Geoscience Research Institute

Science and technology are powerful, respected, and highly successful. They have immensely improved our standard of living — from houses, appliances, food, health, and recreation to methods of communication, transportation, and record keeping — leading some to believe that all of humanity's problems can be solved by science. But can science aid in finding answers to philosophical questions about our origin and destiny and about our purpose for living? Can it solve the problems of war and mismanaged environments? Science has tried unsuccessfully and often in direct conflict with answers given in the Bible.

The most notable conflict is between the theory of evolution with its billions of years for the progressive development of life and the biblical account of the creation of life by God in six literal days a few thousand years ago. Does the success of science in other areas force us to conclude that scientific evidence for an evolutionary theory is irrefutable?

The Geoscience Research Institute, founded in 1958, was established to address this question by looking at the scientific evidence concerning origins. The Institute uses both science and revelation to study the question of origins because it considers the exclusive use of science as too narrow an approach. The Institute serves the Seventh-day Adventist church in two major areas: research and communication.

Seven research scientists are employed by the Institute:

• L. James Gibson (Ph.D., Loma Linda University), the Director of the Institute, has research specialties in vertebrate speciation and biogeography.
  
• Roberto E. Biaggi (Ph.D., Loma Linda University) is pursuing paleoecology research in Wyoming.
  
• Benjamin L. Clausen (Ph.D., University of Colorado) has pursued research in nuclear physics.
  
• Raul Esperante (Ph.D., Loma Linda University) is pursuing paleontology research in Peru.
  
• Ronald Nalin (Ph.D., University of Padua) does research on limestone sedimentology in Italy.
  
• Jacques Sauvagnat (Ph.D., University of Geneva) is pursuing research in the paleontology of the Barremian ostracodes of southeastern France.
  
• Timothy G. Standish (Ph.D., George Mason University) has pursued research in molecular biology.

In addition to these full-time research personnel, the Institute sponsors a modest research grant program providing assistance to other qualified investigators. Over the past two decades, funding has been provided for nearly 100 research projects on questions related to Earth's origin and history.

Although not all the conflicts between scientific interpretations and the Bible have been resolved, the staff finds sufficient evidence from its research and from the scientific literature to reinforce faith in the biblical account of origins.

Thank you.



One of the biggest criticisms of creationists by naturalists that I have heard is that creationists don't do science - they just read about what "real" scientists are doing and criticize it. Not true of the Seventh-day Adventist church. We do science.

This is a great part of our organized church. And look at the date. Since 1958! That is ahead of the creation/evolution debate. Creation was still being taught in most public schools in teh USA in 1958. GRI is not reactionary, it is proactionary.

*cough*circularity*cough*

It is all circularity. Creationists don't have a problem admitting that, most naturalists do.

Shooting oneself in the foot is entirely optional.

Shane, when you're quoting someone else, would you mind making it perfectly clear (here I refer to the first post in this thread). Thanks.

Follow the link.

GRI is an excellent resource not only for Adventists but for all truth-seeking people. I think they are the best creationist organization out there. They are a definite asset not only our church but to all of Christianity.

I already did.

My request is intended to address what it looks like in the body of a post.

For example, you could have prefaced it by saying "The following is taken from the web site of the Geoscience Research Institute." And perhaps put the following in quotes.

It's a service for readers and prevents anyone from thinking that you're plagiarizing.

Having said all that...

Without actually looking into it, I'd assume that all of the scientists of the GRI have at some point published their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

But have they published any of their creationist research in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

Something doesn't seem quite right with that statement.

Can we have it both ways? Real science doesn't rely on nonscientific means for evidence, does it? Scientists may use unscientific means to arrive at hypotheses, etc., but when it comes to analysing results, something observable/measurable has had to happen. Physics and metaphysics are two different things, I believe. Each has its own proper place. To confuse the two - wouldn't that result in the creation of fiction? rather than truth?

If the use of science is too narrow why even bother with it? Surely it is not needed if we have the answers already.

This is my problem with the whole enterprise. By any definition of the term 'science', going in with a predetermined answer and seeking evidence to bolster that answer is not it. Especially when doing so requires ignoring or distorting the evidence.

I have *zero* problems with God's absolute power and ability to create the world and life 6000 years ago, looking mature. (Or 5 minutes ago, for that matter.) But if He did that, it was a miracle and is therefore not susceptible to science.

So long as creationists are doing theology and don't claim to be doing science I have no beef with them. But my vocation in life - which I believe God gave me - is to be a science educator, and I'll keep on doing that.

On the circularity point, I agree that both creationists and naturalists have basic assumptions. But that is different from having a predetermined conclusion. Scientists did not go in saying 'the universe is 13.7 billion years old'. They were led to that conclusion by the evidence. Creationists presume the answer, because they have to. Again, as long as they base that on Scripture, more power to them.

Vera's question on publications is a good one.

Of course. Bare in mind, the peers of creation scientists are other creation scientists. The prejudice among natural scientists prevents them from publishing articles by creation scientists.

Yes we can. Isn't that good news? We can have our cake and... guess what? We get to eat it too. Praise be to God!



We look at the "scientific evidence" with the scope of philosophy, history, theology and mathematics. Natural scientist place self-imposed restrictions upon themselves which are not placed on creation scientists. Thus creation scientists can consider things that natural scientists cannot. Creation scientists do science but they do much more than that too. So not everything they do is science but they don't claim everything they do is science either. Some is and some isn't. Doesn't that cake taste good?

Natural science assumes all observed phenomenon is a result of natural processes. Is that not a predetermined prejudice? Of course it is. If we assume their is no god to start out with, the evidence will never lead us to God if indeed He actually exists, will it?



Natural scientists went in saying "the universe and all observable phenomenon is a result of natural processes." In order to support that basic assumption they have come up with some wildly improbable theories - such as matter came from non-matter all by itself and life came from non-life by random processes. Thus they need time. Lots of time. Unimaginable amounts of time.

The intelligent design group seems to be the only ones truly approaching the issue of origins (which science does not own.) without prejudice.



But they do do science. They simply add history, theology, philosophy and mathematics to it. Origins cannot be studied within the realm of science alone because basic assumptions of natural science prohibit an honest and vigorous study of the topic.

It's a strawman. It is an attempt to attack the credible of people that disagree with a cherished opinion or belief. It is a way of trying to belittle them. It certainly is not something that should be encouraged on this board.

She asked a simple question and said 'thanks'. No assumptions.....unlike the quote that followed. An attempt at control...possibly...maybe?

My comments are in regarding the "question" about the Adventist scientists at GRI being peer reviewed.

I often post links and as long as I don't make any comments within the post itself about the story, I don't usually place it in a quotation box. Any insinuation that I am somehow plagiarizing is simply an attack on me that doesn't deserve a response.

I absolutely disagree that asking about peer reviewed publications is an attempt to belittle anyone. Look at almost any definition of science and you'll see peer reviewed publication described as the sine qua non of science, the quality control mechanism. Flieschmann and Pons' cold fusion claims were rightly rejected because their experiments could not be replicated by anyone else. Unless science can be published and tested it is not science, simple as that.

Now, if you want to make the argument that there is systematic bias against creationist scientists that prevents their work being published in mainstream journals, that's an argument that's there to be made. Have any of these scientists written anything publicly about how many papers they have submitted to journals, how many have been rejected and the reasons given by the reviewers for the rejection? Or are there other forms of evidence relevant to making that argument?

Or, if you want to argue that the appropriate scientific community of peers of creation scientists and point to articles they have published within that community that have been reviewed by those peers, that is also a case that can be made.

But to claim that asking one of the most basic questions in science is an inappropriate attempt to belittle is... inappropriate.

You intentionally missed or did not acknowledge my point about the difference between basic assumptions and conclusions. Naturalists and creationists both go in with basic assumptions, but creationists also go in with conclusions. That is a real and significant difference.

The short answer is that several of the participants have 0 entries on Google Scholar, which is a reasonable first pass at checking a publishing career. These include Clausen and Gibson.

Roberto Biaggi does have several published papers in journals like Sedimentology. If it's the same person he also has a patent.

Raul Esperante has a published paper in Geology but it's about the preservation of whale skeletons from the Miocene-Pliocene era, so not exactly recent creationist. He has several other papers in the same field.

Ronald Nalin's work is similar in that it talks about features formed by sea level changes in the Pleistocene era.

Jacques Sauvagnat has one paper in an academic journal and a few discussion papers on creationist issues, but his academic paper uses fossils in rocks in Europe to date them to 130 million years old.

Timothy Standish has one paper, published in the journal Origins.

I'd encourage anyone to check on this work. I'm citing it not to belittle these credible scientists, but because claims are being made about their work which seem not to gibe with their actual work.

(Edit: Just checking for curiosity while I was there - I have about 18. Of course, it's a lot easier to publish in education than science, so this is not any sort of comparison, just a fun sidelight to a serious discussion, and a minibrag among friends.)

Oh dear. Where to begin?

If the peers of creation scientists are other creation scientists, are they in fact using an actual peer review process?



And I'm glad they do. Keeps all the fraudsters and crazies in line (cloning in Korea, anyone? Or insert your favorite scientific scandal.).





As to the first: No, it's not. No, it wasn't. No, it wasn't. And if the rest of the paragraph were true, of course not.

As to the second: Yes, you do. After a bit, I realize that you're not the author, but I'd prefer not to have to wonder. Could you make it easier?

As for the rest...my head hurts. Maybe later.

Christian television often airs debates between creationists and evolutionists. A common "dig" of evolutionists is to insult creationists for not having peer reviewed papers. Of course, peer-review to them means it is reviewed in by scientists that believe in millions-of-years evolution. That is a common practice in the how-to-debate-a-creationist handbook. So context is everything. Asking about peer-reviewed publications in the contexts of a Creation vs. Evolution discussion is a means to belittle the opponent.

Placing a quote from another source in a post without using the quotation box is a common practice when the posting member is not adding any commentary. Check out the following link.

Other Member's Recent Post

Sometimes a posting member will do this and make his or her commentary another color of font. No intention of plagiarism exists.

It's not a dig; it's the way the scientific community works. While I don't know the genesis of the peer-review system, I find it hard to believe (yet if true, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong) that scientists sat around and dreamt up a system that would intentionally keep creationists out. I'd guess that the system evolved because it works to keep the scientific community honest.

By and large, scientists don't expect other scientists to take their work at face value. If they did, it could hardly be called science.



I understand that, and I'm not accusing you of plagiarism. I am asking that you make it easier for me, the reader (with the added thought that it might help other readers as well).

Scientific journals are supported by either grants or subscriptions. A scientific journal that regularly publishes articles by creationists runs the risk of losing subscriptions or rocking the boat of those that award the grants. Thus creationists tend to have their own publications where they publish their articles. Creationists do get published in non-creationist journals when their articles do not deal with origins. There are creationist geologists working in the oil, gas and mining industries that publish their work in scientific journals but it is not origins related. Similarly there are medical doctors that are creationists that have their work in medical journals but it is not origins related. Creationists publishing articles about origins are rarely going to find a scientific journal willing to publish their work. There is a bias that prevents that. So it is rather disingenuous to ask if a creation scientist has peer review work unless other creation scientists are consider his or her peers.

[quote=Shane]

We really have no reason to think otherwise, Shane. The way you posted makes perfect sense to me.

<< Creationists publishing articles about origins are rarely going to find a scientific journal willing to publish their work. There is a bias that prevents that. So it is rather disingenuous ... >>

Science, hopefully, is without bias - otherwise it runs the risk of publishing fictions/myths, not fact. If creationist's papers are rejected in the field of "origins", there must be a good reason. Perhaps they introduce unscientific 'evidence.' Perhaps they cite the Bible, or the Koran, or the Mahabarata (sp?).

Just what is the bias?

This is exactly my point: such papers are rejected, not because of systematic bias, but because they are not science. Once the conclusion is assumed before the experiment is done, based on a non-empirical source, then no matter how well the work is done and no matter how laudable the work is, that work is not science, and will not be published as science. That is not a conspiracy, that is science working properly.

No-one seems to have taken up the issue that, of the list of scientists in the original GRI article, for *all* those who have publications those publications describe life on earth millions of years ago. That seems like kind of an important point.

On the publishing thing, I think given a potentially prickly debate, you've reacted in an overly prickly manner, Shane. Vera was *not* making an accusation of plagiarism in any shape or form, she was simply suggesting a way (which, let's face it, is *really* easy to do) of making posts easier to read and understand. If you don't want to do it that's fine too, but I don't think you should feel a need to defend your honour. You were asked, politely, to do a small thing to make someone's use of the forum more enjoyable, not accused of a crime.

Wishful thinking and perhaps a bit naive. Science is limited in its scope. The whole study of origins is pseudoscience. Science is observable, measurable and repeatable. Origins is not observable - because we can't travel back in time. It is not measurable - because it deals with past events. It is not repeatable. So the study of origins, even within a scientific realm is really unprovable knowledge seemingly scientific because it is acquired by scientific processes. Origins can only be honestly studied by bringing together the disciplines of science, philosophy, history and mathematics.

Natural science has all kinds of assumptions they have concluded to be true before they ever start doing experiments. They are just as guilty of circular reasoning as creationists are. It is all about the money. Look at who is funding the science journals and discover why they publish what they do and why they exclude what they do. It is all about money.

Here is a good example of how silly natural science has gotten. Dinosaur Mummy

My reaction to the story:

65 million years is hard to wrap our brains around. According to natural scientists, 65 million years ago all of the continents were all in one hemisphere (east or west). It was the Cretaceous era. The North Atlantic didn't even exist. The Appalachian and Rocky Mountains were foothills. The Grand Canyon didn't even exist. The Tethys Ocean still existed and the Himalayas had yet to rise. For the past 40 million years an ice age has been advancing and retreating glaciers.

This dinosaur mummy was discovered in an area just east of the Rocky Mountains in an area that was completely tore up by an ice age that didn't start for a supposed 25 million years after the dinosaur died. This really raises questions as to how such delicate features could be preserved unharmed for 65 million years? If it is 65 million years old, we can hardly believe we are finding it in the same location where it died. Not only did the entire continent move half way across the world, a mountain range rose just to the west of it, another mountain range a couple thousand miles to the east of it and glaciers completely carved up the area on numerous occasions. And yet the scales on its skin are still preserved.

Of course a more likely explanation is that this is a dinosaur that lived post-flood and died in some type of volcanic activity. It is hard to believe it died in the flood with such detail being preserved. I am inclined to believe baby dinosaurs were taken on the ark and died off due to dramatic climate changes during the ice age. In that model, the vast majority of dinosaurs died in the flood. Those that died after the flood were far less than the populations prior to the flood. Of course, most that died after the flood wouldn't have been preserved as most animals that die are not preserved.

I suppose that it is all in the semantics, Shane...


Your "Dinnosaur Mummy" brought forth an image where there were people who mummified a Tyrannosaurus Rex [sp] like the egyptians did to thier pharohs...which kinda substanciates the creation/adventist myth/theory that people were worshiping animals/wicked before the flood...

I had never thought of ROCK as a mummification process...

Oh well....just a thought to ponder...and not much of one at that...

As I read the ABC news story, I don't get that it's a mummy, even though that's what the headline says (perhaps an example of bad science reporting?).

The conditions that create fossils don't happen often; I wonder what kind of conditions were able to create such a remarkable fossil specimen.

According to the story:



The scientist leading the discovery's study is quoted in the Washington Post as saying, "It just defies logic that such a remarkable specimen could preserve." I agree. It certainly does defy logic. In fact, it suggests the petrified dinosaur may be much younger.

I have studied the find more since I started the original post back in December. It was buried in river sentiment and a scavenger started to eat it after it died. The scavenger's arm is preserved sticking out the dinosaur - indicating it was the scavenger's last meal. It was buried in river sentiment. From a creationist perspective, that could mean rising flood waters either from Noah's Flood or water from retreating Ice Age glaciers.

Evolutionists don't like that kind of speculation because they claim, and rightly so, that we cannot come up with speculation like that without first believing the Bible is truth. But that is, of course, why creation science is the integrating of science and faith. It is not pure science and it is not pure faith. It is mixing the two together.

The river sentiment that buried the mummy was mineral rich which explains why the dinosaur became petrified. The body was found in rock with the tail was exposed in soil (which is how it was discovered.) One must wonder how well river sentiment is going to protect fine details such as scales over the course of 65 million years as the earth moves, mountains rise, glaciers plow up the ground and rain and glacier run off erode rocks and soil. 65 million years is a long time for a rock covered with river sentiment to preserve such fine detail.

Well, aside from the fact that the GRI scientists' published work remains unexplained, this 'mummy' story has moved off into a tangent that's far from science. Do any of the paleontologists working on the find think it's less than 65 million years old? Do the rocks date as a few thousand years old? Of course it's improbable - that's why all the excitement. But improbable doesn't mean impossible. What's the science?

Note that it is a very detailed fossil - all rock - not a mummy in any sense. And yes, it's amazing that it has been preserved as well as it has, and that the original fossil was as detailed as it was. There's a real sense of wonder in the world and what has happened, and of God's power and creativity too.

Many creation scientists will argue that the study of origins is not science. It involves science but much more than that too.



That goes into the subject of how rocks are dated and the assumptions that go along with that. Which is why the dinosaur is dated 65 million years, I am sure.

This kind of paleontology is not 'origins' though, in the sense of first things and the creation of the universe, the earth and the first life. The dating of the rocks is very replicable by checking it with rocks in other places, and is therefore science.

(still waiting to hear about the GRI scientists)

I'm likely going to take back what I wrote about the term "dinosaur mummy," but it's a little early to say.

Serendipitously, I saw Grave Secrets of Dinosaurs: Soft Tissues and Hard Science at the library today. I've barely started it, but it looks like I'll be able to add a little to this conversation.

Waiting on who? Have you emailed GRI or the individual scientists? Or do you have some of your own scientist peers looking into it?

Geology is the strongest evidence for an old earth. No doubt. Still it is based on three unprovable assumptions.

1. No daughter elements were present in the rocks at their formation or creation.
2. The rate of decay of parent elements to daughter elements has always been the same.
3. The samples being dated have been closed systems their entire life.

The Adventists complicate this process further by believing the Earth itself is old, and thus the minerals in sedimentary rocks and the Precambrian rocks are themselves very old. It becomes more difficult then to use the rocks and minerals to date the fossils within them.

If "the whole study of origins is pseudoscience," then why does the church have a Geoscience Research Institute? By that statement we must admit that their Resarch is pseudy.



But the GSRI asks: << But can science aid in finding answers to philosophical questions about our origin and destiny and about our purpose for living?>> and gives a negative answer.

If Philosophy is the love of wisdom; and Science is knowledge; and Wisdom is using knowledge in the best way: then Science preceeds Wisdom and Philosophy because : Fist we must get the facts straight! and not base our philosophy or wisdom on false data. QED.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Prob. 1:7)

Pseudoscience is unproven or uncorroborated knowledge or beliefs that allegedly are to be scientific. Science is observable, repeatable and measurable.

Philosophy is the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

The Biblical Approach
►First comes the fear of the Lord. That is #1.
►That forms our world-view which which orientates our philosophical investigations.
►Then science, history, mathematics and theology become tools for the investigation of knowledge.

The agnostic will start with science because it is tangible and he or she can only trust the tangible. The Christian starts with faith which "is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)