My Creation Science Challenge

[RickG]

This leads me to believe that you have a very warped idea about how peer review really works.

In general, it's not so much that actual idea presented in the paper that is being evaluated, as it is the methods and data used and the quality of the science.

A peer reviewer doesn't really ask the question "what is the conclusion of this paper?"... rather, (s)he'll ask questions like how was the conclusion obtained? How is it supported? How were the experiments set up? Can this be repeated / verified?

It's, primarily, the science that's being evaluated. Not the conclusion per say...

It seems like are of the opinion that "peer review" is all about "i agree" or "i don't agree" with the conclusions.
Not so much. It's actually, at least equally, about "is this proper form / good science?".

Absolutely, it is not whether the reviewers agree with the conclusion(s), but whether it is scholarly, utilizes proper methods, contains original data/research which supports the conclusion(s). Additionally, most papers require several submissions before being accepted for publication.

 

[RickG]

Oh look, a load of assertions with zero evidence from somebody who has never worked in science. Gosh.

If science works as you describe, how are things discovered? How are new things invented? Why is it that, for example, scientists are incredibly excited by what the LHC is discovering with the most exciting outcome being that the standard model of particle physics should be rewritten? Scientists are recognised for breakthroughs, new discoveries and changing existing theories. Nobody in science wants to keep everything at the status quo, that goes against the whole point of science.

The whole idea of science is to "question everything", that is how we learn and advance our knowledge. And with respect to the topic of this thread, questioning the peer review process of "creation science" is what I am doing. Simply put, the creation science peer review lacks legitimate peer review. And this is why I ask in the OP to present a creation science peer review paper and lets review it for its qualities or lack thereof. Every creation science paper I have seen is lacking of original research and data. Furthermore, most are presented by people who have no experience in the field they are writing about, much less an expertise. Thus, with the submitters having little or no expertise, what about the "peer reviewers".

 

[Jimmy D]

The Institute for Creation Research claim....

The Institute for Creation Research is unique among scientific research organizations. Our research is conducted within a biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God. The real facts of science will always agree with biblical revelation because the God who made the world of God inspired the Word of God.

All origins research must begin with a premise.1 ICR holds that the biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is factual, historical, and clearly understandable and, therefore, that all things were created and made in six literal days. Life exists because it was created on Earth by a living Creator. Further, the biblical Flood was global and cataclysmic, and its after-effects therefore explain most of the stratigraphic and fossil evidence found in the earth’s crust. It is within this framework that ICR research is conducted.

ICR is also committed to peer review. Such a commitment means that we subject our scientific conclusions to others within related scientific disciplines and invite their feedback and critiques, since “iron sharpens iron” in the pursuit of scientific excellence (Proverbs 27:17). ICR encourages scholarship, investigation, and careful scrutiny of origins concepts.


There is a link at the top of the page which promises "In-depth peer reviewed scientific articles". I must admit that I haven't been able to find any actual original research there, only 're-interpretations' of research done by mainstream scientists. Rather than actual trying to 'discover' any evidence for Creation they have a fixation with finding flaws the theory of evolution.

 

[RickG]

The Institute for Creation Research claim....

The Institute for Creation Research is unique among scientific research organizations. Our research is conducted within a biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God. The real facts of science will always agree with biblical revelation because the God who made the world of God inspired the Word of God.

All origins research must begin with a premise.1 ICR holds that the biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is factual, historical, and clearly understandable and, therefore, that all things were created and made in six literal days. Life exists because it was created on Earth by a living Creator. Further, the biblical Flood was global and cataclysmic, and its after-effects therefore explain most of the stratigraphic and fossil evidence found in the earth’s crust. It is within this framework that ICR research is conducted.

ICR is also committed to peer review. Such a commitment means that we subject our scientific conclusions to others within related scientific disciplines and invite their feedback and critiques, since “iron sharpens iron” in the pursuit of scientific excellence (Proverbs 27:17). ICR encourages scholarship, investigation, and careful scrutiny of origins concepts.

Thanks for the contribution Jimmy. An excellent example of "intellectual dishonesty".

There is a link at the top of the page which promises "In-depth peer reviewed scientific articles". I must admit that I haven't been able to find any actual original research there, only 're-interpretations' of research done by mainstream scientists. Rather than actual trying to 'discover' any evidence for Creation they have a fixation with finding flaws the theory of evolution.

It would be nice to have a link to one of those articles so it may be reviewed by everyone participating here.

 

[Jimmy D]

Thanks for the contribution Jimmy. An excellent example of "intellectual dishonesty".

After 10 pages of bickering it was overdue.

It would be nice to have a link to one of those articles so it may be reviewed by everyone participating here.

Some of them are quite lengthy but in the interests of fairness I'll just link the first article listed....

THE CHASM BETWEEN THE HUMAN AND CHIMPANZEE GENOMES: A REVIEW OF THE EVOLUTIONARY LITERATURE

Unfortunately no original research there though .

 

[Loudmouth]

You have GOT to be kidding me, of course it's assumption.

No, it isn't. We can observe that all galaxies are moving away from us.

I can observe things being created every day, an absolute fact, then from that conclude it was all created but be wrong in your minds, while you make an observation, a pretty damned wild one at that, yet it is becomes a fact, not assumption.

Nothing in that paragraph changes the fact that we can observe the universe expanding.

I'm stunned at how gullible seemingly intelligent people can be. Dogma said he never stated there was no God or something like that, so I should not accuse him of it, but gotta' say, you people have to have some type of serious agenda to fall for this stuff.

We aren't the ones who believe, without any evidence, that a supernatural deity magically poofed the universe into being.

My lack of reasoning? Oh please, after all you've claimed recently? Still dwelling on the definition of assumption I see? Your desperation is showing, but I'd be desperate too if I were in your shoes, so I get the fact you have to grab hold of what you think is usable in order to dig your way out. However, the fact I get it, doesn't make it any less sad.

I see that you can't address what I wrote.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not at all, I'm saying it's assumption that because it's expanding now doesn't equate to it all started with expansion as was claimed.

No one is making that assumption. Scientists actually looked for evidence of what should exist if the Big Bang happened. They found that evidence. It is called the cosmic microwave background.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html

 

[HitchSlap]

I agree, however, a bunch of people backing a myth is no way to do science.

I agree, as well. Creationism/ID/cdesign propentsists should have disappeared decades ago.

Science chases the truth.

A better description is that science helps us understand what is true.

It does not try to support a preconceived theory and reject anything that doesn't fit the predetermined idea.

The scientific method, broke as it is, is still the only way to distill what's real about reality.
What you have done, is describe creationism/ID/cdesign proponentsists to a "T".

 

[RickG]

After 10 pages of bickering it was overdue.

Some of them are quite lengthy but in the interests of fairness I'll just link the first article listed....

THE CHASM BETWEEN THE HUMAN AND CHIMPANZEE GENOMES: A REVIEW OF THE EVOLUTIONARY LITERATURE

Unfortunately no original research there though .

Thanks Jimmy. I openly admit that biology is not my area, rather the earth sciences are my background. And as you mentioned, there is no original research shown in the paper, really nothing more than comment. The author does present quite a lengthy list of references from the mainstream scientific journals, however, I seriously doubt a single one would agree with the Bergman, Tompkins paper you linked. Mainstream peer reviewers would check every single reference to verify that the reference supports the claim. Oh! Also, that so called peer review paper is a conference presentation, which is very odd. The mainstream science conference presentations are not peer reviewed.

 

[Kenny'sID]

In other words you deny the big bang. I guess the entire astronomical community are just a bunch of blithering idiots then.

Yes, I think it's ridiculous to think that suddenly out of a literal thin air/nowhere something happened, in that somewhere, something expanded, and that ends up the explanation for the beginning of it all.

Blithering idiots? Your words not mine. Some of you buy it.. hook, line, and sinker, so if I were you, not sure I'd be so quick with name calling. Now if that was just an attempt to force me to believe as you do or be ashamed/guilty of thinking I'm smarter than the whole astronomical community, then have at it. Do you really think desperate tactics by those that are that insecure with their beliefs will change my mind?

I'd rather be thought of as the stupidest man on the planet by the seemingly most brilliant people on the planet than to pretend to believe their stupidity. I mean seriously, look at some of the stuff you people buy already, it's like the kings clothes, some of you just agree to it because everyone else does and look where we are now because of that. Are you even bothering to take a close look at some of the nonsense some of you are calling fact?

This same phenomena happens in Christianity...someone comes along with some nonsense "higher knowledge" and others buy it just like that because they want to be knowledgeable too, never bothering to give a lot of though to what they are buying into till the whole thing gets out of hand and suddenly this higher knowledge becomes fact. Problem is, once one has blinded themselves by believing something for so long, it's very hard to impossible for them to step back and actually see what's really there anymore.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yes, I think it's ridiculous to think that suddenly out of a literal thin air/nowhere something happened, in that somewhere, something expanded, and that ends up the explanation for the beginning of it all. . . . .

Scientists ponder why the universe came along, they don't really have a very good explanation for why there was a big bang event.

They are able to establish that there was, after all, a big bang event. That's a major accomplishment.

It makes no sense to scientists any more than you that there is no explanation for the big bang event. They posit stuff like a preceding big crunch, or vacuum instability in the absence of matter, with perhaps eternal instances of more big bangs occurring where the preceding universe got to be thin enough to foster such an event . . . (nothing is unstable . . )

But such ideas are, as far as I know, mere hypothesis and we can't pick between them.

What is NOT ridiculous is to point out that, after all, we are here, and there has to be SOME kind of explanation for that result.

In my own thinking, putting God into the picture makes it easier to understand why there is a universe. But that's not science. Maybe you could call it metaphysics.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So what other suggestion do you have to account for the present expansion of the universe? And what would make any other suggestion MORE than an assumption?

It is presently the way God intended it.

On the second part of your question, you didn't cover the fact that what might make it more than assumption for some, may not for others...

It's more than assumption *to me* because creation is simply more logical and believable than suddenly something for no apparent reason, expanded. And though I shouldn't even have too, I already explained how it's more logical.

Seriously, look at those two choices closely..."it was suddenly just there", or "someone put it there".

As they say, sometimes the simplest explanation is the best and correct explanation...another factor that plays a role in my beliefs.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No. The universe is factually, demonstrably, verifiably, observably expanding.

You didn't know this? This is rather old news, you know...

If you are going to get series about joining in the conversation, then do it.

To pretend to forget the fact we are talking about the expansion being the explanation for the beginning, and to try twist my answer into sounding ridiculous by leaving off half of the subject, once again, makes your desperation tho win a losing battle even more apparent.

Only those with no ammo throw duds.

It would be more honorable for you to just drop out of the conversation if you are going to stoop to those levels. Much more of that and I'll have to stop taking you seriously.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So it was static, or even contracting, and then decided to start expanding for no good reason. You wouldn't like to come up with a physical mechanism for that, would you?

Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking, please be more clear.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, it isn't. We can observe that all galaxies are moving away from us.

and?

That doesn't change the fact it's assumption something expanding somewhere started it all. You and Dogma are both falling asleep at the wheel here, and by choice best I can tell

Nothing in that paragraph changes the fact that we can observe the universe expanding.

Nothing in that paragraph was supposed to.

That's all I read of your two posts, LM...just understand how I might feel I'd just be wasting my time to read further. Takes enough time as it is to comment ion this stuff and when others either can't, or choose not to keep up due to agenda, it's a waste of everyone's time. We all miss things on occasion, but when it becomes purposeful and fairly constant...well.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, I think it's ridiculous to think that suddenly out of a literal thin air/nowhere something happened...

On a scale of 0 - 100, with zero being all doubt, and 100 being all certainty, how sure are you, your god exists?

 

[lesliedellow]

Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking, please be more clear.

You said that, because the universe was expanding now, that doesn't mean that it was always expanding. Well, yes it does mean that, unless you can come up with something which would have started it expanding. Anything else would be a violation of Newton's First Law of Motion.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes, I think it's ridiculous to think that suddenly out of a literal thin air/nowhere something happened, in that somewhere, something expanded, and that ends up the explanation for the beginning of it all.

Creationists who come up with that sort of remark, seem to overlook the fact that creation ex nihilo is, and always has been, a Christian dogma. In fact, before it became established as most likely true, the big bang theory was unpopular amongst atheist scientists for that very reason.

 

[RickG]

Yes, I think it's ridiculous to think that suddenly out of a literal thin air/nowhere something happened, in that somewhere, something expanded, and that ends up the explanation for the beginning of it all.

My guess is you don't understand the concept of the events of the onset of the big bang. First of all, not from nothing and definitely not thin air. In the early part of the BB there were no atoms. Do you have any concept of the distance between an atoms nucleus and its electrons. As small as they are it is enormous, thus the realization that a lot of mass can be contained in an extremely small area. At least that is the way I explain it, I am not an astrophysicist, but I do have a considerable physical science background.

Blithering idiots? Your words not mine. Some of you buy it.. hook, line, and sinker, so if I were you, not sure I'd be so quick with name calling.

In modern science consensus is based very solid science. Acceptance of the BB theory is an enormous consensus. I rely on the experts. You are an expert in the area? You have preformed original research and data I need to know about that shows the consensus to be wrong? Or is it that you believe what you want to believe regardless of the scientific evidence to the contrary? In other words, are you expressing a confirmation bias?

 

[HitchSlap]

My guess is you don't understand the concept of the events of the onset of the big bang.