What most of those here who have published papers are hearing from you (I know this is not what you mean to be communicating, but from the last paragraph, I hope you can see why this is how your points come across) is that the creationists should get a free pass to publish their papers where the evolutionists have to do real research and recieve criticism on their papers before they get published; and anything less is bias on the part of the journals.
well you're right. i am not saying that and for a very good reason. it is not for the reason that secular science has declared creation science a non-science; i do not believe secular science has the authority or the right to declare what is or isn't science or the correct scientific method.
i do not think the two are compatible and neither belongs in the other's systems. they have different goals, motivations, ideas, one is not of God while the other is closer to Him, and so on.
creation scientists should not be submiting articles to secular journals and vice versa for peer review for the peers are different also. the believer cannot walk in the counselof the ungodly thus accepting advice or corrections from secular scientists is walking a fine line.
BUT that still doesn't give those who practice secular science the right to criticize AIG or ICR for their peer review criteria for the reason pointed out earlier; the secular system applies the same rules, just different words and target omissions.
the secular world wants everything to run by their rules and on their playing field, well that just isn't going to work. God does not do things the way the secular world thinks and to use their ways and methods means missing out on what God did.
for lady kate;
randome guy said this:
The tenets of science is the scientific method. Ignore no evidence, have only natural explanations, etc... It's science. Are you telling me that anyone can have their own definition of science and it's valid?
i said:
there you have it,i highlighted the words that make the secular journals just like ICR's criteria and makes the original post a hypocritical complaint.
i would say that those who complain about ICR's regulation, that it be creationist ,is not science have no leg to stand on as they themselves do not practice science as defined by their own people.
also, that highlighted phrase proves my point that the seculae journals omit data and shows why they will never get the answers they seek nor find the truth using their own way.
creation was a spiritual, supernatural act and there is no way given the above regulation that secular science can fathom what took place nor present the truth.
secular science has set up the rules so that what is to be accepted will only fit their framework, no christian should be a part of that for it is a tilted playing field in favor of the secular world and does not allow people to find the truth.
The rejection letter doesn't have to say, "we're biased." But if it points to relevant contrary research that hasn't been addressed, the author(s) of the paper are expected to respond to that research. If the journal can point to such things, it isn't bias, it's constructive criticism
so you like to think. a lot of rejections are based upon bias, they just have different words to use to make it seem legitmate. don't get me wrong, it is practiced in all fields, even christian ones.
a good one is; ' this is a good paper but it just doesn't fit our publishing needs' (or direction etc.)
translation: " there is no way in **** that we are going to publish something contrary to our beliefs." or something to that effect. use your imagination.
