the issue here is his intelligence or lack thereof. The issue is intellectual honesty or lack thereof, and willingness to “fit” all the data into a preconceived dogma. When you put a creation myth in a 3,000 year old book up against the entirety of modern science, you’re either ignorant, stupid or pretty much dishonest to embrace the former as literal truth. As a Harvard Ph.D., he is neither ignorant nor stupid. I understand the tendency of ideological-types to try to incorporate all the existing data into a pre-existing worldview, but there are reasonable limits to that. 6,000 year old earth is beyond that pale. At some point even the ideologically-committed have to stop and ask themselves just how far is too far. Beyond this creation myth, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe the earth is 6,000 years young, no piece of data that points to it, nothing. And tons upon tons of evidence against it.

By: CharmedQuark

CharmedQuark — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:29:20 +0000

“Supers” AND “Brights” is mostly an internet meme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement

http://www.the-brights.net/

It is, as with Jeanson, proof that a Ph.D. is not inoculation against stupidity.

I completely fit the definition of a “Bright” yet I find this idea no better than little kids building a clubhouse and putting a “No Grrls!” sign on it.

By: Jeff Eyges

Jeff Eyges — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:04:53 +0000

Rebecca, thanks for the kind words. I’m just getting around to reading this now.

I don’t think Jeanson expected as many scientists and science-oriented people to show up. I think this was his church (they meet there weekly, down the block from Harvard Med School, where he worked), and this might have been done as a favor to the pastor.

And, yes, those cytC pyramids confused the hell out of me as well!

it is depressing to think that this kid got all the way through Harvard and learned so little just so that the creationists would have someone with initials after his name to validate their idiocy

I agree completely – and I agree with those who are suggesting rescinding his degree. It shouldn’t have been awarded in the first place to someone who repudiates scientific method and subordinates empirical evidence to faith. What he’s doing isn’t science; it’s theology. We wouldn’t expect a Physics dept. to award a PhD to someone who clings to Newtonian mechanics and refuses to accept either relativity or quantum theory. What I’m piecing together, from various accounts, is that he seems to have slipped beneath their radar. In short – people weren’t paying attention. Hopefully, in future, they will.

By: Boston Knucklehead

Boston Knucklehead — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:55:30 +0000

maybe someone needs to show him the real proof. A few dinosaur fossils should work.

By: i.log.r

i.log.r — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:43:12 +0000

link to video excerpt from the 7pm lecture.

By: Billy Clyde Tuggle

Billy Clyde Tuggle — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 05:23:04 +0000

This is probably a dumb question, but what is the difference between a “Super” and a “Bright”. Is this some kind of Aldos Huxley “Brave New World” categorization?

/BCT (probably a rogue “Epsilon”)