Why do YECs refuse to do real science?

[Matthewj1985]

Crawling around the web I notice a lot of YECs who are convinced that evolution is crap and they can prove beyond any shadow of doubt that they are right. I have often asked those people why they continue to debate on the internet instead of actually writing a paper and submitting it to a peer reviewed journal. Now before you go off and tell me that all the journal will do is shoot it down and send it back, think about this for a second. First off they can't just reject it because they don't like it, they have to give actual reasons why the paper is flawed. So if they do reject your paper and tell you that the only reason they are doing it is because you used the word "God" then sue them. They are obviously discriminating solely on the fact that you are a Christian. If that is the only reason why then you will slaughter them in court, force them to publish your paper, change the face of modern science and if you really can disprove Darwin, I would be willing to bet there is a nobel prize in it for you.

So, why don't you guys participate in real science? Is it more fun to stand on the sidelines and scream at the rest of the players? Just imagine how many souls you would win if you could actually PROVE once and for all that the bible is LITERALLY true.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just imagine how many souls you would win if you could actually PROVE once and for all that the bible is LITERALLY true.

Jesus made it quite clear that if someone isn't going to believe the Scriptures now --- that person is not going to believe the Scriptures even if someone comes back from the dead.

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

In addition, should God Himself shout from Heaven, it's not going to make much of an impact.

The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

In further addition, when Jesus Christ Himself physically comes back to earth and visibly rules and reigns on this planet for one thousand years --- what's going to happen?

There's going to be one doosey of a battle against Him.

Don't think for one minute, Matthewj, that empirical evidence is what you're really looking for.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Just imagine how many souls you would win if you could actually PROVE once and for all that the bible is LITERALLY true.
​

Jesus made it quite clear that if someone isn't going to believe the Scriptures now --- that person is not going to believe the Scriptures even if someone comes back from the dead. Originally Posted by Luke 16:31

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
​

In addition, should God Himself shout from Heaven, it's not going to make much of an impact. Originally Posted by John 12:29

The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.
​

In further addition, when Jesus Christ Himself physically comes back to earth and visibly rules and reigns on this planet for one thousand years --- what's going to happen?

There's going to be one doosey of a battle against Him.

Don't think for one minute, Matthewj, that empirical evidence is what you're really looking for.

Agreed.
God's Word is discounted no matter what. because they personally, willfully and willingly, reject the Light that lights every Adam person [man] that comes into the world. That Light is Christ, and that Light seeks each soul, to bring them to the knowledge of Salvation in His "New Man" name, by the cleansing of His Atonement and by adoption into His Living Spirit.

 

[Matthewj1985]

Jesus made it quite clear that if someone isn't going to believe the Scriptures now --- that person is not going to believe the Scriptures even if someone comes back from the dead.In addition, should God Himself shout from Heaven, it's not going to make much of an impact.In further addition, when Jesus Christ Himself physically comes back to earth and visibly rules and reigns on this planet for one thousand years --- what's going to happen?

There's going to be one doosey of a battle against Him.

Don't think for one minute, Matthewj, that empirical evidence is what you're really looking for.

Ok so because Jesus says I won't believe then you should practice pseudo-science?

Also yes, that is all I am looking for, heck I would even settle for even suggestive evidence in the literal truth of the bible.

 

[Matthewj1985]

Agreed.
God's Word is discounted no matter what. because they personally, willfully and willingly, reject the Light that lights every Adam person [man] that comes into the world. That Light is Christ, and that Light seeks each soul, to bring them to the knowledge of Salvation in His "New Man" name, by the cleansing of His Atonement and by adoption into His Living Spirit.

Do you realize how big AiG's legal team is? If they were being discriminated against on the basis of religion, you can bet your sweet behind that AiG would be putting a new wing on the creation museum.

I personally think that it is because they know they will be shot down for REAL reasons (you know, the kind with evidence) and end up looking like an idiot to their followers.

 

[Sphinx777]

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Using controlled methods, scientists collect data in the form of observations, records of observable physical evidence of natural phenomena, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. Knowledge in science is gained through research. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how natural phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. Thought experiments involving hypothesis-testing may also be carried out. The outcome or product of this empirical scientific process is the formulation of theory that describes human understanding of physical processes and facilitates prediction.

Lavoisier says, "... the impossibility of separating the nomenclature of a science from the science itself is owing to this, that every branch of physical science must consist of three things: the series of facts which are the objects of the science, the ideas which represent these facts and the words by which these ideas are expressed."

A broader modern definition of science may include the natural sciences along with the social and behavioral sciences, as the main subdivisions of science, defining it as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. However, other contemporary definitions still place the natural sciences, which are closely related with the physical world's phenomena, as the only true vehicles of science.

 

[laptoppop]

Matthew,

Your posts reveal several misconceptions.

1) "Real science" consists of posting in particular journals.

2) Journals "must" do this and that. Journals are controlled by private organizations, and have freedom of the press over what they accept and publish. You would not win a lawsuit against a journal for perceived bias -- you can't force them to publish anything. Your legal recourse is not a lawsuit, but the fact that you have every legal right to go start a journal of your own. Although virtually all journals would deny discrimination based on religion, there is no law against them having such a rule.

3) Journals must tell you why your article is rejected. On the contrary -- an article can be rejected at lots of levels, including first glance by an editor. It can be rejected for any reason at all. What you will receive is a form letter thanking you for your submission and telling you that the journal cannot use it at this time, but wishes you well in the future. If you progress further into the peer-review process, then you may be fortunate enough to have a journal tell you more, but they are under no obligation to do so.

4) YEC scientists do not publish in secular peer-reviewed journals. This is just plain not true. Lots of articles are published every year in secular journals written by YEC scientists. The rub is that the papers are either on topics which do not touch the YEC/evolution topic, or that do so in the most tangential manner. Sadly, YEC is seen as junk science, and just bringing up the topic is enough to get a paper dismissed, much like a reputable physics journal is extremely likely to dismiss claims of perpetual motion.

5) YEC scientists do not publish YEC material in peer-reviewed journals. Since the legal recourse is to start your own journal, there are a couple of journals specifically dedicated to publishing peer-reviewed YEC content.

Here are some basic references on the topic:
Do creation scientists publish in secular journals? http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/question.asp
Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp
Creation scientists and other biographies of interest http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

 

[IndyPirate]

Do you realize how big AiG's legal team is? If they were being discriminated against on the basis of religion, you can bet your sweet behind that AiG would be putting a new wing on the creation museum.

I've never seen their full employee roster but I'd bet dollar to donuts that they have more lawyers than scientists. Definitely more lawyers than biologists.

 

[lemmings]

5) YEC scientists do not publish YEC material in peer-reviewed journals. Since the legal recourse is to start your own journal, there are a couple of journals specifically dedicated to publishing peer-reviewed YEC content.

Why is it that YECs aren’t compelled to publish in other scientific journals? Wouldn’t nature or Science look better as a citation than a no-name organization that was just started a decade ago?

The most important thing with a peer reviewed scientific journal is that the reviewers be impartial to the discovery. How is this possible when everyone reviewing it is required in their contract to believe in Creationism? Would you point out a flaw in someone else’s research if it violated your contract?

 

[laptoppop]

Why is it that YECs aren’t compelled to publish in other scientific journals? Wouldn’t nature or Science look better as a citation than a no-name organization that was just started a decade ago?

The most important thing with a peer reviewed scientific journal is that the reviewers be impartial to the discovery. How is this possible when everyone reviewing it is required in their contract to believe in Creationism? Would you point out a flaw in someone else’s research if it violated your contract?

From my post you quoted: "Lots of articles are published every year in secular journals written by YEC scientists. The rub is that the papers are either on topics which do not touch the YEC/evolution topic, or that do so in the most tangential manner. Sadly, YEC is seen as junk science, and just bringing up the topic is enough to get a paper dismissed, much like a reputable physics journal is extremely likely to dismiss claims of perpetual motion."

It is common for YEC scientists to publish in a wide variety of journals. This indicates they understand how to research and write acceptable papers. A number of folks have tried at various times (and keep trying) to directly publish YEC papers which have been rejected, although there has been some success around the edges of the topics involved. I believe there are two primary reasons. First, the YEC model itself is rejected as junk science, so no article regarding the model is even given more than a glance. Second, YEC by nature incorporates both science and scripture. This is not acceptable to many journals. The Intelligent Design proponents have run into similar issues -- and they don't even have the baggage of proposing a "young" earth.

 

[lemmings]

From my post you quoted: "Lots of articles are published every year in secular journals written by YEC scientists. The rub is that the papers are either on topics which do not touch the YEC/evolution topic, or that do so in the most tangential manner.

And Newton was an alchemist, he is not remembered for his lack of discoveries in alchemy, he is remembered for his discoveries in physics. Almost all Creationists have degrees in fields other than biology and physics, it is no surprise that they don’t publish articles about Creationism because it is not their expertise.

It is common for YEC scientists to publish in a wide variety of journals. This indicates they understand how to research and write acceptable papers. A number of folks have tried at various times (and keep trying) to directly publish YEC papers which have been rejected, although there has been some success around the edges of the topics involved. I believe there are two primary reasons. First, the YEC model itself is rejected as junk science, so no article regarding the model is even given more than a glance. Second, YEC by nature incorporates both science and scripture. This is not acceptable to many journals. The Intelligent Design proponents have run into similar issues -- and they don't even have the baggage of proposing a "young" earth.

More drastic theories than Creationism have been published in the last century. Relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory have all drastically changed our viewpoint of the Universe and they have all faced heavy opposition within the scientific community. Why should I believe that Creationism is rejected when all of these other theories where given a fair chance to prove themselves.

 

[RobertByers]

Crawling around the web I notice a lot of YECs who are convinced that evolution is crap and they can prove beyond any shadow of doubt that they are right. I have often asked those people why they continue to debate on the internet instead of actually writing a paper and submitting it to a peer reviewed journal. Now before you go off and tell me that all the journal will do is shoot it down and send it back, think about this for a second. First off they can't just reject it because they don't like it, they have to give actual reasons why the paper is flawed. So if they do reject your paper and tell you that the only reason they are doing it is because you used the word "God" then sue them. They are obviously discriminating solely on the fact that you are a Christian. If that is the only reason why then you will slaughter them in court, force them to publish your paper, change the face of modern science and if you really can disprove Darwin, I would be willing to bet there is a nobel prize in it for you.

So, why don't you guys participate in real science? Is it more fun to stand on the sidelines and scream at the rest of the players? Just imagine how many souls you would win if you could actually PROVE once and for all that the bible is LITERALLY true.

This misses the whole origins debate. It is the establishment that teaches to the people evolution as fact and not some peer reviewed writers. It is the establishment who creationism addresses through any medium that reaches the masses.
Then as posters said here we do work from presumptions of scripture.
Then we deal with practical evidence. We don't need confirmation from others about the evidence we use against the bad guys.
The creationist is not out to achieve in sciences. He is out to defend the bible. The bible is attacked on origins with claimed proofs and so we take them on. It just works out we give better explanations for origin issues. Yet our purpose is still defence of the faith.
We simply bring to study and the public the evidences brought against the bible and , like sherlock Holmes over Scotland Yard, come up closer or dead on about the truth.
We deal with the big claims of evolution and not the thousands of tiny angles that are drawn on evolution presumptions that actually are what is peer reviewed.
They are not our peers. Their whole review is based on false presumptions to start with.

 

[lemmings]

The creationist is not out to achieve in sciences. He is out to defend the bible.

In a court of law, or any civilized debate, the defending position usually has some form of evidence to support their position. Science seems to be the most efficient way to obtain this evidence. I think Creationists are missing a step there, by ignoring the whole collecting evidence step, you are just jumping to conclusions which will not convince anyone that you are right.

 

[shernren]

This summer I've been doing research in the field of holographic optical traps. As part of my preparation I did some literature review on the published papers in this area. It was interesting to find that there was a core group of people, about ten or twenty strong, whose names always came up. You couldn't find a good paper on optical traps that didn't have them as a co-author.

Sociologically, that's an interesting phenomenon. Are there only twenty people in the world who work on optical traps? (How on Earth did I get one of them for my supervisor? XD) Surely there are more. Is it that the others don't publish papers? That their work is not good enough to be published in a journal? Maybe journals take a look at the author list, think to themselves "If this article was really any good it would have David Grier or Jennifer Curtis on it" and throw it out?

The question seems academic. ("Academic"! Heh heh.) What matters is that the papers I do see report phenomena that I can directly duplicate right here in my own lab with my own dinky little holographic optical trap setup. Journal papers may communicate science but they aren't science.

The fact that there aren't any YEC papers (not papers authored by YECs, but papers which specifically show evidence for YEC theories) in respectable journals shows that YECs aren't able to communicate their theories to mainstream science effectively through journals. Does this show that what they're doing isn't science? Or just that journals don't accept what they're doing as science (even if it is)? Of course I happen to believe the former, but I don't think that journals can settle it one way or the other. When laptoppop says:

A number of folks have tried at various times (and keep trying) to directly publish YEC papers which have been rejected, although there has been some success around the edges of the topics involved. I believe there are two primary reasons. First, the YEC model itself is rejected as junk science, so no article regarding the model is even given more than a glance. Second, YEC by nature incorporates both science and scripture. This is not acceptable to many journals. The Intelligent Design proponents have run into similar issues -- and they don't even have the baggage of proposing a "young" earth.

I would of course postulate a third option: that YEC really is junk. But I don't see how you can distinguish between those options just from the fact that YEC papers don't get published.

Personally, of course, I think the whole "establishment control" argument is quite silly. Why should a peer reviewer be offended if an article attempts to state that the Earth is six thousand years old? I can believe that the earth is young and still be an atheist, or a Muslim, or a Christian, or whatever. I can believe that the earth was once covered by a global flood that nearly wiped out all life and not give a whit about the Bible. The same people who think a global flood unlikely believe that 650 million years ago an asteroid hit the Earth and nearly wiped out all terrestrial life. It's silly to say creationists are silly simply because they believe in a global flood (in much the same way that it is silly for creationists to call conventional geology "uniformitarian" - how uniformitarian is a meteor strike?).

But I don't actually know any peer reviewers. And as much as there are closed-minded creationists who simply don't consider alternative viewpoints, there are also closed-minded evolutionists who certainly would dismiss any YEC paper offhand without even giving it a read. Who knows, maybe they're the real reason that YEC papers don't get published?

As for me personally, YECism just doesn't explain anything well. The fact that it doesn't have journal publishings to its name is really just coincidental.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

This summer I've been doing research in the field of holographic optical traps. As part of my preparation I did some literature review on the published papers in this area. It was interesting to find that there was a core group of people, about ten or twenty strong, whose names always came up. You couldn't find a good paper on optical traps that didn't have them as a co-author.

Sociologically, that's an interesting phenomenon. Are there only twenty people in the world who work on optical traps? (How on Earth did I get one of them for my supervisor? XD) Surely there are more. Is it that the others don't publish papers? That their work is not good enough to be published in a journal? Maybe journals take a look at the author list, think to themselves "If this article was really any good it would have David Grier or Jennifer Curtis on it" and throw it out?

The question seems academic. ("Academic"! Heh heh.) What matters is that the papers I do see report phenomena that I can directly duplicate right here in my own lab with my own dinky little holographic optical trap setup. Journal papers may communicate science but they aren't science.

The fact that there aren't any YEC papers (not papers authored by YECs, but papers which specifically show evidence for YEC theories) in respectable journals shows that YECs aren't able to communicate their theories to mainstream science effectively through journals. Does this show that what they're doing isn't science? Or just that journals don't accept what they're doing as science (even if it is)? Of course I happen to believe the former, but I don't think that journals can settle it one way or the other. When laptoppop says:

I would of course postulate a third option: that YEC really is junk. But I don't see how you can distinguish between those options just from the fact that YEC papers don't get published.

Personally, of course, I think the whole "establishment control" argument is quite silly. Why should a peer reviewer be offended if an article attempts to state that the Earth is six thousand years old? I can believe that the earth is young and still be an atheist, or a Muslim, or a Christian, or whatever. I can believe that the earth was once covered by a global flood that nearly wiped out all life and not give a whit about the Bible. The same people who think a global flood unlikely believe that 650 million years ago an asteroid hit the Earth and nearly wiped out all terrestrial life. It's silly to say creationists are silly simply because they believe in a global flood (in much the same way that it is silly for creationists to call conventional geology "uniformitarian" - how uniformitarian is a meteor strike?).

But I don't actually know any peer reviewers. And as much as there are closed-minded creationists who simply don't consider alternative viewpoints, there are also closed-minded evolutionists who certainly would dismiss any YEC paper offhand without even giving it a read. Who knows, maybe they're the real reason that YEC papers don't get published?

As for me personally, YECism just doesn't explain anything well. The fact that it doesn't have journal publishings to its name is really just coincidental.

I can see you have a problem; but the problem I see is unbelief in God as the author of creation as He stated it in His own Word.
His Word is the ultimate YEC "paper".

And He has no "peers"; and He answers to no one.
Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else.
Isa 40:14 With whom took he counsel, and [who] instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?

 

[archaeologist2]

Crawling around the web I notice a lot of YECs who are convinced that evolution is crap and they can prove beyond any shadow of doubt that they are right

.

Actually evolution is crap and is based upon conjecture, interpretation and hypothesis not real fact or evidence.

I have often asked those people why they continue to debate on the internet instead of actually writing a paper and submitting it to a peer reviewed journal.

Peer review is a secular idea to control thought and what is produced for public reading. it is very subjective, manipulative and is subject to corruption and all the other negatives that entered the world at the fall of adam.

also, christians are NOT to walk in the council of the ungodly, submitting christian work to the ungodly for their advice is disobedience to God. thus christians need to submit their work to their own people for review and follow God's ways NOT the world's.

Now before you go off and tell me that all the journal will do is shoot it down and send it back, think about this for a second. First off they can't just reject it because they don't like it, they have to give actual reasons why the paper is flawed.

Please, anyone can give a reason, this is just ludicrious.

So if they do reject your paper and tell you that the only reason they are doing it is because you used the word "God" then sue them. They are obviously discriminating solely on the fact that you are a Christian.

if you think they are thatstupid i have some ocean front property in kansas to sell you.

If that is the only reason why then you will slaughter them in court, force them to publish your paper, change the face of modern science and if you really can disprove Darwin, I would be willing to bet there is a nobel prize in it for you

actually darwin disproves himself the christian doesn't need to do it. evolution is a house of cards built by those who want an alternative to God and creation. they will build any theory up and then use nothing but conjecture to support their contention. e.g. the walking fish fossil. the whole idea was built upon half a fossil and it was missing the 'leg' half. it looked like a normal fish but everythign else was read into it and now people think there was a walking fish when there wasn't.

So, why don't you guys participate in real science

?

secular science isn't 'real' science. it is a manipulated, one-sided affair constructed for the purpose of finding an alternative answer to the biblical account. its very design omits anything supernatural which means it is basing its conclusions upon partial evidence and incomplete work.

if one looks at creation they will see that it does not fit any secular scientific mold. why? because it was a 1 time SUPERNATURAL act that is NOT going to be repeated. what is repeatable are the RESULTS of that supernatural act.

one cannot repeat the original act because it was already done and over with, and things were set in motion to work as designed by God. what altered that design was adam's and eve's sin. thus what you call evolutionary mutation is nothing more than corrupted genetic programming.

then when you add in the concept of 'information losing' you have not evolution but creation at work. why do you think there are people of different colors in the world? it is not because there are 4 different races as thought by darwin and his cohorts but because of genetical merging with missing information at different times. (one thing i agree with ken ham on)

thus there is only one race and what we see today is not evolution at work, but God's work run afoul by sin.

Is it more fun to stand on the sidelines and scream at the rest of the players?

do not have to stand on the sidelines and scream at the players, the 'players' are looking in the wrong places when they ignore God and the Bible.

Just imagine how many souls you would win if you could actually PROVE once and for all that the bible is LITERALLY true

the Bible is literally true, it is your choice to accept it or not. we do not have to prove anything as you forget that 'faith' is part of the equation. we will not have all the physical evidence you require but we do not need it, you need to believe via God's way not your own.
__________________

 

[RobertByers]

In a court of law, or any civilized debate, the defending position usually has some form of evidence to support their position. Science seems to be the most efficient way to obtain this evidence. I think Creationists are missing a step there, by ignoring the whole collecting evidence step, you are just jumping to conclusions which will not convince anyone that you are right.

We are not ignoring anything.
We start from a excellent witness, we accept as such, and then work with the data/evidence that is there and come to more accurate conclusions.
We use the stuff that is fact. Then we make better interpretations where there is conflict. creationism always deals with data.

 

[artybloke]

Creationism doesn't deal with real science because it's all based on a single fantasy interpretation of scripture and isn't based on the real world. It can't deal with the facts because if it did it would crumble into dust. And yes, it would probably take a lot of peoples' faith with it when they find out that the whole ediface of creationism is based on lies, fantasy and self-delusion.

If the Devil were to invent a way to discredit Christianity, he couldn't have done a worse job.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism doesn't deal with real science because it's all based on a single fantasy interpretation of scripture and isn't based on the real world.

Now that's funny --- I use the same "fantasy interpretation" with the phone book; and I'll bet you do too.

 

[shernren]

Now that's funny --- I use the same "fantasy interpretation" with the phone book; and I'll bet you do too.

You're comparing the Bible to the most monotonous and clunky example of text in the known universe. That takes more guts than brains.