They've gone and done it... Creationism Peer Review Journal

strick09
strick09's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2007-07-11
User is offlineOffline
They've gone and done it... Creationism Peer Review Journal

http://answersingenesis.org/arj

 

By your friend and mine, Answers in Genesis.

I kind of knew this was inevitable -- all this talk from our (and by "our" I mean "science", not specifically Atheists) camp about "Creation Science isn't in any peer-reviewed journal!"; It was only a matter of time before their light bulb goes off and they realize "We'll just create our OWN party!"

 

oy.

 


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Great quote on that web

Great quote on that web site regarding microbes

 

'The world of germs and microbes has received much attention in recent years. But where do microbes fit into the creation account? Were they created along with the rest of the plants and animals in the first week of creation, or were they created later, after the Fall? These are some questions that creation microbiologists have been asking in recent years'

 

 

I bet scientists ask those questions every day, before or after the fall Smiling


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
mrjonno wrote:   These are

mrjonno wrote:
 

These are some questions that creation microbiologists have been asking in recent years'

 


Creation microbiogivemeafuckingbreakologist !!!!!!  Are you kidding me !

These guys are something else !

Quote:

But where do microbes fit into the creation account?

Don't worry... You'll make them fit somewhere in there. I would suggest to make them fit up your asses !

 

Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
This passage from their

This passage from their "Instructions to Authors" pdf shatters any hope of academic credibility for this journal.

"Working with your editor builds an effective partnership whose goal is to ensure that the Creation and Flood model is given the best possible development by all concerned."

'Do as much research as you want - we'll help you make sure it's in line with our conclusions' 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Excellent, so I guess this


Excellent, so I guess this 'pro-evolution' conspiracy about why they aren't in actual peer reviewed journals is working quite well.

BWA HA HA HA! 

 

What a joke.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Wow... This is sort of like

Wow... This is sort of like when they renamed "Creationism" into "Creation Science" a few years back.  And then, when everybody recognized it as religious pamphlets, they renamed it "Intelligent Design" and changed the name of their headquarters from "Church" to "Research Center."

Now, they've decided that testimonials at the front of books counts as peer review, or something.  This ought to be fun.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
http://www.youtube.com/watch?

Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
I wonder about this.  I

I wonder about this.  I mean, it's obviously an attempt at self-legitimation.  And it obviously targets people who don't know any better, and "can't figure out" why that same material doesn't get into other journals.  My question is: how do you delegitimize that without giving Creationists the room to chalk it all up to the "Evil Liberal/Atheist Conspiracy?"

Conor

___________________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:


Excellent, so I guess this 'pro-evolution' conspiracy about why they aren't in actual peer reviewed journals is working quite well.

BWA HA HA HA! 

 

What a joke.

 

No, the joke is that this is clearly a case of wedging one's way into a publication for the sake of being in the publication.

The blunt fact of the matter is that a good portion of of science journal articles are shreded and utterly dismissed by their peers wether based upon paltry evidence, questionable statistics or poor methodology. You just don't hear about it much, because the media and the cretinist juggernaut doesn't raise a stink when say, a study on the microsatellite data of an obscure species of fish is attacked or retracted.

Simply being published is not a great accomplishment, let's NOT forget the REASON scientist publish - PEER REVIEW.

 Make NO mistake, any journal in any reputatle publicaton will be put to the coals by somebody eventually, becuase scientists use such articles to structure thier own methodologies and methods in their investigations - often to the point where their conclusion will rest on somebody elses claim - and if that is the case, no scientist will submit his or her work without checking out the that basis for themself.

 With the TENS of THOUSANDS of journal articles published each year, the occasional scam, ploy, or utter asinine conjecture DOES get through, but they are invariably weeded out by peer review.

The Columbia prayer study (http://csicop.org/si/2004-09/miracle-study.html) is a great example, the prime researcher is currently in PRISON on fraud charges. As is Piltdown man, despite the rhetoric otherwise - it was evolutionists (real scientists) who discovered the fraud, not creationists (hucksters).

So congrats on your hollow propaganda victory, IDers, you've done science proud, yet again!

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


strick09
strick09's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2007-07-11
User is offlineOffline
What I see happening is

What I see happening is this divide -- previously, the "science" done by the Creationist side could be universally dismissed by any real scientist, on the boilerplate of "no published peer review articles." Now we have to qualify it with a no-true-scotsman sounding "No *true* peer review publishings."

What's worse though, is that the public is more or less unable to tell the different between valid and invalid scientific work, if the work sounds technical enough or the author has enough credentials. The general public will just accept it as "Well, I guess they're right!" (I blogged about this at: http://atheism.amhill.net )

Although, this is basically the whole platform that groups like AiG operate on -- the so called "New-Apologetics" stressing Jim Crow like "Separate-but-equal" science realms. The general public doesn't really understand that the work being done by AiG is fluffier than marshmallow, and AiG milks that for all it's worth.

I asked Dr. Ken Miller (of Kitzmiller vs. Dover fame) about this personally, and he seemed rather nonchalant. He said:

 

Ken Miller wrote:
No big deal. There have been other "peer-reviewed" journals of creation science and ID for quite some time. It's a free country, and the constitution protects everyone's right to publish, even if what you print is absolutely worthless. What a country!

I suppose I'll just have to trust him that actual Science will endure this flash in the pan, since it has happened before. My only lingering concern is wondering if it has happened before with such coordination and strategy?


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
So let me get this right

So let me get this right its peer reviewed by Christians who have already made their mind up on the matter and are completely unopen to changing their mind. Cos thats really gonna give their bullshit a whole load of credability. 

Its about as credible as me writting a book calling it oh I dunno "The Atheists Holy Scripture" say on line one:

"And in the beggining there was not God and there wasn't a God thereafter either." 

And then expect people to be impressed and respect my beliefs because I have labeled my pile of shit book "Holy Scripture" honestly what a fucking joke. 

 

A total waste of bandwidth.

 

 


strick09
strick09's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2007-07-11
User is offlineOffline
Yep.   Basically what

Yep.

 

Basically what their "peer-review" consists of is "Reviewing peer-submitted content to make sure its inline with the biblical mythologies" 

 

The end goal: To have a PRJ with a lot of fancy-sounding articles that they can read while blowing each other. 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

Wow... This is sort of like when they renamed "Creationism" into "Creation Science" a few years back. And then, when everybody recognized it as religious pamphlets, they renamed it "Intelligent Design" and changed the name of their headquarters from "Church" to "Research Center."

Now, they've decided that testimonials at the front of books counts as peer review, or something. This ought to be fun.

 

A few years back I was completely unaware of this creation science thing and on my way to uni I picked up a magazine which cost almost twice as much as my usual reads but it looked interesting and new and claimed to be a science editorial, I almost choked on my breakfast when I discovered what it really was. I felt really ripped off, actually, I'd probably still demand my AUS$8.95 back if I ran in to AIG in the street.

So now their printing official journals huh? Thanks for the heads up, I will be very careful when making out future subscriptions.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Josh Clarke
Superfan
Josh Clarke's picture
Posts: 107
Joined: 2008-01-27
User is offlineOffline
Rofl Sarcasm

Thats not what Jesus said, it ain't true.... if Jesus didn't say it it ain't true...

 

Hi, My names Josh Clarke, and I'm addicted to JESUS H. CHRIST... He is my HEART, and HE LOVES ME FOR WHO I IS. HE DIED FOR ME PERSONALLY!!!! I had a dream about it, it was sweet. He said "Josh, I'm dieing for you... personally, noone else... just you... so that you can sin, and it's cool, I got your back", then he winked at me, and died. Then I saw angels, they said onto me, Josh, we love you... and don't want you to die, and go to hell. Thats how it happened, now I spend my life, shootin' heroin for jesus, while preaching on the street that abortion is a sin, and your baby knows that hes dieing, for jesus!

 

Laughing out loud

 

Hope I made you smile.

 

- Josh Clarke

We pop theist like Orville Redenbacher!


FulltimeDefendent
Scientist
FulltimeDefendent's picture
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
At least peer-review does

At least peer-review does not a science make. These idiots are completely ignorant of the scientific method if they're encouraging material that fits a preconceived conclusion.

“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”


strick09
strick09's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2007-07-11
User is offlineOffline
.

These idiots are completely ignorant of the scientific method if they're encouraging material that fits a preconceived conclusion.

Like that's ever been a problem for them before? Smiling These people aren't troubled by such inconveniences as "logic," "reason," or "observable reality."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ok, since these morons think

Ok, since these morons think that a club constitutes reality lets see their "peer" reviewed evidence for a disembodied being knocking up a (9 to 14 year old girl). Lets see their "peer reviewed" evidence of a zombie god surviving rigor mortis after three days.

These idiots have a "Peer review" like Star Trec fans have evidence for "Tribbles".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


thinktank
thinktank's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-11-15
User is offlineOffline
They can go ahead and make

They can go ahead and make believe this will be worth anything.

What it comes down to in the end as science goes, is it useful?  its it profitable?  If the answer to these is no, then its probably not real science.  Non of the stuff these creationist come up with are going to cure any diseases, or make anyone life's better with their new "innovations", so nobody is going to pay any attention to them.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
MIT once put together a

MIT once put together a program that automatically wrote technical sounding computer science papers, some of which were apparently interesting enough to be published. I bet it wouldn't take much hammering to adapt it to creationism.

 

Anyone else know what culture jamming is?