If creation "science" is valid why do they avoid peer review?

Dizredux said:

Just to keep the record straight, the Discovery Insititute (evolutionnews.org) is heavly funded by the Ahmansons. Howard Ahmanson is a major backer of the Discovery Institute.

Click to expand...

And who backs the Antichrist Lovers Union?

Elendur

Thanks again!

Dizredux

Subduction Zone said:

They only work to have them removed from buildings that they should not be on.

Click to expand...

Which is what? every public building they were put on before the scientists outgrew the Christians doctrinally?

Subduction Zone said:

Here is a question for you, should courthouses be inscribed with verses from the Koran?

Click to expand...

No.

Subduction Zone said:

Why or why not?

Click to expand...

This is a Christian nation.

You didn't see any of our scientists dancing in the streets on 9/11, did you?

Subduction Zone said:

The title pretty much says it all.

Click to expand...

Mostly because of this crap:

A strange thing happened in the scientific literature recently. A pair of creationists, who have seeminglylegitimate scientific credentials, attempted topublishsome creationist assertions in a peer-reviewed journal. Their effort was nearly successful, mostly because they hid their pseudoscience in the middle of the article, surrounded by legitimate scientific discussion of unrelated topics.Luckily, they were caught just in time, and it turned out that they were pretty clumsy. In fact, if they had been just a bit more clever, they might have gotten away with it.

Click to expand...

http://ncse.com/rncse/28/3/creationism-slips-into-peer-reviewed-journal

Yeah, real "open-mindedness" there! So obviously they DO submit to peer review, but if even an INKLING of anything other than the atheistic model pops up, they are quickly thrown out! But actually, some HAVE published in peer reviewed journals.

Armitage and Anderson at Acta Histochemica: One of the latest of hundreds of peer-reviewed papers published by Darwin Doubters and even by (say it's not so) creationists, the prestigious secular journal Acta Histochemica has published the paper by Mark Armitage and Kevin Anderson titled, Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus in Volume 115, Issue 6, July 2013, pp. 603-608; Mark Hollis Armitage, Department of Biology, California State University, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 91330-8303, USA; Kevin Lee Anderson, Department of Biology, Arkansas State University Beebe, Beebe, AR, USA.

Click to expand...

So you're "assertion" has been falsified twice over.

Yeah, real "open-mindedness" there! So obviously they DO submit to peer review, but if even an INKLING of anything other than the atheistic model pops up, they are quickly thrown out!

Click to expand...

Because they were so subtle about it.

Alternatively, instead of sinking into a swamp of endless debates about the evolution of mitochondria, it is better to come up with a unified assumption. ... More logically, the points that show proteomics overlapping between different forms of life are more likely to be interpreted as a reflection of a single common fingerprint initiated by a mighty creator than relying on a single cell that is, in a doubtful way, surprisingly originating all other kinds of life

Click to expand...

They basically started preaching in the middle of the paper. Also, the rejection might have had something to do with the plagiarism, too.

AV1611VET said:

Another guy, and I can't remember his name, pioneered the idea of radiohalos showing a young earth -- was that shot down in peer review?

Click to expand...

The guy your thinking of is Robert Gentry, and he did publish many papers on radio polonium halos, until the "scientific" community got wise and realized it supported creation. Then they shut him down. http://www.halos.com/

Black Akuma said:

Because they were so subtle about it.

They basically started preaching in the middle of the paper.

Click to expand...

So throw the whole thing out because of something in the middle....Baby, you're going out with the bath water!

SpyderByte said:

So throw the whole thing out because of something in the middle....Baby, you're going out with the bath water!

Click to expand...

Also, plagiarism. You should read the entire article.

From there, the evidence quickly snowballed. Within a few days there were dozens of examples, and it appeared that the majority of the text was simply copied wholesale from other sources. John MacDonald, a professor at the University of Delaware, compiled many of these into a document (http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/wardahan.pdf) showing that Warda and Han stole much of their article from six different articles plus a scientific website. The examples fill eight pages. In all cases, Warda and Han copied text word-for-word without attribution.

Click to expand...

Journals tend to frown on that.

Subduction Zone said:

The title pretty much says it all.

Peer review is a very important tool for science. It does not guarantee that your science is correct. It does guarantee that your science as either Feynman or a close friend of his said "Not even wrong". "Science" that is "Not even wrong" is so bad that there is on point in debunking it. In peer review a group of experts in the field of the topic read the submitted paper and try to find any and all flaws in it. If a flaw is found it is sent back with a demand that the flaw be fixed. Or if the paper is "Not even wrong" it will probably be rejected on that basis.

Creation "scientists" will make all sorts of whacky hypotheses in various papers that they write, but they will not ever submit them for proper peer review. This includes published scientists that believe in creationism. When they did their own science that was non-creationist they published successfully, yet they cannot write a paper that is published using creationism. They avoid peer review because they know deep down that they are wrong.

Click to expand...

Who says creation scientists don't submit for peer review?

SpyderByte said:

The guy your thinking of is Robert Gentry, and he did publish many papers on radio polonium halos, until the "scientific" community got wise and realized it supported creation. Then they shut him down. Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation - Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal - Earth Science Associates

Click to expand...

Er, no. They shut him down because he was making bad conclusions.

Tell me, how do you know they are polonium halos and not Radon-222 halos?

Why are they found primarily near cracks in the mica?

Why are polonium halos only ever found in rocks where Uranium-238 is present?

Why do we not see Polonium-216 halos?

Why did he not respond to the critique that the rocks he chose were not primordial?

Subduction Zone said:

The title pretty much says it all.

Peer review is a very important tool for science. It does not guarantee that your science is correct. It does guarantee that your science as either Feynman or a close friend of his said "Not even wrong". "Science" that is "Not even wrong" is so bad that there is on point in debunking it. In peer review a group of experts in the field of the topic read the submitted paper and try to find any and all flaws in it. If a flaw is found it is sent back with a demand that the flaw be fixed. Or if the paper is "Not even wrong" it will probably be rejected on that basis.

Creation "scientists" will make all sorts of whacky hypotheses in various papers that they write, but they will not ever submit them for proper peer review. This includes published scientists that believe in creationism. When they did their own science that was non-creationist they published successfully, yet they cannot write a paper that is published using creationism. They avoid peer review because they know deep down that they are wrong.

Click to expand...

No. Completely irrational inference, I'm afraid. Do you realise what the word, 'peer' means? It's a misnomer. <staff edit>

It was Wolfgang Pauli who remarked that a student's work wasn't even wrong. And he was aghast that the loony-toons atheist/naturalists/ materialists hadn't even done the mathematical probability calculations for some cockamamie conjecture of theirs masquerading as a theory. Simply hadn't done the math - which was just as well for them, because it would have shattered their fantasy into tiny fragments.

In fact, not only do so-called 'creationists'* have many articles passed by peer review, atheist reviewers would not rise to the level of their the 'creationists' colleagues in a month of Sundays. Oh. am I allowed to say, 'Sunday'? In fact, there is an Australian, Young Earth creationist (can't remember his name. Ask someone at Uncommon Descent), who has had a prodigious number of his papers peer-reviewed and published; as well as being festooned with all manner of science-related honours of one kind or another.

You need to keep up with these things by following the Uncommon Descent blog.

You seem to imagine that most peer-reviewers will concern themselves only with the science, but that is not the atheists' way. They are secular fundamentalists. Atheism is a religion with them. And a very jealous god. They run a totalitarian set-up, so a scientist teaching at a university can lose his tenure if he lets it be known he's not 'on the team'. Indeed, such occurrences often make the news - although the reason for their dismissal will be fraudulently misrepresented.

If atheist scientists had ANY kind of record comparable to the great I D paradigm pioneers of the last century and before, their less illustrious colleagues might be rise to the level of peers of deists, albeit on a very indulgent basis.

You've heard of the Bermuda Triangle? Well they have an Oogly-Oogly Bird Triangle: Nothing turns itself into everything, everything turns itself into Mind, and Mind reverts back to nothing.

Back to drawing board, old chap.

* "so-called 'creationists' , because creationism should be the default tenet of science, as it is with the vast body of mankind, both now and historically, who find it so much easier to believe in a creator-God than that nothing could have turned itself into everything.

paul becke said:

No. Completely irrational inference, I'm afraid. Do you realise what the word, 'peer' means? It's a misnomer.<staff edit>
It was Wolfgang Pauli who remarked that a student's work wasn't even wrong. And he was aghast that the loony-toons atheist/naturalists/ materialists hadn't even done the mathematical probability calculations for some cockamamie conjecture of theirs masquerading as a theory. Simply hadn't done the math - which was just as well for them, because it would have shattered their fantasy into tiny fragments.

In fact, not only do so-called 'creationists'* have many articles passed by peer review, atheist reviewers would not rise to the level of their the 'creationists' colleagues in a month of Sundays. Oh. am I allowed to say, 'Sunday'? In fact, there is an Australian, Young Earth creationist (can't remember his name. Ask someone at Uncommon Descent), who has had a prodigious number of his papers peer-reviewed and published; as well as being festooned with all manner of science-related honours of one kind or another.

You need to keep up with these things by following the Uncommon Descent blog.

You seem to imagine that most peer-reviewers will concern themselves only with the science, but that is not the atheists' way. They are secular fundamentalists. Atheism is a religion with them. And a very jealous god. They run a totalitarian set-up, so a scientist teaching at a university can lose his tenure if he lets it be known he's not 'on the team'. Indeed, such occurrences often make the news - although the reason for their dismissal will be fraudulently misrepresented.

If atheist scientists had ANY kind of record comparable to the great I D paradigm pioneers of the last century and before, their less illustrious colleagues might be rise to the level of peers of deists, albeit on a very indulgent basis.

Back to drawing board, old chap.

* "so-called 'creationists' , because creationism should be the default tenet of science, as it is with the vast body of mankind, both now and historically, who find it so much easier to believe in a creator-God than that nothing could have turned itself into everything.

Click to expand...

Nice generalization.

I certainly don't fear being wrong about God. Heck, I hope he does exist and reveals himself to me someday. I just am not presently convinced of it.

Were he to reveal himself to me, though, I can pretty much guarantee he wouldn't have the attributes given to him by YEC. Either YEC is wrong, or God is deceptive. There is virtually no alternative in my mind.

The Pew Forum Poll Reveals More Ignorance | Uncommon Descent

You might find post #7 to the UD thread linked below, interesting:

The Pew Forum Poll Reveals More Ignorance | Uncommon Descent

paul becke said:

The Pew Forum Poll Reveals More Ignorance | Uncommon Descent

You might find post #7 to the UD thread linked below, interesting:

The Pew Forum Poll Reveals More Ignorance | Uncommon Descent

Click to expand...

I click on this link, and the first thing I see is a quote mine, and a stupid one at that.

“For many years I thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have a proof that Darwinian evolution works.”
Gregory Chaitin – Proving Darwin 2012 – Highly Respected Mathematician

Click to expand...

The person who posted this quote neglects to mention that Proving Darwin is a book about creating a mathematical proof for evolution, and then Chaitin sets out to do just that. That's a rather crucial point, and pretending that a person who's book is about proving evolution through mathematics is saying the thing he's attempting to do isn't doable is just...wrong.

paul becke said:

The Pew Forum Poll Reveals More Ignorance | Uncommon Descent

You might find post #7 to the UD thread linked below, interesting:

The Pew Forum Poll Reveals More Ignorance | Uncommon Descent

Click to expand...

Even if I accepted that post at face value, which I do not...deep time does not suffer from such a deficiency.

Subduction Zone said:

Wrong E.D.. Demonstrably wrong.

Otherwise creationists would be trumpeting the "false" rejection of their papers from the hilltops.

Evolutionnews.org is a lying source that is an offshoot of the lying Discovery Institute. Once an organization has been caught lying they have that stigma on them until they apologize for past lies and act to clean them up. The D.I. has not done so yet.

Click to expand...

A lot of times accusations of dishonesty are evidence that individuals are talking past each other, when neither, or at least one side does not want to let go of their pride, and seek to understand the other's perspective.

As far as I am aware, ID folk have talked about being falsely rejected a lot.

ID is bigger than a few websites, or the DI. It basically includes every perspective which it encompasses.

A lot of members of the DI and affiliated ID groups have published in peer-review. Most of the time when these examples are brought up in internet discussions I see arguments that they shouldn't have passed, or they weren't reviewed well enough, etc. Whether those criticisms are true or not, the fact remains that those publications are there, so I think the claim "ID advocates don't publish in peer-review" wouldn't be a true one. "Creationists," admittedly I don't know about (although some people don't make a distinction).

46AND2 said:

Nice generalization.

I certainly don't fear being wrong about God. Heck, I hope he does exist and reveals himself to me someday. I just am not presently convinced of it.

Were he to reveal himself to me, though, I can pretty much guarantee he wouldn't have the attributes given to him by YEC. Either YEC is wrong, or God is deceptive. There is virtually no alternative in my mind.

Click to expand...

God has revealed himself to us as Jesus. Of course he could only do it once, at one time period. So you'll have to take the word of numerous eyewitnesses.

Start with honest prayer, the by studying John and God will be revealed to you.

Of course he could only do it once, at one time period.

Click to expand...

Why? He's God. He could do it as many times as he likes. What'd stop him?

EternalDragon said:

God has revealed himself to us as Jesus. Of course he could only do it once, at one time period. So you'll have to take the word of numerous eyewitnesses.

Start with honest prayer, the by studying John and God will be revealed to you.

Click to expand...

Really? Why "of course he could only do it once?" That's not really true, is it. What about the people before Christ?

What eyewitnesses? We only have hearsay, decades after the fact.

I have both prayed and studied John.