Comments on: Creationists launch peer-reviewed journal

International Journal for Creation Research will published peer-reviewed papers, but authors mustn't contradict official creationist tenets.

[Not-a-Blogger]

Good, won't long before they peer review themselvs into Evolutionists

ntxt

[mcsnide]

How is this progress?

People who are afraid of science reviewing the work of other people who are afraid of science is one definition of peer review, I suppose. More opportunity for absurd groupthink to grow and prosper. Maybe they can invite these people to present a paper: http://www.fixedearth.com/.

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?

[SelectedPete]

That is always the 2nd thing brought up by Evolutionists in debates

The first is always to question the background of the creationist and suggest that they could not possibly understand the complexities of abiogenesis unless they are a card carrying member of the Good Ship Beagle scientist club.

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

[mcsnide]

Um, ok

Why would real scientists waste their time refuting pseudo-scientific drivel? Maybe after they finish reviewing "intelligent design," they could also explain the pros and cons of the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory.

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.

[FTL_Johnson]

foolish and oblivious

Most Evolutionists are Christians.

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

[MTGrizzly]

Alternative ideas don't mean that...

...those ideas are "scientific" or even have any validity.

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.

[Newspeak finder]

Quack alert

the fact that you have to toe the creation ist line before you can get
your ideas published confirm that this is nothing more than an
attempt to suppress truth rather than find it.

[montex66]

PR Stunt

This is nothing more than a PR Stunt to give Creationists/
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.

[Zweites]

Wait...

So, it's a peer-reviewed journal, that excludes anyone with a dissenting view? ... how does it serve to weed out "half-baked" ideas when everyone already agrees? The POINT of a peer-reviewed journal is there is dissent and debate!

[SelectedPete]

A Smarmy Observation

See what I mean?

<<"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?

[MTGrizzly]

Acknowledging...

...the beliefs of creationists give validity to them. There is reality
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.

[IEEEEEE]

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.