Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
peer review errors found here:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...le/Opinion--Scientific-Peer-Review-in-Crisis/
and also found rejecting legitimate science was failed to conform to majority of current scientists found here:
"Rosalyn Yalow, Günter Blobel, Mitchell J. Feigenbaum, Theodore Maiman, . John Bardeen, and Tuzo Wilsona" all were rejected from peer review boards for their submittals which later became famous in the field or received nobel prizes. All of this because of the unconformity of their scope.
"Stephen W. Hawking is the world’s most famous physicist. According to his first wife Jane, when Hawking submitted to Nature what is generally regarded as his most important paper, the paper on black hole evaporation, the paper was initially rejected.7 I have heard from colleagues who must remain nameless that when Hawking submitted to Physical Review what I personally regard as his most important paper, his paper showing that a most fundamental law of physics called “unitarity” would be violated in black hole evaporation, it, too, was initially rejected. (The word on the street is that the initial referee was the Institute for Advanced Study physicist Freeman Dyson.)"
above from:
Frank J. Tipler- Chapter 7 of Uncommon Dissent. Ch7= REFEREED JOURNALS -DO THEY INSURE QUALITY OR ENFORCE ORTHODOXY?
From Book : UNCOMMON DISSENT Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing Edited by William A. Dembski, 2004
“1999 Nature magazine published a letter from Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, who said, “even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”22- Scott Todd, letter to the editor, Nature 401/6752 (September 30, 1999): 423.”- Norman Geisler in His book Creation and the courts.
let me repost this tidbit from my original post for clarity:
“Darwinists would risk losing financial security and professional admiration. How so? Because there’s tremendous pressure in the academic community to publish something that supports evolution. Find something important, and you may find yourself on the cover of National Geographic or the subject of a PBS special. Find nothing, and you may find yourself out of a job, out of grant money, or at least out of favor with your materialist colleagues. So there’s a money, job security, and prestige motive to advance the Darwinian worldview.”
evolution is where the grant monies lie. There is risk in any new venture in science, nonconformity is simply not profitable (most of the time).
I have no doubt he is smart. BUt if you hang around on this board long enough someone WILL tell PhD's that their degrees are nothing but a few letters. IF the PhD happens to disagree with the Creationist or climate skeptic.
So it is always fun to see an HONORARY PhD lauded!
Dr. Gentry doesn't know geology so he made a bunch of boner errors. His stuff deserved to be treated like a high school science project. I am sure that if he were reviewing an article on nuclear waste disposal by ME he'd reject it too!
He's a smart guy with a myopic dedication to his belief in a young or sudden earth creation and once he found something he thought fit into it he's gone full bore after it.
Being treated with skepticism is not the same thing as being discriminated against.
Reading the letters that they kindly provide on their website makes it pretty clear the only discrimination that existed was the "um dude, you didn't supply it in the format we require and you don't have any institutional backing, which we've always required."
Gentry is a smart guy, with a legitimate Masters degree in physics. Unfortunately he's not very educated in geology and has managed to look at rock samples that weren't even granite and think that they were.
citing a source involves using quotation marks as well as a link to sourced material. No quotes were found as well as no direct statement that information was not your own.
these are nothing but ad hominems to attack the integrity of Gentry. Should I expect to find anything more intellectually stimulating that a non-answer fallacy?
try responding to the post please. More specifically how peer reviews have been rejected, thanks for the post.
these are nothing but ad hominems to attack the integrity of Gentry. Should I expect to find anything more intellectually stimulating that a non-answer fallacy?
try responding to the post please. More specifically how peer reviews have been rejected, thanks for the post.
these are nothing but ad hominems to attack the integrity of Gentry. Should I expect to find anything more intellectually stimulating that a non-answer fallacy?
did someone say that Dr. Genry was a reviewer, I never did. I think you may have this, as well as much of your statment here mistaken.
citing a source involves using quotation marks
as well as a link to sourced material. But then again, I could be mistaken, if I am I am sorry.
I have had to correct a few people here that do this error. It looks like you rephrased some of it. Which is acceptable. I apologize.
CabVet said:So, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the states that have less people that accept evolution are those with most fundamental Christians, right? Since those people are all blessed, their states should also be the ones with the best economy and quality of life and lower crime rates, right?
So I had a very brief skim through the first few pages in this thread, and a few of the other users pointed out that several other social problems - teen pregnancy, diovorce rates, obesity - are more common in the South, espcially the South-Eastern United States.
These states are noticeably more religious than the Northern and and North-Western States. It's also worth pointing out these problems are also a lot more common among blacks than among most other ethnic groups.
Once again, please don't take this to mean that black Americans are solely responsible for these problems. It just shows that the problems may only be indirectly associated with religion (or rather, Christianity) via another cause.
Nor did I say Dr. Gentry was a reviewer. I was merely giving the reasons that Dr. Gentry's "attempt" at geology was flawed. And why legitimate reviewers would reject it.
Quotation marks actually aren't required to cite anything. Especially not when you aren't directly quoting anything. In fact your statement that Mike "C&P'd" anything is 100% false.
I believe you said you had some problems with his views, however maybe I can help you with understanding them better. Could his rejection from peer review also be something of a rejection on the basis of disconformity, not error?
(Blind post)
As is often the case we need to be careful about correlation vs. causation. The suggestion here is that belief in creationism is linked to higher crime rates and poorer quality of life - perhaps because they think emotionally rather than rationality.
I'm going to go out on a limb too and suggest this is association by proxy. For example, belief in creationism (and religiosity in general in the US) is associated with race, and race in turn is associated with varying crimes rates and quality of life.
- Here for example is a map looking at the black US population by state - notice how, like belief in creationism and crimes rates, it is concentrated in the South-East:
As it happens, black Americans are also more likely to be poorer than other ethnic groups. Similarly, they are more like to commit (and be the victims) of crime.
- Similarly, the majority of black Americans (83%) are Christian. Specifically, 45% are Baptist, a denomination known for it's anti-evolutionary sentiments (Source: blackdemographics.com/religion).
- For more direct evidence - one Gallup poll from 1998, reported in an NCSE.com article in 2004, noted that Afrcian-Americans were more likely to believe in creationism than whites (Source: ncse.com)
---
Before anyone gets into an argument, no - I am not saying black people are solely responsible for the problems associated with religion.I am simply using this as an example of association by proxy: crime rate and lower quality of life may not be directly associated with religiousity - it's more likely that they share an third, overlapping factor.
What does seem to correlate with religiosity is social stress. When there is social and economic inequality, and egregious inequality before the law, societies tend to become more religious.
I remember hearing that in one Catholic seminary some years ago, any outrageously brilliant theological pronouncement would be greeted with cries of "Fidem scit!" (He knows the faith!) It was invariably pronounced however, "Feed 'em [bless and do not curse]!"
Karl Marx in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right, put it more elegantly:
"The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point dhonneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."
In short, the more misery, the more religion.
Could also be why so many inmates seem to become religious in prison.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?