ICR: An Interview with Jason Lisle

Our readers remember Jason Lisle. He’s the the creationist astrophysicist who used to be employed by Answers in Genesis (AIG), ol’ Hambo’s online ministry. For reasons which have never been explained, he left AIG a couple of years ago to become director of whatever it is that they call research at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom.

Back when he was at AIG, we wrote several times about Jason Lisle’s “Instant Starlight” Paper. That was Jason’s solution to the Distant Starlight problem. The problem — for young-earth creationists — is that the light we see from distant sources required literally billions of years to reach earth, yet the creationist’s universe is only 6,000 years old.

Jason hasn’t written much at ICR, so many of us have been wondering what he’s doing there. We have some answers from the latest post from ICR: Planetarium Unlimited. It begins with this introduction:

The following are excerpts of an interview with ICR’s Director of Research and astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle about ICR’s plans to build a new creation science museum and state-of-the-art planetarium.

Wowie — ICR is going to build a creation science museum and a planetarium — just like Hambo! That’s big news!

We’re not told who conducted the interview — the questions and answers only have initials preceding them. Jason’s answers start with JL, of course, and the questions come from someone identified only as BT. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

BT: We’re here to talk with Dr. Jason Lisle about this museum, but let’s first get to know him. What got you started on space stuff?

JL: I’ve loved outer space since I was a little kid. I remember seeing these beautiful images…of star fields, stunning colors of these nebulae, it’s artwork of God. There’s something kind of spiritual about it. My dad had an interest in astronomy and his dad before him, so they kind of paved the way for me.

Isn’t that lovely? From now on, we’ll substitute “Question” for the unknown BT, and we’ll use “Jason” instead of JL. Let’s read on:

Question: Was there a challenge to your Christian faith as you prepared academically?

Jason: I went through the secular program all the way through …. There currently are no Christian schools that will give you a truly biblical six-day creation view of astronomy. So I had to go through a secular program if I was going to get a degree in astrophysics.

Most of astronomy, a lot of it is really just good science. Sometimes they’ll get into the storytelling aspect of it, “We think that millions of years ago this star formed.” Well, once you’ve talked about that you’ve left the realm of science, and I knew that — I recognized that it’s not something we can observe and test and repeat in the present. That really didn’t bother me — I could distinguish the storytelling from the genuine science.

Psychologically, it’s a little bit of a drain because you’re with a group of people, and most of them have a very secular worldview. And so the way they interpret the evidence is somewhat consistent with their worldview — and there’s a pressure to conform to what other people believe. But that’s a psychological pressure.

We’ve often wondered what goes on in the minds of creationists when they somehow get science degrees, so that’s an interesting insight. The interview continues:

Question: I hear from the world that some of the strongest arguments against biblical creation’s timeline come from the stars. If the stars are so far away — and they are — and the light travels at this speed — and we assume it does — then they have to be billions of years old in order for that light to have reached here. Is there a quick way to answer that or not?

Jason: One assumption … is that light travels the same speed in all directions … . The bottom line is: the speed of light, when it’s directed toward an observer, can be as fast as infinite. Using that definition, which Einstein agreed was one acceptable definition, it takes no time at all for the light from distant galaxies to reach the earth. So of course it can happen in the biblical timeframe. It’s hard to explain that in a quick soundbite answer. The fact is, physics — as we understand it — does allow for instantaneous light travel.

[*Groan*] It’s true that the One-way speed of light can’t be measured, but for Jason to be correct, either we’re in the center of the universe, toward which light always travels at an infinite speed (for some reason), or else light somehow knows when it’s coming our way. We’ve discussed all that before, so we won’t mess with it this time around. Here’s more:

Question: Wow, that’s a real game changer. [Hee hee!] Will you be able to incorporate that kind of information in our new museum and especially in the new planetarium? First of all, what is a planetarium?

Jason: A planetarium is basically a hemispherical dome where you can project images, generally images of the night sky; and in the past that’s all they could do. They could project images of the star field. The old-style approach was quite limited. Today, there are no limitations on what we can do. Modern projection systems are digital, which means we can project anything on our planetarium dome. We can leave the earth and travel into outer space, visit these other planets — and it looks like you’re there because it’s surrounding you on all sides. It’s really exciting.

Jason’s planetarium can do anything! That should make creationism shows a lot easier. Moving along:

Question: What other features would you want to put in those planetarium shows?

Jason: A lot of stuff that confirms biblical creation. There are many issues that demonstrate the universe can’t be anywhere close to the secular age of billions of years. For example, the internal heat of some of these planets. Most planets actually give off more energy than they get from the sun. Some of the big planets, like Jupiter, they’re made … mostly of hydrogen and helium gas, and yet Jupiter gives off twice as much energy as it gets. That’s also true for Saturn and Neptune. That’s a big problem in the secular view, and most people aren’t aware of that. That’s something that we’ll showcase in the planetarium.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! It’s going to be a young universe planetarium. Another excerpt:

Question: Who cares if the stars are billions of years old or just thousands of years old — what difference does it make?

Jason: If the whole universe is thousands of years old then it means the Big Bang cannot be true. It means evolution cannot be true in terms of … molecules-to-man evolution. It blows away the secular worldview. If it could be demonstrated that the universe were billions of years old then it means the Bible’s not true. These issues do matter — they affect our worldview.

No problem. Jason’s fantasy planetarium show will “prove” that the bible is true. On with the interview:

Question: And if the Bible’s right about history, then it’s right about important other matters.

Jason: Jesus made that point in [scripture quote]. He’s making the point that if we don’t trust the Bible on earthly matters — things we can in principle test scientifically — if the Bible got those details wrong, why would we trust it on how to inherit eternal life?

A lot of Christians don’t realize they have a double standard. They’re rejecting the Bible on some issues, and they’re accepting it on others. Their children see that inconsistency, and then they walk away from the church. And then people ask, “Why are our children walking away from the church?” Well, they can see that Mom and Dad don’t really believe the Bible in some areas, and that leads young people to think it’s not really trustworthy. Why should I trust it in matters of salvation if it can’t be trusted in matters of Earth history?

Jason’s right — it’s all or nothing! There’s more to the interview, but that was the fun part. It’s good to see Jason putting his education to productive use.

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

41 responses to “ICR: An Interview with Jason Lisle

  1. Mike Elzinga

    I always find it strange that Lisle can be so mind-numbingly stupid.

    If the speed of light – according to him – is c/(1 – cos θ), how does one account for indices of refraction in which sin θ1/sin θ2 = v1/v2?

    Lisle forgets(?) that light interacts with matter. Having light travelling according to his “theory” makes the universe about as me-centered (read Jason Lisle centered) as it could possibly be. What a nutty, capricious universe that turns out to be.

    How can the emission spectra and absorption spectra have the same mathematical structure for each particular atom? How can one identify the elements in stars if their emission and absorption spectra are so crazy? The speed of light shows up in the Rydberg constant. Are the quantized energy levels infinite when an atom or molecule emits a photon? Lisle doesn’t even know about the Pound-Rebka experiment that makes sensitive use of the Mossbauer effect, which, in turn, involves the velocity of light.

    And how does Lisle justify asserting that the the rate of recession of the Moon’s orbit is proportional to 1 divided by the sixth power of the distance from Earth? He just pulls this assertion out of thin air. He has a “PhD” in astrophysics and doesn’t even know how to do undergraduate level orbital mechanics.

    This is what the kids in his audiences are being exposed to. Lisle’s “planetarium” can’t possibly work because it has to use lenses to project images onto an overhead dome; and the index of refraction has no meaning in his “theory” of the universe.

    What a maroon!

  2. Derek Freyberg

    “JL: I’ve loved outer space since I was a little kid. I remember seeing these beautiful images…of star fields, stunning colors of these nebulae, it’s artwork of God.”
    I’ve got news for you, JL – a lot of those exotically colored images of nebulae are false-colored, typically to show IR or X-ray wavelengths.

  3. Warren Johnson

    Jason Lisle says: “The bottom line is: the speed of light, when it’s directed toward an observer, can be as fast as infinite.” and “The fact is, physics — as we understand it — does allow for instantaneous light travel.”

    Both statements are completely false. For example, the very first measurement of the speed of light was made in 1676 by Ole Romer, an astronomer then working at the Observatory of Paris. By comparing the timing of the frequent occultations of one of Jupiter’s moons as the earth was moving either toward or away from Jupiter, he was able to make the first measurement of light traveling towards the earth from Jupiter. There are other astronomical measures of the one-way speed of light from distant stars: one is the “stellar aberration”, discovered by Bradley in 1729. You can these facts up in Wikipedia.

    Another phenomena that depends on the one way speed of light is the doppler shift (just look at the formulas), which has been tested in countless ways, for example by the doppler shift of stellar emission lines, and the doppler navigation of interplanetary space craft.

    Jason Lisle did not learn the simplest basics of astrophysics, astronomy, or physics. It is taken for granted in these fields that light obeys Maxwell’s equations and Einsteins relativity. They demand that the speed of light be isotropic in all directions, except when you are near a black hole.

  4. Arrrrg. Let’s try this one more time.

    I don’t remember where JL got his degree in astrophysics, but I can not believe that he passed his prelim exam let alone any of his classes. What ever University gave him his degree should revoke it. Just like Brown University should revoke Bobby Jindal’s BS in Biology.

  5. Mike Elzinga

    Lisle believes in the Flood; yet the lowest energy scenario for such an event would involve energies on the order of 40 kg of TNT going off every second over every square meter of the Earth’s surface for 40 days and nights. The temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere would reach about 13,000 degrees Fahrenheit in less than a week and the atmospheric pressure would climb to something like 860 atmospheres.

    And, to repeat, that is the minimum energy scenario. All other scenarios in which the mountains are formed and the ocean basins are gouged out involve far more energy.

    It is clear that Lisle has absolutely no sense of the real physics that is involved in anything. He just makes stuff up in order to get numbers that he can claim make the Earth less than 6000 years old.

  6. Doctor Stochastic

    Had Emily Noether vacationed in Plato’s Cave, she still could have refuted the idea of anisotropy of light speed. Dr Lisle seems to miss both the Lyman Alpha Forest and the Tree of Life.

  7. Another perfect example of how creationists distort science in order to make it consistent with the contradictory Bronze Age tales. Despite the Ph.D. JL has no concept of scientific method.

  8. molecules to man

    If you don’t like that, then you don’t like embryology, genetics or even metabolism.

    If he’s setting up his planetarium on the basis of what the Bible says, he’d better be worried about geocentrism. There’s a lot more about the Earth being fixed than there is about species being fixed. (There is nothing about “species” tout court. But there is nothing about “kinds”, or anything about life, being fixed, either.)

  9. Glenn Branch says: “BT is probably Brian Thomas.”

    Yes, probably.

  10. Does Lisle not realize that right this very minute, NASA and other space agencies are communicating with probes that are light minutes or light hours away? We have all the empirical evidence Lisle could ever want that light never travels at infinite speed.

  11. michaelfugate

    Why not just say it’s a miracle? God can make light any %@$&* speed it wants any time it wants – got a problem with that? Lisle is making himself a fool and his God a limited being.

  12. Lisle is simply a liar. You don’t need to know any more than that. He lies to children and he lies to himself. He was dishonest when he did his graduate work and he’s dishonest in the dishonest work he does now. Lisle is a disgrace to the human species, as Dawkins would say.

    Who knows, maybe like Luskin in a decade or so Lisle will realize what a monumental waste his life has been and bail. Or not. Sociopaths are unpredictable.

  13. Perhaps one of the real scientists can correct me, but logically light that travels instantaneously could not exhibit a doppler effect, right? So, no red shift in distant galaxies, no shift back and forth of spectral lines in close binary stars, no regular spectral shifts in stars orbited by large, close planets, no indication of the rotation of galaxies, gas clouds, whatever. As I understand it, the doppler effect is at the heart of all of those observations.

    Lisle had to have learned this stuff in astronomy 101.

    Again, if this is not right, please tell me.

  14. Mike Elzinga

    @ Ed:

    Perhaps one of the real scientists can correct me, but logically light that travels instantaneously could not exhibit a doppler effect, right?

    That is correct; there would be no Doppler effect for light.

    Furthermore, the energy of a photon is hc/λ in which h is Planck’s constant, c is the speed of light, and λ is the wavelength of the photon. So, in Lisle World, a photon traveling toward you contains infinite energy, but from the perspective of the source, it left with half the energy.

    There are also no relativistic effects like length contraction or time dilation in Lisle World.

    This is how Lisle’s mind apparently works.

  15. Mike Elzinga: Yipes, I hope none of Leslie’s photons headed this direction actually hit me! Indeed, Leslie’s universe must have obliterated itself long ago, since nearly everything in it would have been hit by a photon traveling toward it.

  16. When real scientists have a debate, it is often time the case that some of aspect of both represents reality. For example light is both a wave and a particle which had advocates for each (Huygens wave, Newton particle).
    When creationists have a debate you can bet both are dead wrong. One would suspect Jason Lisle is being obtuse with his anisotropic speed of light theory it is also at odds with creationist Danny Faulkner who seems to advocate that God just pressed the fast forward button on the universe.
    While no university is going to strip a doctorate awarded to a former student, after all they paid for their degree (and what they learned was up to them.) But as critics we could propose a way to describe a fallen doctor that uses his degree merely to impress the yokels while he spends his time and effort playing with puppets on sesame street. Something like Xr. as in Ex-doctor. For example Xr. Jason Lisle and Xr. Danny Faulkner.

  17. @ abeastwood:

    Indeed, Leslie’s universe must have obliterated itself long ago, since nearly everything in it would have been hit by a photon traveling toward it.

    Yes indeed.

    Think of the experiments being done with laser fusion. A pellet of deuterium-tritium mix is bombarded on all sides with an intense laser pulse and is shock-compressed into fusing into helium. But, as high as that energy is, it is not even close to infinite.

    So in Lisle World, the formation of the heavens would be to the Earth as the laser pulse is to the D-T pellet; only the pulse from the formation of the heavens and stars would contain photons of infinite energy coming from all directions in space, and there would be lots of them.

    This is also a problem with placing the solar system at the bottom of a huge gravitational well. The photons falling in will be shifted up in energy and fry the Earth.

  18. Something like Xr. as in Ex-doctor. For example Xr. Jason Lisle and Xr. Danny Faulkner.

    Doctor of obfuscational hubris; Doh!

  19. “I could distinguish the storytelling from the genuine science.”
    Obviously this is a false statement uttered by Jason Lisle.

  20. How does Lisle write this stuff? Virtually everything observed in the universe has some spectral shift, due to its motion. Does Lisle theorize that the laws of physics are different for every star? Hydrogen emits at one frequency in this star, and another in that star, due to some difference in the laws governing it’s behavior?

    The weird thing is that he must have learned the correct science, and a lot of it, to earn his degree, and yet through all that his brainwashing remained in place. That’s rather amazing if you think of it. His parents, or his church, programmed him in an almost cultish manner. He’s sort of a Manchurian Astronomer.

    His PhD is from the University of Colorado. He has his own blog, which has his self-written bio on it. http://www.jasonlisle.com/about-lisle/ The best line: “He also does theoretical research and has contributed to the field of general relativity.

  21. One assumption … is that light travels the same speed in all directions … . The bottom line is: the speed of light, when it’s directed toward an observer, can be as fast as infinite.

    The bottom line is, “No, it can’t.”

    It’s true that we can’t measure the speed of light aimed directly at us, but we can measure the speed of light both in terms of the effects a finite speed of light has on astronomical observations and in the laboratory. We have no reason to believe light travels at different speeds in different directions, still less that its speed just happens to be infinite when it’s coming toward us but not when it’s coming toward anything besides Earth, which is what Lisle wants his readers to believe.

    And did you notice how quickly he moves from “assumption” to “definition” when he wants to discriminate between an idea he dislikes and one he favors? Not to mention his slander of Einstein by suggesting that the latter agreed that the speed of light could be infinite. What price E=mc2 then? The crux of that formula is that light has a constant speed, period. Otherwise, matter would contain a variable (and if Lisle were correct, sometimes an infinite) amount of energy.

  22. Another issue is we can make electromagnetic waves. Accelerate a charged particle you get EM radiation. We have the Maxwell equations, which predicted the speed of light from epsilon naught and mu naught. Does Xr. Lisle believe that the light from stars is different than the X-rays your hygienist used to zap your dental x-ray?

  23. The features of Special relativity are dependent on the speed of light being FINITE.

    If the velocity of light can be infinite, then we would not see any of the predictions of Special Relativity come true.

  24. Cyano de Bacteregerac

    Lisle’s way around the distant starlight problem, like Humphreys’, is unbiblical. With the true Biblical science, telling us the stars are just light bulbs stuck onto the solid roof above our heads, the distant starlight problem vanishes.

    A pity those “plain reading of the Bible” stalwarts all of a sudden turn into cavalier allegorists when it comes to the firmament, especially the explicit “strong as a molten mirror” bit in Job. Will no one stand for the Bible these days?

  25. “A lot of Christians don’t realize they have a double standard. They’re rejecting the Bible on some issues, and they’re accepting it on others.”
    Like JL and the 9th Commandment, for instance.

  26. One thing is certain: the garbage Lisle spouts travels at different speeds towards and through different populations.

  27. Troy says: ” we could propose a way to describe a fallen doctor that uses his degree merely to impress the yokels”

    Not easily done. A lawyer can be disbarred, but he still keeps his law degree. Physicians can be stripped of the right to practice medicine, but they keep their medical degrees. A PhD with a science degree like Jason’s, if he were teaching at a university, could be fired for teaching nonsense (unless he had tenure), but he gets to keep his doctorate. It’s only places like Hambo’s ministry and ICR that hire such people and proudly advertise that they have PhDs on the payroll.

  28. SC you misunderstand. I’m not advocating that universities repeal their degree, they earned it and they are legitimate (unlike Hovind’s degree for example) In the same way we refer to Ken Ham as Hambo I’m suggesting we should refer to them as “Xr.” instead. Rather than diminish their accomplishment it merely seeks to highlight the tragedy of how they choose to employ it.

  29. Troy says: “I’m suggesting we should refer to them as “Xr.” instead. Rather than diminish their accomplishment it merely seeks to highlight the tragedy of how they choose to employ it.”

    Instead of trying to create a new expression — which is fun but rarely successful — we should look for a term that is already in use. In the world of espionage, someone who works his way into a position from which he can sabotage the enterprise is referred to as a “mole.”

  30. These apologists always say the bare minimum to get a “pass” from their audience. Sure, “God” could have created the Universe as we see it today, 6000 years ago, but why would “He” have made the stars so spread out, and their star light already en route to make it look as if they had been traveling to their current locations for 14 billion years?

    Is “God” laughing up “His” sleeve at how we have fallen for “His” deception? Enquiring minds want to know!

  31. Charles Deetz ;)

    ‘I’ve got a science-shattering theory of light, so rather than make it my life’s work, I’m going to build and run a planetarium.’ #FAIL

  32. Mike Elzinga

    Curmudgeon says:

    Instead of trying to create a new expression — which is fun but rarely successful — we should look for a term that is already in use. In the world of espionage, someone who works his way into a position from which he can sabotage the enterprise is referred to as a “mole.”

    They are pretty lousy moles; the scientific “cats” can spot them instantly.

    If one looks only at the socio/political tactics of the ID/creationists – i.e., their websites, their propaganda materials, their attempts to influence legislation, etc. – one doesn’t see what scientists see of their pseudoscience.

    I can’t emphasize it too much; ID/creationists get the science wrong at even the high school level. Furthermore, most of their audience is struggling with concepts taught in middle school; and these IDiots are insuring that their followers get the science wrong as early in their educational journeys as possible.

    William Dembski’s “Complex Specified Information” is a purely bogus set of calculations that has absolutely nothing to do with anything in biology, chemistry, and physics. Granville Sewell can’t even get units correct when plugging his “X-entropies” into his diffusion equation. David Abel is a complete phony, cranking out self-cited gibberish funded by an “institute” which is really himself. Jason Lisle will never get a job in a respectable university; his fate is sealed by his choice of concocting bogus calculations and “theories” in the service of a sectarian pseudoscience propping up an unsupportable sectarian worldview.

    And so it goes with every ID/creationist out there clawing and scratching for recognition and adulation. They may be the “movers and shakers” within their narrow, little subcultures – after all that is the “celebrity” they clawed and scratched for since they were tweens – but they swing no weight whatsoever in the scientific community; they just look like incompetent, narcissistic fools.

    They apparently believe their own pseudoscience; but people who know the real science can see just how mangled and incompetent their understanding of the basics really is. The major threat by ID/creationists is in the socio/political realm where their profound ignorance and enormous egos prod them into sabotaging the educations of others.

  33. robnorman2015

    John Hartnett has published on AiG among other places in support of Lisle’s anisotropic universe. Unusually his blog has commenting…

    http://johnhartnett.org/2014/01/08/a-solution-to-the-creationist-starlight-travel-time-problem/

    Above is an example article- he’s fairly prolific.

    Not being a physicist I’m cautious about commenting on the multiple problems I think I see with his arguments. Anyone feel better qualified than me to weigh in?

  34. Mike Elzinga

    Eric Lipps asks:

    What price E=mc2 then?

    You would think that creationists would want to capitalize on their “scientific breakthroughs” by implementing some technology that would solve our energy problems.

    In this case, one could set up a thrower and a catcher to toss a mass between them. The energy required by the “thrower” to toss the mass would be m(c/2)2; but the energy received by the “catcher” would be infinite.

    Since I saw this first, I am going to reap all the benefits.

    Patent pending.

  35. Mike Elzinga

    robnorman2015 asks:

    Not being a physicist I’m cautious about commenting on the multiple problems I think I see with his arguments. Anyone feel better qualified than me to weigh in?

    Hartnett doesn’t understand time dilation or the effects of gravity (or the equivalence principle) on the rate at which clocks tick.

    Here is what he says:

    From the model it was discovered that, as a result of the very rapid acceleration of the cosmos, the physics (namely causality) necessitates that cosmic clocks ‘tick’ extremely fast compared to Earth-based clocks. This is what we call time dilation. It is as if the Earth clocks ‘tick’ only once for every trillion ‘ticks’ on cosmic clocks. This, then, provides all the necessary time needed (billions of years when measured by cosmic clocks) for light to travel the vast distances of the universe, even billions of light-years, in a matter of a single 24-hour day as measured by Earth clocks.

    He has screwed up the concept of time dilation. In reality, observers see a clock moving relative to themselves as running slower than their own clocks.

    Also, clocks deep down in a gravitational well appear to an observer outside the well as running slower. If the cosmos is accelerating away, from the perspective of the cosmos the Earth is sitting in a deep gravitational well being “sucked down” by an accelerating gravitational force. The Earth’s clocks appear to run slower. But on the other hand, from the perspective of the Earth, the photons from the expanding cosmos would be shifted toward the red, i.e., lower energy. Cosmic clocks would appear to run slower.

    This does not solve the problem for YECs.

    This is no better than the silly “solution” mentioned earlier about having the Earth at the bottom of a huge gravitational well. The incoming photons falling in from the cosmos would be shifted up in energy and fry the Earth.

  36. Warren Johnson

    The Curmudgeon said: “Instead of trying to create a new expression — which is fun but rarely successful — we should look for a term that is already in use.”

    That term would be “crackpot”.

    In my field of research (experimental relativity) we irregularly receive “radical new” theories from people who claim: “Einstein and the theory of relativity is wrong.” A few of them have PhDs in physics. We call them all “crackpots”, because almost everything they say is incoherent or wrong. Lisle belongs in this category. Everything he says about light is incoherent or wrong.

    Personally, I have found that crackpots have a superhuman ability to deny reality, and so it’s not worth it to try to convince them they are wrong. I would be happy if I could merely convince them that they are alone. In other words, that 99% of all active scientists would immediately disagree with them, and that the other 1% is suffering from an episode of mental illness. (really! One of my most famous colleagues, a full professor at a famous university, become a paranoid schizophrenic in middle age, and stayed that way to his death. )

  37. Warren Johnson says: “In my field of research (experimental relativity) …”

    Is this you? Warren W. Johnson, PhD.

  38. Mike Elzinga

    Warren Johnson notes:

    A few of them have PhDs in physics. We call them all “crackpots”, because almost everything they say is incoherent or wrong. Lisle belongs in this category. Everything he says about light is incoherent or wrong.

    In the rabbit hole realm of crackpots, ID/creationists seem to be unique.

    I think that most of us in research have encountered the crackpot at seminars, colloquia, and professional meetings a number of times; they are always lurking around the periphery of scientific activity. They are looking for validation of their “discoveries.” They appear to be mostly loners and are often quite incoherent in their thinking; not capable of mounting an organized, socio/political agenda to influence the law and public education. They are also not capable of thinking through and outlining a coherent research program to test their “ideas;” they want working scientists to do the work for them or to give some type of public testimonial for them.

    On the other hand, the ID/creationists – since their formal beginning in 1970 with the formation of the Institute for Creation Research by Henry Morris and Duane Gish – have been consciously focussed on changing laws and injecting their pseudoscience into public education. They have enlisted an entire grass-roots following and elected politicians to challenge school boards and state boards of education. Their political operatives continue to introduce legislation pushing their crackpot science.

    So, because of their constant and well-organized socio/political activities, ID/creationists are considerably more dangerous than the run-of-the-mill crackpot loner seeking validation (and money) from the science community.

  39. Hartnett is also into quantised redshifts and Galaxy/quasar associations. In other words anything that competes with the standard Big Bang model and might cast doubt on redshift as the benchmark of cosmological expansion. Halton Arp wrote a paper in 2012, not long before he died, purporting to discern “preferred” redshifts in big sky survey data. I’ve researched this carefully online and can’t find anything of a definitive rebuttal. Plenty of stuff saying why *earlier* calculations were flawed!

    Any cosmologists in the house?