More whacky ideas about peer review from ICR.

[Willtor]

i think i heard that before but again the knowing what evolutionists do to people who publish alternatives* to evolution, i wouldn't claim it to be all the creationists fault.

* I read about a small time publisher who was associated with the smithsonian institute, who published an article concerning I.D. or some other creationist point (it has been awhile so details are sketchy and i haven't refound the articles yet) of view.

well you should have read what was done to him, a fellow evolutionist, as it shows the bias that is within science which makes it very difficult for creationist to be published in secular works.

it wasn't pretty and it also exposes the hate that evolutionists have for anything other than their theory. God is not in evolution.*

*i will try to find some articles that tell about these encounters.

I'm not so concerned with somebody publishing a book or some such. That's interesting stuff, but the real clinchers are scientific papers. If you look for something online, look for this (and post a link): 1. a scientific paper that includes original research and has been submitted to a scientific journal (one of the journals that has been accused of anti-creationism), and 2. the letter of rejection that came back from the journal demonstrating the anti-creationism bias.

That's really the only thing (2 things, really) that can make the case that there is a conspiracy against creationism. Whether the journals are biased is the important thing. Whether people (in the scientific community) are being chumps is another matter. If no single person has ever tried to publish a creationist research paper, the charge of bias by a journal is very hard to show.

You can see why it's difficult for us to believe that there is this conspiracy. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I think most of us don't appreciate the charge of bias by a journal without the requisite evidence. Again, if you can find an example of those two related documents you'll persuade me of undue bias.

 

[KerrMetric]

i was going to be sarcastic but decided not to be. i would possibly be in favor of eliminating tenure as a practice in schools, if provided with competant and well written arguments against such status.

It can be abused. But then most of us who get it aren't the type of people who sit on their ass.

 

[Willtor]

i was going to be sarcastic but decided not to be. i would possibly be in favor of eliminating tenure as a practice in schools, if provided with competant and well written arguments against such status.

That's certainly another matter to be discussed. But I think Kerr's point is that nobody has any leverage in pressuring him to publish or not to publish a particular paper. It would be the same with any creationist with tenure. If a creationist has tenure, it's possible to punish him but it's very difficult and much more limited than if he didn't.

 

[archaeologist]

That's really the only thing (2 things, really) that can make the case that there is a conspiracy against creationism.

stop using the word conspiracy, that is not to what i am referring. a better word woul dbe bias, discrimination, for those who do not even consider the secualr scientific aspects.

i probably would agree that many creationist papers would not meet the standards set by the secular world and how the consider what science is BUT creationists are not coming from the same perspective as secular scientists either so it wouldn't be expected for them to be exact replicas of the set criteria.

if one wanted to be basic & truthful, they would have to say that: "creation was a one time act which set into motion a designed pattern of life which denies any evolutionary model because the act of creation was finished after 6 days.

No predictions can be made save that life will proceed exactly as it has for the past 6 to 10,000 years until God calls it quits"

that is the truth but it hardly fits into the criteria that has been specifically designed to look at alternatives to the Bible or supernatural.

so again i will state, that those who practice secular peer review really have no basis to criticize others who want their own way of doing things, their own criteria which fits their idea of what science is.

remember the secular world does not own the field and cannot decide what rules oversee that field. now they can set the rules as to what they will accept inside their part of that domain but they cannot decide for others who practice in domains outside the secular jurisdiction.

in other words, people are free to practice science as they see fit. doesn't mean that those people are right, without error, or whatever but it does allow people to judge for themselves what is kosher or not.

in my opinion the criteria that regulates the field should come from the Bible not the unbelieving world, especially if those practicing the science, claim they are christians.

 

[notto]

So creationists need to redefine science in order to claim they are scientists.

Got it.

Can I redefine science and practice astrology and call it science?
Can I redefine medicine and practice rumination and call it medicine?
Can I redefine math and say that 1 + 3 = 5 and call it math?

You are making it very clear that creationists are not doing science. It is good to see you admit it.

You can't redefine science. Why not call it what it is - religion. And then keep it out of the classroom and the science lab. As a Christian who practices science I can see no possible way that me being a Christian can impact that science.

Valid scientific theories (like evolution) are accepted by people from all races, ages, sexes, economic backgrounds, religous backgrounds, political backgrounds. That is what makes it objective science. Suggesting that a religious point of view can change the result of science is simply ridiculous.

It is anti-science because science must be objective and repeatable no matter who is doing it and what their background is. Creationism is not science and you just admitted it.

Whenenver religous or political views are used to justify changing science, people end up in jail or dead. When the church was involved with the exact same ideas as you have expressed here, they persecuted a man who was correct about the solar system. When Russian politicians would not accept evolution, they starved their people because their crops failed.

 

[KerrMetric]

BUT creationists are not coming from the same perspective as secular scientists either so it wouldn't be expected for them to be exact replicas of the set criteria.

Fair enough. So why do they call what they do science?

Why do they try to play the science game? This is evidenced by the con job they are pulling claiming peer review.

This is my problem - they want the penny and the cake. They want to appear scientific and be seen to be doing science BUT they cry when the science community turns its considerable intellectual resources in examination of the creationist ideas.

You can't be scientific and refuse scientific analysis. This is why 99% of the creationist material are nitpicking attempts with no original research or hypothesis testing.

Basically it's intellectually bankrupt.

so again i will state, that those who practice secular peer review really have no basis to criticize others who want their own way of doing things, their own criteria which fits their idea of what science is.

But that isn't true. They spend a good chunk of their time trying to appear scientific. They have a fundamental need to do so it seems. I wouldn't care if they just spouted some artsy fartsy drivel - instead they spout pseudo-scientific drivel and try to tell us it is science. It's not!

in other words, people are free to practice science as they see fit. doesn't mean that those people are right, without error, or whatever but it does allow people to judge for themselves what is kosher or not.

It's not science they are practising. And the world's scientific community (made up of all faiths - except it seems evangelical Christians - that's a joke btw) does get to determine what is and what is not science. And the jury delievered the verdict - creationist claptrap that comes out of the creationist community is not science.

in my opinion the criteria that regulates the field should come from the Bible not the unbelieving world, especially if those practicing the science, claim they are christians.

Well then we'd have pure unadulterated garbage masquerading as science. And you wouldn't be using a machine called a computer to read this.

 

[KerrMetric]

Can I redefine science and practice astrology and call it science?

Didn't that clown Behe already do this?

 

[archaeologist]

i will be back in about an hour to respond to the many statments made here since my last post.

please allow me to catch up before providing more comments

 

[notto]

Behe on the stand.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html

Q. Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?
A. No, I argued for it in my book.
Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
A. That's correct.
Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin's Black Box, you didn't report any new data or original research?
A. I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation.
Q. Now you have written for peer reviewed scientific journals on subjects other than intelligent design, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And in those articles, you did report original research and data, at least in many of them, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You would agree that there are some journals that are more difficult than others to get one's research published in?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science?
A. Yes.
Q. Nature?
A. That's correct.
Q. Science?
A. Yes.
Q. Journal of Molecular Biology?
A. That's easier than the other ones, but, yes.
Q. Still pretty good?
A. Yeah. I would take it, sure.
Q. In fact, you have taken that for some of these publications in your non-intelligent design work?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you've also served as a peer reviewer, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you do that, you get a submission from a scientist, correct? You receive the submission from the editor?
A. From the editor, yes.
Q. And you review those submissions carefully?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. There are some sort of professional expectations about how peer reviewers do their task?
A. Yes, you're supposed to read the manuscripts carefully and see if you can make suggestions and criticisms.
Q. You look at the experimental results?
A. Sure.
Q. You look -- you try to make a determination whether the techniques were proper?
A. That's correct.
Q. Try to make an assessment about whether conclusions follow from the data?
A. That's correct.
Q. You analyze whether there are gaps and problems in the experiment?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. And on occasions, you've communicated false in articles that you were peer reviewing, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. That's happened to you as well?
A. Sure.
Q. All part of the scientific process, right?
A. Yes, that's correct.

(Be sure to keep reading. It gets really funny when Behe is busted about the supposed peer review of Darwins Black Box - somebody he claims reviewed it never even read the manuscript)

 

[archaeologist]

So Global Flood BS acceptance is a SALVATION issue?

in one sense--yes. if you do not believe when God says 'global flood' how are you going to believe when He talks about 'salvation, heaven'? all three have no scientific evidence to back them up.

also, why would God say it in the first place if we were allowed to dismiss it? changing it to allegory doesn't help nor support what God said in Revelations concerning a final judgement. if the former is made allegorical, how will anyone take the latter seriously?

find them yourself. I find creationists seem incapable of usually doing so

sorry, you made the statement, it is on you to back up your own work.

Basically if the Global Flood is true then physics and geology do not work. Period

please elaborate and explain what you mean. though you may want to add the word 'secular' to the front of those fields.

So creationists need to redefine science in order to claim they are scientists

who says secular people got it right in the first place.

Valid scientific theories (like evolution) are accepted by people from all races, ages, sexes, economic backgrounds, religous backgrounds, political backgrounds

majority rule is not of God. He doesn't say, follow the crowd, He says follow Him. remember the verse on the broad and narrow roads?

Fair enough. So why do they call what they do science?

you won't like my answer as it sounds worse than it is... because the secular world does not have the authority to determine what is or isn't science. thier strangle hold on what is declared as science barrs many a good study from being explored or investigated further.

You can't be scientific and refuse scientific analysis. This is why 99% of the creationist material are nitpicking attempts with no original research or hypothesis testing.

again, you have two different worlds colliding here and i am sure the reverse is as true. (answering both paragraphs after 'fair enough') would you want creationist reviewing evolutionary material?

Basically it's intellectually bankrupt.

that is the secular idea but you have to remember that creationism is a closed field---'God created...'--- where are you going to go with that? this is not a statement inviting investigation but a revelation of fact, there is no open door there to do secular science. you either accept and believe it or you don't.

why do you think secular science omits God from the picture? it is so they can explore realms they are not allowed to explore. instead of focusing on investigating the details of creation to help people, they are off somewhere in left field exploring ideas that are not of God.

do you see the difference?

But that isn't true. They spend a good chunk of their time trying to appear scientific. They have a fundamental need to do so it seems.

this is where i probably deviate from creation science. i do not believe creation is a field you can fit into secular models or use secular methods to explain what took place.

how can you christianly scientifically investigate 'God spoke and it was so?' to me, a lot of creation science is a compromise to make christianity look better to the unchurched world and is doing what it shouldn't

It's not science they are practising

the whole paragraph & my point is debatable. we can fight over this for hours and i do not want to do that. in your mind that may be so, in there mind they are trying to appear legitimate which i think is a mistake.

Well then we'd have pure unadulterated garbage masquerading as science. And you wouldn't be using a machine called a computer to read this

let's not go to the absurd, because you don't know if computers would have been invented or not. technology is based upon things that exist and can be put together physically, evolution is not.

Didn't that clown Behe already do this?

rember, God's ways are not man's thus it would be highly arrogant to demand such obedience from the spiritual, who are not subject to the physical world.

this does not excuse shoddy, poor, superficial and so on work on the part of creationists. they need to do their work as honestly as God demands of His followers and with God's example there is no room for sub-bar work.

willtor:

But I think Kerr's point is that nobody has any leverage in pressuring him to publish or not to publish a particular paper. It would be the same with any creationist with tenure

i understand, just the way it came across, sarcasm was the intial attitude. i am sure that people who get tenure, 80% or so, deserve it and would not abuse their privilage. i heard that norman finkelstein was denied such status which kind of provides hope for the system.

 

[KerrMetric]

in one sense--yes. if you do not believe when God says 'global flood' how are you going to believe when He talks about 'salvation, heaven'? all three have no scientific evidence to back them up.

Doesn't matter - that's between me and the Lord. But what you cannot do is question my salvation because of that.

also, why would God say it in the first place if we were allowed to dismiss it? changing it to allegory doesn't help nor support what God said in Revelations concerning a final judgement. if the former is made allegorical, how will anyone take the latter seriously?

I dismiss Revelation as without inspiration. I find it abhorrent that it is in the Canon.

sorry, you made the statement, it is on you to back up your own work.

Actually no it isn't. You know that my view is the accepted scientific communities position. Plus the experience of researching a science topic might do you good.

please elaborate and explain what you mean. though you may want to add the word 'secular' to the front of those fields.

I don't have time to type a one million+ word essay. Google this - there are a lot of debunk the physics/geology of the flood sites.

you won't like my answer as it sounds worse than it is... because the secular world does not have the authority to determine what is or isn't science. thier strangle hold on what is declared as science barrs many a good study from being explored or investigated further.

again, you have two different worlds colliding here and i am sure the reverse is as true. (answering both paragraphs after 'fair enough') would you want creationist reviewing evolutionary material?

Sorry - your error here is that you and the Creationist groups are out of step.

These groups claim what they are doing is science. They aren't saying this is some new discipline - they are specifically saying they are performing science every bit as scientific as the mainstream.

I think you need to pick a bone with them on how they are going astray.

that is the secular idea but you have to remember that creationism is a closed field---'God created...'--- where are you going to go with that? this is not a statement inviting investigation but a revelation of fact, there is no open door there to do secular science. you either accept and believe it or you don't.

I have no problem with that. I repeat - Why are the creationist groups claiming they do science then? Do you not see this - you need to be critiquing them not I. You obviously are at odds with their methodology.


I see you do see this. You should be emailing them because what they are currently doing is an embarrassment to the faith.

 

[archaeologist]

Doesn't matter - that's between me and the Lord. But what you cannot do is question my salvation because of that

actually it does and we canbecause the Bible teaches us about being wary of htose who are false teachers, who are deceived and being deceived, to look at thier fruits and many other such verses wich are instructing believers who to listen to or not.

we have every right to question your salvation as 1 John is quite clear in its teaching about who is or isn't of God. please read it carefully.

I dismiss Revelation as without inspiration. I find it abhorrent that it is in the Canon.

would you explain some of your reasons why you find it so? is it personal bias or isit you can't fathom a God of Love having standards and enforcing them?

Actually no it isn't. You know that my view is the accepted scientific communities position. Plus the experience of researching a science topic might do you good

i probably would have done so if you had provided links to backup what you are saying but as it stands,your refusal to do that means it isn't important enough to you to support your words then it isn't important enough to me to go search.

I don't have time to type a one million+ word essay. Google this - there are a lot of debunk the physics/geology of the flood sites.

a few quotes and links would have sufficed. i am aware of many such arguments and maybe you knew of some better than the ones i know about.

These groups claim what they are doing is science. They aren't saying this is some new discipline - they are specifically saying they are performing science every bit as scientific as the mainstream.

they have every right to their opinion whether you agree with them or not. if they are right, thenyou have no evidence to consider, if they are wrong...well your guess is as good as mine.

I think you need to pick a bone with them on how they are going astray

my words are for all sides who have stopped following God's ways.

Why are the creationist groups claiming they do science then? Do you not see this - you need to be critiquing them not I. You obviously are at odds with their methodology.

possibly because science has become the accepted 'authority' and they feel that to be heard they must appear to be scientific? I do not know, there are many creation scientists here, would you ask them. i can't speak for them, their reasons are probably many: 1. they like science; 2. they like research; 3. they want to appear credible in the eyes of the unscientific world; 4. they feel they can use science to prove God when all we need is faith....

I see you do see this

do what? you forget that christians listen to me about as much as theistic evolutionist or progressive creationist do.

every one has the ability to freely choose and if they choose to listen then i can do something if not then... but all my words here would apply to them as well.

you have to remember God gave me a certain message, to return to His ways, He did not give me specifics because you are all in different fields and levels of science and He wants you to go to Him and listen to what He wants you to do.

if He gave me the specifics,you would end up following me and not Him and i don't need that temptation nor do i need to screw it up for HIm.

 

[KerrMetric]

would you explain some of your reasons why you find it so? is it personal bias or isit you can't fathom a God of Love having standards and enforcing them?

I find it the incoherent ravings of a madman and utterly without inspiration. Martin Luther thought the same thing for a long time and grudgingly allowed it back in his Canon. For the longest time he had it confined to an appendix and stated he could find no divine inspiration in it. It also was not exactly without troubles even getting in the Canon at Nicea.

i probably would have done so if you had provided links to backup what you are saying but as it stands,your refusal to do that means it isn't important enough to you to support your words then it isn't important enough to me to go search.

Fine by me.

there are many creation scientists here, would you ask them.

There is not a single Creation scientist who posts on this board and has made it known they are such.

 

[archaeologist]

I find it the incoherent ravings of a madman and utterly without inspiration. Martin Luther thought the same thing for a long time and grudgingly allowed it back in his Canon. For the longest time he had it confined to an appendix and stated he could find no divine inspiration in it. It also was not exactly without troubles even getting in the Canon at Nicea

well i will disagree with you, it is stark but it does provide comfort to those who believe in that we know sinners will be punished and believers will be free from the temptatios of sin and so on.

There is not a single Creation scientist who posts on this board and has made it known they are such

i can understand why.

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

There is not a single Creation scientist who posts on this board and has made it known they are such.

The words "Creation scientist" is ox's moron!

 

[notto]

this does not excuse shoddy, poor, superficial and so on work on the part of creationists. they need to do their work as honestly as God demands of His followers and with God's example there is no room for sub-bar work.

I would think that making claims about a book that one has never read or dismissing a theory that one doesn't understand would fall into this category.

 

[archaeologist]

I would think that making claims about a book that one has never read or dismissing a theory that one doesn't understand would fall into this category.

personal attack and faulty assumption ignored.

 

[notto]

personal attack and faulty assumption ignored.

But worthy of response it would seem.

Why not back up your statements with sources? Seems shoddy to me if you don't.

 

[Assyrian]

So Global Flood BS acceptance is a SALVATION issue?

in one sense--yes. if you do not believe when God says 'global flood' how are you going to believe when He talks about 'salvation, heaven'? all three have no scientific evidence to back them up.

Except God never said 'global flood', did he?

also, why would God say it in the first place if we were allowed to dismiss it? changing it to allegory doesn't help nor support what God said in Revelations concerning a final judgement. if the former is made allegorical, how will anyone take the latter seriously?

You do realise that the book of Revelation is full of allegory don't you? There isn't going to be an actual seven headed monster...

Interpreting Genesis allegorically is like interpreting Revelation allegorically? That sounds about right

 

[Nooj]

There isn't going to be an actual seven headed monster...

Actually, I don't see why not. If you're going to interpret Genesis literally, then why not Revelations the same way?