Creationists launch peer-reviewed journal
Creationists are adapting another element of the traditional scientific realm to their cause: the peer-reviewed journal.
The Institute for Creation Research, a prominent believer that the scientific method can validate a literal reading of the Bible's account of the creation of the universe, Earth and humanity, has begun soliciting papers for the International Journal for Creation Research.
Peer review, in which a scientist's paper is scrutinized by a group of colleagues, is designed to find errors and weed out half-baked ideas. And although some have criticized peer review for rejecting new ideas just because they're too radical for the establishment to stomach, in the long run, science has marched along through various paradigm shifts.
The IJCR, though, has a few extra requirements to make sure scientific findings stay subordinate to creationist tenets.
"IJCR provides scientists and students hard data based on cutting-edge research that demonstrates the young earth model, the global flood, the nonevolutionary origin of the species, and other evidences that correlate to the biblical accounts," according to the institute's description.
In the call for papers, it adds, "Papers can be in any scientific, or social scientific, field, but must be from a young-earth perspective and aim to assist the development of the creation model of origins." And the three or more people who reviewer each paper are advised that each paper must "provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatico-historical/normative interpretation of scripture."
(Via Bad Astronomy)
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank. 
Anyone wanna bet these "scientists" will also dispute global warming, the value of embryonic stem cell research, non-abstinence-based sex ed, and any other areas of scientific agreement they find objectionable?
At some point, the church of evolution is going to run out of excuses for shutting down scholarly debate. The more they discover about the true differences between man and ape, the more Haldane is coming back to haunt them. Evolution is literally running out of time, and peer-reviewed discussion has been denied creationists for too long.
Let us see if evolution steps up to the plate and refutes these peer reviews in the leading magazines. My prediction is that they will continue to swim in their own "primordial soup" and will continue to kneel at that great church of Dawkins
SelectedPete
The main problem with your demand is that intelligent design is not scientific - it's philosophical. From Aristotle to the present, men have argued for a First Cause of some sort. There can be no empirical evidence of such a first cause because it is assumed to be supernatural. Thus, by very definition, it is outside the realm of science.
If people want ID to be taken seriously, they should bring it up in a philosophy class. Most philosophy professors would poke holes in it too, but at least that would be the right setting.
Someone doesn't pay attention to statistics. I guess they probably won't all be kneeling to the altar of Dawkins, will they...?
I really dislike smarmy dummies.
-Johnson
Designer, Marketing
FreeTalkLive.com
As a Holocaust historian, I often get asked what I think of
Holocaust deniers. For those who don't know, Holocaust deniers
despute that the Holocaust happened. They go to great lengths
to "prove" that their beliefs are supported by scientific data and
such institutions such as the Institute for Historical Review hold
conferences and publish "peer reviewed" (reviewed by other
Holocaust deniers) papers. Despite their attempts to legitimize a
belief that is clearly unsupported by reality, much less any real
scientific evidence, their "belief" is nothing but wishful thinking
and nothing will legitimize them. Furthermore, debating them is
pointless and only serves to make the uneducated believe that
deniers' viewpoints have some degree of validity.
Similarly, creationists will do anything to legitimize a belief that
isn't supported by any scientific data. It is a "belief" and,
furthermore, it is a belief that is inconsistent with what is written
in the Bible, (I am a Christian and have been all my life and I
have never been able to reconcile creationist beliefs with either
the physical fossil record and/or what is written in Genesis.).
Peer reviewed journals will not change any of this. Debating
creationists is pointless, (you can't argue with someone with a
superstition), and only serves to make others believe their is
some validity to their beliefs.
your ideas published confirm that this is nothing more than an
attempt to suppress truth rather than find it.
Intelligent Design proponents a way to proclaim (very loudly)
that their theories have been "Peer Reviewed" and thus qualify
for equal treatment in public school science curriculum. It won't
be long before state legislatures are bombarded with demands
from Christinists that Creationism be taught along side and with
equal emphasis to Evolution, due to the now supposed validity
of their theology.
Fortunately, most school boards are not populated by religious
fundamentalists and see through this thinly veiled move. Unless
were talking about Kansas, that is.
<<"Why would real scientists waste their time refuting pseudo-scientific drivel?">>
I hope that the "real scientists" will actually read and respond to some of these peer reviews and explain why they are not good science. The argument above in quotes is simply righteous indignation - "how *dare* anyone present an alternate idea to our accepted hobby horse?!"
Evolutionists have been demanding peer reviewed material for decades now - if they truly wish to learn and be open minded, then let them refute these papers in open forums. What do they have to fear from a bunch of flat earth pseudo-scientists?
and there is fantasy. Creationism is superstition/fantasy, there is
no evidence to support it and manufacturing evidence won't make
it any more real.
Scientists should not respond to these "peer reviewed" papers.
They should continue to do what they are doing. Creationism will
go away once the religious right loses its influence in government.
- by IEEEEEE February 22, 2009 8:15 PM PST
- MTGrizzly, when you mention manufacture evidence do you mean like Ramapithecus, or Javaman, maybe Lucy, or then again Piltdown Man, possibly like Neanderthal Man, or even Nebraska Man. Is that what you mean by manufacturing evidence? Or maybe you had something else in mind. Please explain.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(12 Comments)