discrider said:
What I see is properly researched scientific papers popping up on both sides, and whilst I might not have the qualifications to determine the validity of each, those that do have a vested interest on both sides to only promote those articles that fit their world view and disparage those that do not. So either I've got to dig through all the literature before I can accurately weigh up all the options, or I'm going to have to rely on reading both types of literature surveys or what have you and hope they give me a balanced look on things which they obviously will not do.
So no, it's not like your example. There is sensible scientific discussion going on on both sides, but the communication breaks down completely in the middle.
Ah, the perennial "Scientists are frauds!!!!" argument.
discrider, I'm a paleontologist. Published in peer reviewed journals, given talks at international conferences, and am currently employed in salvage paleontology work. I am one of those whom you say are only interested in citing works that support my world-view.
Unfortunately for you, I don't do that.
I'm a Neocatastraphist. I believe that low-amplitude, high-frequency events dominate deposition, while high-amplitude, low-frequency events re-work the sediment and dominate the rock record. There are also issues with the K/Pg impact and other things, but we can leave those aside for now; suffice to say that I have a particular world-view. I've based this off of extensive research on two continents and multiple depositional environments.
Others that I work with are Uniformitarianists. They believe that low-amplitude, high-frequency events dominate the rock record, and that high-amplitude, low-frequency events are rare in the rock record, just as they are rare today. They have a very different world-view than mine (both groups support evolution, but we have different views of them).
Oddly enough, I have never hesitated to quote the Uniformitarianists I've worked with. Often I do so to disagree with them, but more frequently it's to discuss the data they collected. It's good data, I just have a different interpretation. In fact, some of hte most fun conversations I've ever had involved looking at some datum and trying to determine which idea it best supported. Really good way to learn the weaknesses of one's epistemology.
As for Creationist publications, I don't believe there's a valid one in the past 50 years. If you have one, please present it. I'll gladly agree that in the past Creationism produced some very interesting papers and talks--but in the past 75 years or so, they've simply gone insane and abandoned all pretense at presenting a scientific argument. I'm rare among paleontologists; I actually enjoy reading Creationist literature of the past (the past is the key to the future, and I like to know how ideas were proven wrong); I'm honestly willing to read a valid Creationist paper. I don't think you can present one. By the way, by "valid" I mean free from gross scientific errors--as in, if you want to talk about thermodynamics you have to show the chemical equations, that sort of thing.
I look forward to you defending your position that the literature is split down the middle. After over ten years of studying geology (6 in school, 5 as a professional) its been my experience that 99.999%+ of the papers, talks, etc. are not written by Creationists, and the ones that are do not actually address any issues Creationists wish to address (the one I saw was on downstream sedimentation after dam removal).
As I told my mother back in college, "I'm not drinking heavily. I'm doing career development!"
