Exploding the neutrality myth

When different people look at Mt. St. Helen's (or any other peak) do they see the same mountain?

The 30 year anniversary of the Mt. St. Helen's volcano gives us a clear example of how data is interpreted differently by people with different worldviews, concerns and objectives. (The event was recalled in many popular science magazines.) The creationist sees confirmation of the biblical model of geology, while the Evolutionist (apparently) sees no such thing. Neutrality in science is as obsolete a concept as it is in politics, economics or anything else.

Quotes and comments;

A. ' May 18, 2010 — Thirty years ago this day, May 18, 1980, Mt. St. Helens blew up. The catastrophic eruption not only shocked the area around the mountain, it shocked scientists into a new realization of the power of catastrophist geology.
Steve Austin did considerable on site research about the event; some of his conclusions or findings include;

- A mudflow produced a 1/40th scale model of the Grand Canyon in one day.
- Badlands topography along the Toutle River was formed in days, not thousands of years.
- Logs uprooted by the blast were being planted in upright positions at the bottom of Spirit Lake, giving the appearance they had grown in that position. This was reminiscent of the Yellowstone fossil forests.
- A layer of peat buried in Spirit Lake has the texture and appearance of a coal deposit forming. [1.]

B. 'But strangely, Nature News mentioned none of these things. [1.]

- Whenever evolutionists see their model refuted they just ignore the evidence and carry on as if nothing happened. As I've said before; Darwinism isn't a search for truth, but a methodology and a work project. i.e. it is the attempt to explain all things in terms of materialism. (There is little concern for whether or not this is leading to an accurate picture of what happened in the past or what our current reality is.) We could simplify this by calling it an apologetic for materialism. The evolutionist will speak truthfully if he thinks what he says is going to support this worldveiw model, but if he sees data that refute the model he either says nothing or distorts and lies about what he knows. He acts as if he were fighting a war, not as if he were searching for truth.

C. 'She [Janet Fang] mentioned new theories about how magma rises to the surface through conduits, and new realizations of the power of landslides and lateral blasts during eruptions. But she said nothing about any of the points that Steve Austin found so interesting about Mt. St. Helens. Neither did the writers for Live Science or National Geographic. Were they even looking at the same mountain?' [1.]

- Were they looking at the same mountain? Yes, and no. She's looking at the mountain with materialist eyeglasses, while Austin is looking at it with creationist eyeglasses. She can't afford to see evidence the Darwinian (materialist) view of geology is wrong. She can't afford (or so she feels) to give credence to any creationist views on the volcanic event. ("Give no comfort to thine enemy,'' as the Left says.) Future generations will sadly shake their heads.

Notes;
1. Mt. St. Helens Recalls Overturned Paradigms Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/18/2010
2. For Austin’s latest views on the lessons from the blast, see his article this month on ICR, “Supervolcanoes and the Mount St. Helen's Eruption.”
3. 'The complete silence about Steven Austin’s research at Mt. St. Helen's by the secular media is stunning. Is it because his credentials are lacking? No; he has a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania. Is it because his field work was unexceptional? No; he was the only one to don scuba gear and dive to the bottom of Spirit Lake, and use sonar to map the lake bottom. Is it because his findings with the canyons and stratification lacked significance? No; they were revolutionary and explanatorily rich. [1.]
- the silence on this issue is significant. The Darwinists know they've been refuted and so the best they think they can do is ignore the issue. This shows us what a farce the idea of 'scientific' neutrality is.
4. 'Dr. Austin visited the mountain numerous times after the eruption, and even took a team scuba-diving in Spirit Lake to study the effects of waterlogged trees sinking in the peat sediments at the bottom. Some of the lessons from Mt. St. Helens for catastrophic flood geology were summarized in his 1986 monograph, “Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism,” published by ICR. [1.]