Nothing to lose Sleep over
Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.
March 11, 2021 update
In my 1999 essay, I provide numerous examples of Oard (1997) quoting references out of context and failing to mention relevant information in the references that he uses, which refute his young-Earth creationist (YEC) agenda. Unfortunately, the ubiquitous literature abuse continues in Oard (2009a) and Oard (2009b). One of the more outrageous examples occurs in Oard (2009a, p. 113), where Mr. Oard cites a sentence fragment from Dement and Vaughan (1999, p. 34) in an attempt to accuse scientists, and especially me, of being extremely biased. Oard (2009a, p. 113), with the context, says the following:
"Like other advocates of naturalism, Henke tries to tilt the playing field by claiming that 'science' precludes the supernatural while explaining everything. He decries Christian 'bias' but refuses to admit evidence of his own - claiming that the interpretations of uniformitarianism of rocks and fossils are solid forensic evidence: 'In contrast, true peer review journals provide non-supernatural explanations for observations in nature...' (Henke 1999, p. 7). But many researchers recognize that being a scientist does not exclude bias:
'... even when they are looking, people usually see only what they expect to find and they do not see what they assume for whatever reason could not exist (Dement and Vaughan 1999, p. 34.'"
First of all, I NEVER said that science explains "everything." This is yet another example of Oard (2009a; 2009b) totally misrepresenting my beliefs. Also, the following web essays discuss my actual views on biases in science and the supernatural, in contrast to the gross distortions of my beliefs in Oard (2009a; 2009b):
A Geologist's Biases are Your Biases
Mr. Oard Confuses Methodological Materialism with Philosophical Materialism
Mr. Oard Confuses the Supernatural with Theism
Oard (2009a) Misrepresents My Views of Science
In this webessay, I will concentrate on Mr. Oard's quotation of Dement and Vaughan (1999, p. 34) and its context. Note the suspicious ellipse (…) that Oard (2009a, p. 113) inserts at the beginning of the quotation. Ellipses are used to denote material in the original source that has not been included in a quotation. Sometimes ellipses represent the removal of unimportant material or nonessential citations of references, figures and tables. However, at other times, the citer removes material to hide it from the readers or even to deceive readers about the context or origin of the quotation. So, ellipses should be warning signs and when they are seen in quotations, the reader should immediately ask: what material was removed and why? So, the question is: Is Mr. Oard trying to hide something by omitting the first part of the above quotation or did he just omit extraneous and unimportant material? The context indicates the former rather than the latter. In the text of Oard (2009a, p. 113), Mr. Oard is sloppy and never openly tells his readers that Dement and Vaughan (1999) is a book on sleep medicine and not general science or geology! Only if his readers happen to look at the reference in the bibliography of Oard (2009a, p. 121) will they notice that the title of the reference is about sleep. Here is the entire context of the quotation from Dement and Vaughan (1999, p. 34):
“I have often wondered what would have happened if rapid eye movements [REM] during sleep had not been discovered essentially by accident in Nathaniel Kleitman's lab in 1952. It seems possible, if not probable, that the concept of REM sleep and the discipline of sleep medicine would not exist today. Remarkably, REM sleep could have been discovered by anybody. As Al Rechtshaffen said, 'If anyone had thought that sleep was important enough to stay up and study it, rapid eye movements could have been discovered at any time in previous history.' Rapid eye movements can also be seen easily in a sleeping baby or child, or even in a sleeping pet dog or a cat, if you know what you are looking for. I don't entirely agree with Al, however, because even when they are looking, people usually see only what they expect to find and they do not see what they assume for whatever reason could not exist.” [Oard, 2009a, p. 113, only quotes the bolded section]
So, what does this opinion from a researcher on sleep studies and rapid eye movement have to do with actualism or geology? You would think that if Mr. Oard's contention about a lack of scientific evidence for pre-Pleistocene glaciations and serious biases among geologists were true, he should have been able to find at least one damning statement from a 21st century geologist against his/her colleagues' narrow-mindedness, lack of objectivity, bias and incompetence on pre-Pleistocene glaciations or similar topics. If the evidence for pre-Pleistocene glaciations is as weak as Mr. Oard claims, then there should be plenty of 21st century Schermerhorns in the limelight criticizing their colleagues. But, he does not find any. Instead, Mr. Oard shops around and ends up using an opinion from a researcher in a totally unrelated field and then he selectively quotes Dement and Vaughan (1999) to hide its true origin and pass it off as relevant to his case against other geologists and me. Oard (2009a, p. 113) is not being open and honest with his readers when he attempts to sneak in an opinion resulting from sleep studies to attack actualism and research on pre-Pleistocene glaciations. If Mr. Oard really believes that the opinions of a sleep scientist equally apply to geologists or other scientists, why did he not openly disclose the context of the Dement and Vaughan (1999) in the text of Oard (2009a, p. 113)? Why did he not openly and convincingly argue that the opinion of this sleep scientist also unmistakenly applies to geologists and other scientists in general? Oard (2009a, p. 113) could have said: "I recognize that the context in Dement and Vaughan (1999) deals with sleep studies, but for the following specific reasons and with the following 21st century examples, I think that this opinion also widely applies to advocates of pre-Pleistocene glaciations and everybody else... ." We could have then fairly and openly debated that opinion.
Unfortunately, Oard (2011, p. 70) repeats his deception by citing the same quotation without again properly providing its context. It was not until 2017, years after I originally wrote this essay, that Oard and Reed (2017, pp. 20-21) finally admitted that Dement and Vaughan's observations dealt with sleep. They still believe that the observations in this study somehow relate to improper biases against Noah's Flood (Oard and Reed 2017, pp. 20-21,184, 186, 190, 191). However, the overwhelming scientific evidence against Flood geology and YEC bible interpretations, as shown at this website, indicates that it's Mr. Oard and his YEC allies, and not the actualists, that are overlooking the obvious because it conflicts with their outdated worldviews.
References
Dement, W.C. and C. Vaughan. 1999. The Promise of Sleep: A Pioneer in Sleep Medicine Explores the Vital Connection between Health, Happiness, and a Good Night’s Sleep, Random House, New York, USA, 512pp.
Oard, M.J. 1997. Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landsides? Creation Research Society, Monograph No. 5, Chino Valley, AZ.
Oard, M.J. 2009a. “Landslides Win in a Landslide over Ancient 'Ice Ages'“, chapter 7 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 111-123.
Oard, M.J. 2011. Dinosaur Challenges and Mysteries: How the Genesis Flood Makes Sense of Dinosaur Evidence – including Tracks, Nests, Eggs, and Scavenged Bones, Creation Book Publishers: Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 174pp.
Oard, M.J. and J.K. Reed. 2017. How Noah’s Flood Shaped Our Earth, Creation Book Publishers: Powder Springs, GA, USA, 197pp.