Journal of Creation papers

[sfs]

Your bias is sloppy all over that account.
You're just dripping with the urge to condemn

And you're not?

 

[Aggie]

Sorry to resurrect this old thread, but there is another Journal of Creation paper that I'm wondering if anyone here would be able to get:

Woodmorappe, John. "A detailed rehash of all the canned anti-creationist shibboleths: A review of God’s Word or Human Reason? An inside perspective on creationism (Jonathan Kane, Emily Willoughby, and T. Michael Keesey)". Journal of Creation 32.2 (August 2018): 42-47.

In case it isn't obvious why I want this one, it's because I'm the editor and lead author of the book that's being reviewed here.

 

[tas8831]

I'd try contacting the authors. You might get lucky.

Might... Every time I have tried to get reprints, my requests go ignored... I have even had YEC authors pretend that I had contacted the wrong person when asking for re-prints. Pretty sad.

 

[tas8831]

What degree did Lumsden have, and what are the papers on his CV?

Lumsden was a parasitologist. If you haven't already, you should watch his videos on Youtube for the sheer entertainment value. As is the case with every once-legitimate scientist-turned-YEC that I have looked into, he gave up being intellectually and scientifically honest when he went through his conversion to YEC cultist. His answers to questions indicate that he was either a total incompetent when it came to evolution, or was much to happy to lie for his cause.

 

[tas8831]

Are you familiar with the book Persuaded by the Evidence? It's a collection of 39 autobiographical accounts by former supporters of evolution, where they explain what it was that caused them to become young-Earth creationists.

"Witnessing" is a powerful drive in the YEC community. Gaining converts is theior goal - what better way to do that than to pretend that 'evidence' convinced them to become creationists, especially as 'used to be evolutionist' scientists? This is one of the reasons why creationists ALWAYS embellish the credentials/relevance of their 'scientist' heroes. In nearly every biography or reference to any creationist, one will find unwarranted hyperbolic accolades employed - "major scientist", "World-renowned scientist", "recognized expert", etc. Yet nearly all of these folks are unknown outside of creationist circles.

It would be most interesting to see which of these used-to-be-evolutionist "world renowned scientists" in books like that experienced religious conversions BEFORE rejecting evolution - or were creationists all along. Recently, I think it was justatruthseeker referred to a website in which there were interviews with some such folk, and as usual, the quote from the interview explaining that these folks were creationists all along was left out...

 

[tas8831]

A Google search for "Tomkins+GULO" got three hits from non-Creationist sites including a subreddit where Tomkins addressed the post and then simply slunk away.
http://www.reddit.com/r/NaturalTheology/comments/2625uu/my_first_reply_to_jeffrey_tomkins/

I loved his typical YEC response:

"No, basically you are wrong and you are merely pushing your evolutionary agenda and fake information in disregard of the scientific evidence. And you are misrepresenting my work with your imaginations."

My how they project...

 

[tas8831]

After skimming a few sections of the article, this one section stood out as something to comment on immediately:

". . . the entire 28,800 base GULO region in human (hg19; chr8:27417791-27446590), which contains the putative remnants of six exons and five introns, is only 84% identical compared to chimpanzee using the previously established technique of optimized sequence slices and the BLASTN algorithm (Tomkins 2013b). Even more interesting is the comparison with gorilla using the same technique, which yielded 87% identity. These similarities are clearly outside the evolutionary paradigm and gorilla is more similar to human in the GULO region than chimpanzee— negating the inferred order of phylogeny."

Ah, yes - the technique established by Tomkins wherein if sequences of n-length are not 100% identical to other sequences of n-length, then they are considered to have 0% similarity... A great technique when your goal is to reduce the observed % similarity...

 

[Aggie]

Can anyone address the reason I revived this thread? I'd like to know if anyone here is able to access the review of my book in this journal.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Can anyone address the reason I revived this thread? I'd like to know if anyone here is able to access the review of my book in this journal.

I poked around a bit. I couldn't get to it. Sorry.

 

[Ancient of Days]

Does anyone here know of a way to obtain papers published in the Journal of Creation that are less than a year old, without having to subscribe to the journal? Most of this journal's papers are eventually made available for download as PDFs, but not until more than a year after they were published in the journal's print edition.

University libraries often have subscriptions to mainstream journals, but that doesn't seem like something I can expect for a creationist journal, and the Journal of Creation also apparently doesn't have the option to purchase individual papers. I also could try contacting the paper's authors, but I doubt they'd be interested in cooperating once they realize that I'm not a creationist.

Here is the original source: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-1/

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sorry to resurrect this old thread, but there is another Journal of Creation paper that I'm wondering if anyone here would be able to get:

Woodmorappe, John. "A detailed rehash of all the canned anti-creationist shibboleths: A review of God’s Word or Human Reason? An inside perspective on creationism (Jonathan Kane, Emily Willoughby, and T. Michael Keesey)". Journal of Creation 32.2 (August 2018): 42-47.

In case it isn't obvious why I want this one, it's because I'm the editor and lead author of the book that's being reviewed here.

Since you are the author of the book being reviewed, I bet you could message the author and request a copy of their paper reviewing it, or perhaps even Journal of Creation.

Unfortunately, a lot of creationists don't make any email addresses of theirs public, so it can be difficult to get in contact, but it shouldn't be impossible.

 

[sfs]

Sorry to resurrect this old thread, but there is another Journal of Creation paper that I'm wondering if anyone here would be able to get:

Woodmorappe, John. "A detailed rehash of all the canned anti-creationist shibboleths: A review of God’s Word or Human Reason? An inside perspective on creationism (Jonathan Kane, Emily Willoughby, and T. Michael Keesey)". Journal of Creation 32.2 (August 2018): 42-47.

In case it isn't obvious why I want this one, it's because I'm the editor and lead author of the book that's being reviewed here.

I've submitted an Interlibrary Loan request through Harvard. We'll see what turns up.

 

[Aggie]

I've submitted an Interlibrary Loan request through Harvard. We'll see what turns up.

Thanks. I'd been wondering if you might be able to help with this, since you've helped me get papers from that journal a few other times.

I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before, but a few of the other creationist papers that you've helped me find are being cited as sources in my book, and you're mentioned in my book's acknowledgments for that reason.

 

[sfs]

Thanks. I'd been wondering if you might be able to help with this, since you've helped me get papers from that journal a few other times.

I've just attempted to email you the review, using the address I had for you previously. Let me know if it doesn't arrive.

 

[Aggie]

I've just attempted to email you the review, using the address I had for you previously. Let me know if it doesn't arrive.

Thanks, I've got it now.

As I said in my e-mail response, I'm not looking forward to reading this review, but as the book's lead author I probably ought to write a response to it. I've e-mailed the editor at the Journal of Creation to ask if I could write a response in that journal, but I doubt they're going to allow that, since if they did it would be (I think) the first time in the history of the journal that they've published something written by a supporter of evolution.

If I can't reply in the same journal, the obvious place to publish my response would be Panda's Thumb, which has published a few other articles by me in the past. But I'm also wondering whether there are any other publications that are critical of creationism that might be interested in publishing something like this. Do you have any other suggestions?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Thanks, I've got it now.

I'd be quietly interested as a bystander to see both the critique, and your response to it - so very much appreciated if you happen to drop the eventual location of such a response here....

 

[Aggie]

Well, it looks like maybe the Journal of Creation is willing to publish a response from me after all. It'll have to be a letter, though, which means it can only be 1000 words or less, only a fraction of the length of Woodmorappe's review. I think what I'm going to do is write a detailed response to be published on Panda's Thumb, of a similar length to his review, and also write a shorter summary to be published in the journal.

It's ironic to think that as a supporter of evolution, my first publication in an academic journal is going to be in the Journal of Creation. As someone who's tried to engage with the creationist literature as much as possible, though, I guess this may have been inevitable.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Well, it looks like maybe the Journal of Creation is willing to publish a response from me after all. It'll have to be a letter, though, which means it can only be 1000 words or less, only a fraction of the length of Woodmorappe's review. I think what I'm going to do is write a detailed response to be published on Panda's Thumb, of a similar length to his review, and also write a shorter summary to be published in the journal.

It's ironic to think that as a supporter of evolution, my first publication in an academic journal is going to be in the Journal of Creation. As someone who's tried to engage with the creationist literature as much as possible, though, I guess this may have been inevitable.

I imagine they'd be banking on you not having anywhere near enough space to actually debunk what they've written, and I'll hazard a guess they'll politely stuff it in some dark & unreferenced recess of the journal to boot, not giving it the exposure it deserves. I guess as the author, I'd be more inclined to refer people to an off-site response - though they'll likely not publish it on those grounds alone - just because...

....am I a pessimist about the (dis)honesty of creationists??

 

[AV1611VET]

....am I a pessimist about the (dis)honesty of creationists??

I've seen academians work hard to twist what someone has said into a lie.

So much so, in fact, that when I don't see an academian calling me a liar, I'm tempted to keep posting until he does.

I envy the likes of Ken Ham and, moreso, Kent Hovind, who are considered [insert insult here], even when they say something that's true.

Their reputations precede them.

I think the term academians like to use is: "lying for Jesus."

In short, we don't need to lie.

All we need to do is tell the truth as we see it, and we'll be considered to have lied.

That's good enough.

If the Pharisees called Jesus a liar, cool school.

But if Peter called Jesus a liar, bad sad.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I've seen academians work hard to twist what someone has said into a lie.

Then that academian is dishonest too.... what is an academian btw, in your own words?

So much so, in fact, that when I don't see an academian calling me a liar, I'm tempted to keep posting until he does.

Oh, that's nice - Usually you get there by simply lying, so it isn't like you have to try hard... What does the bible say about liars anyway? Is it really something you want to do?

I envy the likes of Ken Ham and, moreso, Kent Hovind, who are considered [insert insult here], even when they say something that's true.

Well, it's dead easy to get into the business of charlatanry, in fact, just recycle all of their arguments to the converted in a gish-gallopy way, delivered [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-sure in a slick suit, record it all onto DVDs and "Voila!", You're one of the Greats! Maybe go get a dodgy PHD you can just buy rather than do any of that pesky 'learning' like your hero Kent Hovind and even start introducing yourself to the congregation as a Doctor to lend credibility to yourself... You'll have to stay away from the internet and from forums where feedback can be given because it's far too easy to get fact-checked in real time, and that's where any actual attempt at converting souls to your fundamental version of your religion will absolutely fall in a heap. That's why Kent and Ken, etc. don't do many live debates these days, because they keep coming across opponents and laypeople alike who know their tactics and have the information on hand to independently verify. Anyway, it's literally the gift of the gab that'll earn you a handsome living in charlatanry, not actually knowing anything...

Their reputations precede them.

I think the term academians like to use is: "lying for Jesus."

In short, we don't need to lie.

All we need to do is tell the truth as we see it, and we'll be considered to have lied.

But here again, it comes back to what you've said before, There's no such thing as "your" truth or "what's true for you" or "true as you see it" - we all share the same reality, so what's true for one person is true for everyone. That truth is universal. That's where evidence and facts matter and personal opinions and wishes are set aside. Until you can support it with facts and/or evidence, your truth claim is just another unsupported claim. The problem you come across is that all the facts and evidence we have, supports a mutually exclusive scenario to those "true as you see it" claims. so when confronted with facts and evidence showing that your "true for you" cant be true at all, you then become a liar.