Looking For A Study. Help Pls.

[Collecemall]

I can't remember where I found it (likely posted here)but there was a study done evaluating the content of the published works from ICR etc. detailing the use of data in creationist/intelligent design "research". It basically showed that they don't use any data and bitch and moan about evolution etc. Maybe that's enough to give someone an idea of what I'm talking about. I've tried google searches but everything just leads me to ICR which isn't helpful. Thanks to anyone who can help.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Never heard of it, but something that sounds similar and is actually primary data, is Kent Hovind's 'doctoral thesis'..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: (sorry, writing those two words 'doctoral' and 'thes....' AHAHAHAHAHAH sorry, 'thesis', in the same sentence as his name just makes me chuckle) which can be found here:

https://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Young-earth_creationist_Kent_Hovind%27s_doctoral_dissertation

The august thesis, of course, starts so:

Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation/science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher since 1976. I've been very active in the creation/evolution controversy for quite some time.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ahh ahem... and exemplifies both the points made in your OP. There are no data involved throughout, and it's all just bitching cluelessly about evolution. Hovind's school of thought, if I may so anthropomorphize it, is at the root of the Creationist canard that all they need to do is defeat evolutionary/materialist science to prove Creationism right. A last man standing, so to speak, where they don't realize Creationism is the Dark Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail, amputated, beheaded, dissected, and rotting in the grounds of silly beliefs humans used to hold.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I can't remember where I found it (likely posted here)but there was a study done evaluating the content of the published works from ICR etc. detailing the use of data in creationist/intelligent design "research". It basically showed that they don't use any data and bitch and moan about evolution etc. Maybe that's enough to give someone an idea of what I'm talking about. I've tried google searches but everything just leads me to ICR which isn't helpful. Thanks to anyone who can help.

This honestly sounds like every rebuttle I have ever read. You will need to be more specific.

 

[Collecemall]

This is going to drive me crazy. It wasn't just a blog post or someone who decided to write something up. It was a serious study with published results. I'm going to post a link where they discuss sort of discuss doing what I'm looking for. Evaluating all the peer reviewed published studies from ICR, Discovery Institute, etc.. But this post doesn't link to what I'm looking for they just describe (sort of) what ended up actually being done. https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/11/03/the-state-of-creation-science-as-measured-by-scholarly-publishing/


Sorry I can't offer much more than that. I wish I could remember where I saw it originally.

 

[Rumraket]

Could it be this one?

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/38388
History and analysis of the creation research society
Elliott, William E.

Abstract:
The resurgence of creationism the past few years has been led by advocates
of recent-creationism. These individuals, a minority among creationists in general,
argue that the entire universe was created approximately 10,000 years ago in one six-day
period of time. Recent-creationists support their position by appealing to the
Genesis account of creation and scientific data. Their interpretation of Genesis is
based on the doctrines of conservative, evangelical Christianity. Their interpretation
of scientific data is informed by their theological presuppositions. The scientific side
of recent-creationism is supported by several organizations, most of which had their
origin in one group, the Creation Research Society. The CRS is a major factor in the
rise of the modern creationist movement. Founded in 1963, this small (c. 2000 members)
group claims to be a bona-fide scientific society engaged in valid scientific research
conducted from a recent-creationist perspective. These claims are analyzed
and evaluated.
The Society's history is discussed, including antecedent creationist groups.
Most of the group's founders were members of the American Scientific Affiliation,
and their rejection of changes within the ASA was a significant motivating factor in
founding the CRS. The organization, functioning, and finances of the Society are detailed
with special emphasis on the group's struggles for independence and credibility.
founding the CRS. The organization, functioning, and finances of the Society are detailed
with special emphasis on the group's struggles for independence and credibility.
The Creation Research Society's journal, the Creation Research Society Quarterly,
is analyzed with special emphasis on how its writers support recent-creationism
from scientific data. The Society also publishes a number of creationist books,
and these are discussed. Special attention was given to the group's most ambitious
project, a high school biology textbook designed for use in public schools.
Research efforts of the CRS are evaluated to determine if the Society does "do
science." Some of their work has scientific value, but a significant portion of it is
trivial in nature. In some cases the CRS does do science in that they seek to test hypotheses
from an honest evaluation of observational evidence. However, they operate
independent of the traditional scientific community which ignores their efforts.

Was just some crap I found googling around, doesn't look exactly like what you described.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Random aside... is it normal in other countries to put a page of acknowledgements at the beginning of one's Master thesis?

They do it here in Thailand too, but in the UK back a couple of decades, this wasn't done. In fact, we were expressly told not to add fluff.

 

[Sparhafoc]

P.S. even if that's not the one Collecemall's after, thanks for sharing that Bumcrack - it was a good read!

 

[Collecemall]

Nah. That's not it... Maybe I'll run across it again somewhere. Thanks for trying.

 

[Bango Skank]

All i know that comes close to that is one finnish research.

This one: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118314

 

[Collecemall]

All i know that comes close to that is one finnish research.

This one: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118314

Thanks Bango. That is close to what I was looking for. Very similar. Still driving me crazy I can't remember though. I appreciate the help.