Lynn Marzulli (L. A. Marzulli, but I knew him years ago as Lynn) just posted something accusing me of making “tired and pompous” and “false” claims about his fairy research in a “hit piece” here. What a bore. Whip out the persecution complex instead of making the effort to what I actually asked: be transparent. It’s an unfortunate, familiar story. What I note below now goes for his fairy / elongated skull / nephilim research wholesale.

Lynn is referencing this post on this blog of a few days ago.

Earth to Lynn and others to whom it may apply:  I didn’t make any claims at all about Marzulli’s work, good or bad. I asked that he make the details of his research public to avoid being like others in fringe research. I asked that he do the right (ethical) thing in relation to his claims:  give the public the name of the lab(s), the names of the scientists testing the specimen(s), the test results for peer review scrutiny, etc.  That’s it — and it’s anything but unreasonable. In fact, it’s absolutely reasonable, and doing so would be a good testimony in contrast to many in fringe research who just won’t make any effort toward such transparency. So, Lynn, the only way you can “rebut” a request for transparency is to not comply — to avoid transparency. I’m hoping you don’t really want to do that.  On the other hand, putting your research and test results out there for peer review could potentially mean that you’ll in fact prove your claims aren’t things like pseudoscience or more head wrapping. But the only way to establish that beyond any pale of suspicion (which is what lack of transparency produces) is to in fact do what I asked you to do — put it all out there for peer review. This is in fact the standard we all adhere to in other areas of life (as my post sought to illustrate).

Does this really sound unreasonable?

In short, Christians ought to do everything like this above board, and make every effort to follow good research protocol.  So, if transparency and careful, honest research are now pompous, tired, and false, yep … that’s me. I’ll wear that like a badge.  Yep, Heiser’s a “hit man” for transparency and honesty (thanks for the label; people will know where to come when they want to be told the truth, even if it’s irritating). I’m happy to be an honest stick in the mud. I always have, and always will, insist on transparency. I don’t care if the research is a fellow Christian like Lynn or someone who isn’t (e.g., Sitchin). The standard is the same. (Well, truth be told I care more when it’s a Christian for the sake of the gospel’s reputation).

I ask again: Does this really sound unreasonable?

It’s for this reason that I won’t be commenting any more on Lynn’s research (that is, engaging in tit for tat posting). He can say what he wants. But my request and the standard of transparency will always be the same. Instead of repeating it in a series of responses to what Lynn might write about me in the future, the standard will just live here. So let’s read clearly the first time. Anyone who cares about transparency and honesty — putting scientific research up for peer review — will be able to read this and the original post.

It’s not complicated, Lynn — do the right thing.  We’ll all be thrilled (and perhaps fascinated) with that. We hope you’re right, but the only way to know isn’t your say-so …. it’s to have tried-and-peer-tested research behind you.

Addendum, Aug 9, 2016:

The point of wanting the “fairy” specimen tested under transparent peer review is to make sure it isn’t an example of this (anything look familiar?)  X-rays don’t establish what material something is made of. Lots of material will show up on an X-ray. Sincere researchers have been duped before. I don’t want that to happen to Lynn or anyone else. If insisting on transparency with this sort of thing draws abuse for me, so be it. Let me go on record now as saying that I believe real scientific testing will show the specimen is not an unknown life form.