Journal of Creation papers

[PsychoSarah]

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.

-_- the closest thing to calling you a liar that I recall doing is being annoyed that you repeat an argument I explained the flaws of before. I don't see people call you a liar very often, but I have seen people call you a troll a lot.

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.

I don't think you should envy a man that went to jail for tax fraud (Kent Hovind). Also, it'd be weird if they did nothing but lie nonstop. Out of curiosity, though, what have people claimed is a lie from either of these men that is demonstrably 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.

Haven't you said before that you were ok with people lying if it converted people, since it saves more souls?

 

[AV1611VET]

Haven't you said before that you were ok with people lying if it converted people, since it saves more souls?

Not that I know of.

 

[Aggie]

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....

My response at Panda's Thumb has been published now, so here it is: John Woodmorappe vs. modern creation science: a response I've also attached a PDF of John Woodmorappe's review that I'm responding to.

I'm not including my letter to the Journal of Creation, because I think it's best to not post that before it's published. But in any case, most of the points made in my letter are points that I also made in the PT article.

I find it kind of amusing that I apparently caused Answers in Genesis to delete one of their articles. I'd have liked it more if they had actually admitted to making a mistake, but them deleting the article is better than nothing.

 

[sfs]

I find it kind of amusing that I apparently caused Answers in Genesis to delete one of their articles.

That might be first.

 

[Job 33:6]

As I said in my post here, I think it's very unwise for anyone who cares about evolution education to think journals like this one don't matter. There a lot of people who believe creationist organizations that creationism is scientifically supportable, and that argument is based on the YEC academic papers published in these journals. When we ignore the papers these journals publish, we aren't really addressing that argument.

These organizations sometimes argue more specifically that certain arguments for evolution or and old Earth are flawed because the creationist technical literature has already addressed them. For example, here is what Creation Ministries International says about Young and Stearley's book The Bible, Rocks and Time:


I think it would be preferable if YECs weren't able to make this complaint. But if we want to change that, that'll have to involve keeping up with the academic material they publish.

If people propose an argument based on a creation journal document, then it is their responsibility to present their source.

Oh sorry, I just realized the beginning of this conversation is years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

If people propose an argument based on a creation journal document, then it is their responsibility to present their source.

Sans the Bible, I take it?

 

[Job 33:6]

My response at Panda's Thumb has been published now, so here it is: John Woodmorappe vs. modern creation science: a response I've also attached a PDF of John Woodmorappe's review that I'm responding to.

I'm not including my letter to the Journal of Creation, because I think it's best to not post that before it's published. But in any case, most of the points made in my letter are points that I also made in the PT article.

I find it kind of amusing that I apparently caused Answers in Genesis to delete one of their articles. I'd have liked it more if they had actually admitted to making a mistake, but them deleting the article is better than nothing.

Thanks for the read.

 

[Aggie]

That might be first.

Do you mean you think this is the first time Answers in Genesis has deleted one of their articles in response to someone else's criticism?

 

[sfs]

Do you mean you think this is the first time Answers in Genesis has deleted one of their articles in response to someone else's criticism?

I'm raising it as a possibility. Do you know otherwise?

 

[Aggie]

I'm raising it as a possibility. Do you know otherwise?

I'm not aware of any other times this has happened, but it's possible that there are others I don't know about.

 

[Aggie]

It looks like the December issue of the Journal of Creation has been published now: Journal of Creation - 2018 Volume 32 Issue 3 - page0 According to the table of contents, this issue includes my letter (on page 46), as well as Woodmorappe's response to it.

I have the PDF proof of my letter that the journal's editorial staff sent me, but I haven't seen Woodmorappe's response yet. Is anyone here able to get a PDF of his and my letter exchange?

 

[juvenissun]

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?

I could not even get article in the most recent issue of many scientific journals without paying for it.

 

[sfs]

I have the PDF proof of my letter that the journal's editorial staff sent me, but I haven't seen Woodmorappe's response yet. Is anyone here able to get a PDF of his and my letter exchange?

When I just clicked on item in the table of contents, it showed me a preview of it -- fuzzy, but still readable. That wasn't true when I tried a few days ago.

 

[Aggie]

I'm having trouble figuring out whether Woodmorappe really isn't able to understand the point I'm making about ICAMs, or whether he's misunderstanding me deliberately. Here is what I said about this point in my letter to the Journal of Creation:

Woodmorappe appears to have misunderstood the book’s most important example of an advance in bioscience resulting from evolution’s predictions. This advance is the discovery of the genes, and the proteins they code for, that give chimpanzees their resistance to HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) and SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus). His review offers an explanation for the fact that human cells were capable of functioning with the chimpanzee version of one of these genes, but that compatibility is not the prediction the book was discussing.

The prediction being discussed concerned which specific genes give chimpanzees their resistance to these viruses. According to evolutionary models, humans and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor, but this disease resistance exists only in chimpanzees and not in humans. Researchers concluded that therefore the trait must have evolved in chimpanzees after their ancestors diverged from ours, and so the genes coding for it in chimpanzees must have been heavily modified by natural selection. By searching for chimpanzee genes that showed signs of heavy selection, these researchers identified three genes, known as ICAMs, that give chimpanzees their resistance to HIV and SIV. The transplanting of one of the chimpanzee ICAMs into a culture of human cells is significant because it made the human cells resistant to HIV, demonstrating that the genes they had identified did indeed have this effect. The prediction that chimpanzees’ genes for HIV/SIV resistance must show heavy selection was based on an evolutionary model, so when the genes were identified on the basis of that prediction, it was an example of this model producing a real-life benefit.

And here is how Woodmorappe responded to this particular point:

The fact that a chimp gene finds structural and functional correspondence to a human gene, and can function in a human setting, is not proof of evolution. By analogy, the engine in one car is 'ortholous' to the engine in another car, but this is not evidence that they both evolved from a common ancestor with the same kind of engine. Nor is it a prediction of evolutionary theory. It is hardly surprising that the engine from one car can be substitute for the engine of another, similar car, and perform its function.

The orthology/homology argument is the argument Woodmorappe thought I was making in his initial review of the book, which is why in my letter, I tried to clarify that my argument isn't that human cells are capable of functioning with the chimpanzee genes. My argument is about which specific genes give chimpanzees their SIV/HIV resistance, and how those genes were identified, and I had thought my letter made that clear. Does anyone think my explanation of this is unclear, or have an explanation for why Woodmorappe still isn't understanding it?

I suppose I could submit another letter in which I try to explain this again, but I'm not sure if that would accomplish anything, because I don't think I'm capable of explaining this any more clearly than I have already.

 

[46AND2]

I'm having trouble figuring out whether Woodmorappe really isn't able to understand the point I'm making about ICAMs, or whether he's misunderstanding me deliberately. Here is what I said about this point in my letter to the Journal of Creation:


And here is how Woodmorappe responded to this particular point:


The orthology/homology argument is the argument Woodmorappe thought I was making in his initial review of the book, which is why in my letter, I tried to clarify that my argument isn't that human cells are capable of functioning with the chimpanzee genes. My argument is about which specific genes give chimpanzees their SIV/HIV resistance, and how those genes were identified, and I had thought my letter made that clear. Does anyone think my explanation of this is unclear, or have an explanation for why Woodmorappe still isn't understanding it?

I suppose I could submit another letter in which I try to explain this again, but I'm not sure if that would accomplish anything, because I don't think I'm capable of explaining this any more clearly than I have already.

I've seen this same tactic on these boards. I don't think it is intentional in the cases I've seen, but rather a simple inability to grasp the significance of the point being made.

It's hard to say when it comes to a professional apologist, though. Intentional obfuscation is rampant in that field. Many of them care more about appeasing the concerns of their followers than actually being correct. They sell more books that way.