The RATE Groups FAKE peer review process.

[KerrMetric]

laptoppop (who kindly put me on ignore) has been trumpeting the RATE group report on the "Age of the Earth" - in particular he tells me it is a peer reviewed document and that non-Creationists took part in this review.

Now in the Acknowledgement section of the paper the authors thank the following as the "scientists" who helped the review process.

The Complete List is as follows:

Gerald Aardsma - Creationst
Mark Armitage - Creationist
David Boylan - Creationist
Ben Clausen - Creationist
Paul Giem - Creationist
Larry Helmick - Creationist
J C Keister - Creationist
Ron Mathis - Creationist
Ted Rybka - Creationist
Ker Thomson - Creationist
Erich Von Fange - Creationist
Keith Wanser - Creationist
Clyde Webster - Creationist
Kurt Wise - Creationist
Paul Zimmerman - Creationist


From what I can find - ALL of them are Young Earth Creationists. The vast majority work or have worked for ICR on YEC articles. The good percentage are NOT even remotely qualified in physics never mind geophysics. The usual Creationist slim pickings of MD's and engineers are present. Only one person (Wanser) works at a regular university science department.

So what do you think the odds a true scientific peer review was performed with this hand picked who's who of ICR's YEC fraternity?


Now - how in the hell is this peer review of geophysics?

Where is the supposed non-Creationist review element that I was led to believe occurred? Having a non-Creationist typesetter comment on their font choice is NOT non-Creationist peer review.



I'll say it again - this is not only NOT peer review it is a CON job to even claim it is. It's the usual complete bs snow job avoidance of peer review and real science.

 

[Deamiter]

laptoppop (who kindly put me on ignore) has been trumpeting the RATE group report on the "Age of the Earth" - in particular he tells me it is a peer reviewed document and that non-Creationists took part in this review.

Now in the Acknowledgement section of the paper the authors thank the following as the "scientists" who helped the review process.

The Complete List is as follows:

Gerald Aardsma - Creationst
Mark Armitage - Creationist
David Boylan - Creationist
Ben Clausen - Creationist
Paul Giem - Creationist
Larry Helmick - Creationist
J C Keister - Creationist
Ron Mathis - Creationist
Ted Rybka - Creationist
Ker Thomson - Creationist
Erich Von Fange - Creationist
Keith Wanser - Creationist
Clyde Webster - Creationist
Kurt Wise - Creationist
Paul Zimmerman - Creationist


From what I can find - ALL of them are Young Earth Creationists. The vast majority work or have worked for ICR on YEC articles. The good percentage are NOT even remotely qualified in physics never mind geophysics. The usual Creationist slim pickings of MD's and engineers are present. Only one person (Wanser) works at a regular university science department.

So what do you think the odds a true scientific peer review was performed with this hand picked who's who of ICR's YEC fraternity?


Now - how in the hell is this peer review of geophysics?

Where is the supposed non-Creationist review element that I was led to believe occurred? Having a non-Creationist typesetter comment on their font choice is NOT non-Creationist peer review.



I'll say it again - this is not only NOT peer review it is a CON job to even claim it is. It's the usual complete bs snow job avoidance of peer review and real science.

Indeed, this is not in any way geophysical peer review but creationist peer review. The reviewers are qualified to ensured that the content comes to creationist conclusions and to edit for style, but they're no more qualified than I (as an optical physicist/engineer) to peer review the subject matter of the RATE groups.

laptoppop often brings up that different journals have different subjects and different peer-review standards and he's absolutely right. The RATE group has defined their peers as creationists, not geophysicists and as such they can produce marvelous creationist articles but they have accepted no review of the scientific content of their publications.

 

[KerrMetric]

The RATE group has defined their peers as creationists, not geophysicists and as such they can produce marvelous creationist articles but they have accepted no review of the scientific content of their publications.

But the problem is we are being told it was a peer review in the accepted scientific community sense (which in the premier journals is almost the same across the board).

It was a kangaroo court of nodding donkeys in the RATE groups sense.

 

[theIdi0t]

But the problem is we are being told it was a peer review in the accepted scientific community sense (which in the premier journals is almost the same across the board).

It was a kangaroo court of nodding donkeys in the RATE groups sense.

Folks get mad when I call creation scientist a bunch of charlatans, but stuff like this just proves the point.

 

[KerrMetric]

I'm shocked that we haven't heard the "conspiracy" charge that the science community wouldn't really review it fairly and thus the creationists have to avoid the journals and do their own publishing.

Hi laptoppop - I see I must be off ignore since you are in this thread.

Where are the non-YEC reviewers in that list? Where are the reviews that list disagreements with the paper?

 

[USincognito]

Where are the non-YEC reviewers in that list? Where are the reviews that list disagreements with the paper?

I think the phrase intellectual daisy-chain is appropraite in this case.

 

[Assyrian]

That's a phrase?

 

[archaeologist]

hold it. non-christians put their work before non-christians. how is that any different than creationists putting their work before creationists?

Now - how in the hell is this peer review of geophysics?

Where is the supposed non-Creationist review element that I was led to believe occurred? Having a non-Creationist typesetter comment on their font choice is NOT non-Creationist peer review.

please cite where evolutionists have put their work up for peer review in creationist journals and got a different perspective on their work.

you act like the non-christians are the only qualified people to work in science and everyone else is inferior to them.

you also forget that Christians are 'not to walk in the counsel of the ungodly' so why would believers disobey God and let non-christians change their work?

 

[USincognito]

That's a phrase?

It's one I coined, but I'd 2 hits on Google is sufficient.

 

[USincognito]

hold it. non-christians put their work before non-christians. how is that any different than creationists putting their work before creationists?
{snip}
you act like the non-christians are the only qualified people to work in science and everyone else is inferior to them.

You really don't understand science, who scientists are or the review process do you? I'm sure that Bob Bakker would gladly offer his paleontological expertiese up as a reviewer for RATE, or perhaps our very own KerrMetric for his physics expertiese, but they wouldn't want that now... they're not a Creationists.

you also forget that Christians are 'not to walk in the counsel of the ungodly' so why would believers disobey God and let non-christians change their work?

You seem to be confused about KM's OP. Here's pop's original posts that he was responding to.

.

Read the qualifications of the team members - they had people on their team with their doctorate in Geophysics. I haven't looked up all of the doctorates of the reviewers.

Let's see -- written by a team of PhDs (at least 6, I'm not sure of the exact size), technically reviewed by 15 more PhDs, both creationists and non-creationists -- but you dismiss it out of hand. OK, whatever. I sure wish I could use your technique around here!

The bolded parts are the key to the problem. Since there aren't any geophysicist reviewers and there aren't any non-Creationists.

 

[archaeologist]

actually i do , it is you who does not understand God, his commands, directives and the duty of believers.

which apply to all walks of life with none exempt.

You seem to be confused about KM's OP. Here's pop's original posts that he was responding to

not at all, i was wellaware of wha he was saying and reminding him that christians do not put their work before non-christians.

christians need to be honest and not persuing their own agenda either but be strong in the truth and set proper boundaries.

the problem i see, is that so many people are so brainwashed or deceived by the world that they accept the world's ways and ignore God's.

what makes me incensed is the idea that only non-christians have the qualifications to make determinations which is a bit of a farce as i remember that christians are barred from achieving many degrees non-christians canobtain.

i had a professor once who wanted to get his doctorate in antrhopology but was told he had to believe in evolution to obtain it. talk about manipulating the system and stacking the deck.

when non-believers and alternative believers get honest then maybe your peer review system can be looked at as honest, credible and a viable office in which to determine who is right and who missed the mark.

***don't come on here and accuse me of not understanding, i certainly do. it is you who misread me and who teaches me and fail to comprehend that their are other legitimate perspectives which can see through the crap you use to fool yourselves.

 

[notto]

not at all, i was wellaware of wha he was saying and reminding him that christians do not put their work before non-christians.

Sure they do. There are plenty of Christians who do scientific research and publish into a peer review process that includes non-Chrisitans.

I have several who go to my church.

You need to not confuse Christians with Creationists. I know Christian biologists, chemists and physicists. The publish their work in mainstream scientific publications.

There seems to be no degree that Christians can't get.

Your statements are demonstratably false.

 

[USincognito]

If you think the lurkers aren't noticing that you're responding to only a line or two of mutli-paragraph replies to you - they are.

actually i do , it is you who does not understand God, his commands, directives and the duty of believers.

which apply to all walks of life with none exempt.

I'm fully aware of them. I'm also fully aware that you're desperately trying to take them to insane lengths to excuse away the fact that Creationist organizations don't want to submit their "work" to actual peer review.

Because by your "logic":
- A Christian artist would bar non-Christians from a gallery exhibiting their works.
- A Christian patient wouldn't have a Hindu doctor because their healthstyle might be judged.
- A Christian employee wouldn't be able to submit projects to Muslim managers for approval.
- Rep. Keith Ellison couldn't chair a Congressional hearing.
- Christian filmmakers would have to issue cease and desist orders to the recently passed Joel Siegel to prevent him from reviewing their movies.

That sounds like insanity, not obeying God's directives to me.

not at all, i was wellaware of wha he was saying and reminding him that christians do not put their work before non-christians.

Did you miss where I listed just two examples of Christian scientists who could have peer reviewed RATE? Or did you not know who Bob Bakker is, or that KM is a working scientist.

christians need to be honest and not persuing their own agenda either but be strong in the truth and set proper boundaries.

the problem i see, is that so many people are so brainwashed or deceived by the world that they accept the world's ways and ignore God's.

what makes me incensed is the idea that only non-christians have the qualifications to make determinations which is a bit of a farce as i remember that christians are barred from achieving many degrees non-christians canobtain.

Where did you ever get this idea from? There are plenty of Christians in science and the earliest scientists who established the modern scientific method were mostly Christian and in geology in particular, many were ministers and theologians. They understood that science stands apart from theology though, something you seem to have trouble understanding.

i had a professor once who wanted to get his doctorate in antrhopology but was told he had to believe in evolution to obtain it. talk about manipulating the system and stacking the deck.

The plural of anecdote is not data. Care to tell us this professors name so we can verify your story?

when non-believers and alternative believers get honest then maybe your peer review system can be looked at as honest, credible and a viable office in which to determine who is right and who missed the mark.

You're so off base with this objection you're actually in the bleachers. Scientists, Christian and non, determine what is science, scientific and what constitutes peer review. The problem with the Creationists isn't that they are Christians, it's that they're not doing science, nor are they submitting their work for peer review.

***don't come on here and accuse me of not understanding, i certainly do. it is you who misread me and who teaches me and fail to comprehend that their are other legitimate perspectives which can see through the crap you use to fool yourselves.

Umm, o.k. I'll just leave this comment for the lurkers.