@Joel_Duff put out a video a few days ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQGV4NkQ8bo --it’s about an hour long) talking about a new paper describing the largest known dinosaur trackway. What he notes as particularly interesting about the paper is that it was funded by the Geoscience Research Institute (the SDA geology organization), largely or entirely authored by SDAs, published in PLOS one, and is a good-quality descriptive article about the Cal Orck’o site. They figure the sites well, and talk about the paleoecology of the site (a mixed estuarine/lacustrine calcareous ooze). The lead author also lead-authored a major paper on a Peruvian Miocene site with about 20 fossil whales.
Todd Wood and Core Academy of Science have promoted the article and congratulated the authors, but not any of the other prominent US YEC groups or individuals. The video suggests this to be at least partly due to disliking other aspects of SDA theology.
The video also contains discussion of how the YEC authors appear to navigate publishing in a secular journal.
The key issue is which accepted notions and precepts, and why they are accepted. Good quality research must be of good quality. Does it actually examine the data and provide conclusions based on that data? Does it reflect a serious effort to understand the data? Does it accurately represent various ideas on how to explain the data? Does it make corrections in light of further data and input from others?
Accepted notions and precepts are often accepted because they work. Something going against them is often a mistake or a misrepresentation. There is good reason to be suspicious of an idea that goes against accepted notions and precepts, But there is also good reason to check out such ideas. There’s always room for improvement in our understanding, and some new ideas make valid points.
In the case of creation science, every single claim to support a young earth against an old earth based on scientific evidence has proven to be wrong. It’s trying to promote an idea which has been thoroughly debunked with consistently dismal quality claims. Thus, there is excellent reason to distrust any new claims. Actually going out, doing research, and reporting it accurately is very rare, which is why the study in question is noteworthy.
No, that assessment is not because I have a commitment to old earth or evolution that blinds me. I have a commitment to truthful research in paleontology and evolution. Creation science, like conspiracy theories generally, does not provide a coherent argument. The goal is to produce distrust of Them and impression of authority for Us, not to create a logical position, and so contradictory claims are commonplace.
