|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Journal of Creation - peer-reviewed?
Posted on: March 25, 2007 - 10:36am
 Offline
Journal of Creation - peer-reviewed?
The website says that it's peer-reviewed, but it also "points out flaws in evolutionary arguments". It seems to be supported by Creation Ministries International, which I doubt is a real scientific institution. Any input from the biologists here?
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
Not a biologist, but I'd be willing to bet the "peers" who reviewed it were other ID guys.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
That's what I'm thinking, too. I'm not sure if an ID creationist can be a real scientist.
Considering that the courts have ruled that ID is not a science, and I'm unaware of a single ID paper being accepted by an actual science journal, I'd say no...
But then, when have the facts ever gotten in the way of a theist's assertion?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
A biologist who agrees with ID doesn't deserve the title any more than an astronomer who agreed with the sun going around the earth or a doctor who believed the stork brought babies would.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
True. Also their logic is pretty flawed - they start off assuming ID is true and then attempt to find facts supporting it.
The Creation Research Society claims to have trained "scientists", too.
The Creationist attempts to force science to fit the Bible. Thus they assume the truth to be pre-established and attempt to force facts to support it. Such presuppositionalist logic would be considered nonsense to science.
As for intelligent design, there is no test nor validation for their hypothesis. Therefore, all they do is take all the evidence for evolution and insist it fits the design model. This, once again, is failed presuppositionalist logic. Any good scientist would throw it out.
If a dating method establishes the age of the Earth correctly, the creationists will reject it. They will find some way to get around it. This is false dichotomy logic, because to my knowledge, they have never designed an experiment which establishes the age of the Earth to be 6000 years old.
The creationists are idiots, the intelligent design people are well...idiots.
Furthermore, if we examine the relationship between the peer reviewing in the millions of real scientific articles in the real scientific community, we find a highly intricate web of vast mutual referencing. Considering that ICR has 600 members, few of whom have scientific qualifications, they cannot do this.
Ignore them.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Hmm, you're right.
This part from the Creation Ministries International site made me laugh:
What about creationist scientists publishing articles, in secular journals, which specifically come to creationist conclusions? The bitter experience of a number of us has made it clear that there is almost no chance that such articles will pass the review process, no matter what their quality. I have also had repeated correspondence with the letters editors of major journals, having submitted brief, well-written items which critiqued published conclusions favourable to long-agers or ‘big-bangers’. These contained no explicit creationist connotations, but I have concluded that, now that I am known as a creationist, such items have virtually no chance of publication.’
Just like you have no chance of getting an article claiming the moon is made of green cheese published in an astronomy journal. Yes, scientific journals require actual science!
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team