Peer pressure (peer review) combined with “publish or perish” holds back scientific exploration. If a professor wants to stay employed then he or she must submit to the consensus of evolutionary beliefs. Science then comes secondary. If a publication’s referees reject quality (but evolution contradicting) articles at the outset and then turn around and claim that “creationists don’t publish in the journals” that is a convenient contradiction. Some persons put their religious beliefs ahead of science. Thus creationists publish and teach others as we are able, but largely outside of the anti-God publications.
26 comments
The purpose of peer review is not to hold back scientific exploration, but to promote honesty and prevent charlatan and pseudo-scientific work from entering the public sphere. Creationism is being held to the same standard as everyone else but is unable to meet those standards. It's the same with people who presume to have psychic powers, they are tested under controlled conditions designed to prevent cheating or any form of trickery and if they are unable to demonstrate their abilities, they have been debunked. Let the creationists submit their findings to the scientific community as a whole where they can clearly demonstrate their findings or they should just withdraw their claims and acknowledge that they are wrong.
The history of science disagrees. Scientists have made their names be kicking over the ant-hills of established scientific orthodoxy. Arguably the most famous scientist of them all, Einstein, got that vaunted position by publishing papers that went precisely against the established consensus.
What Einstein had, and conversely what Behe, Dembski and the ID/Creationist crowd lack, is well reasoned arguments that both explained the known facts and predicted discoveries yet to be made.
The best the CSE crowd can come up with is denying the facts in ever louder voices and burying their noses ever deeper in their bibles.
Creationists don't get their papers published (outside of creationist vanity rags) because they are crap.
"Some persons put their religious beliefs ahead of science."
Ahem yes well aside from the mirror award due to that one it's a bit difficult *not* to do that when you define a scientific theory as a religious belief! Well strictly I suppose the point is that in your terms there is no way of doing this since religious beliefs and scientific beliefs are the same thing.
In your eyes *anything* we publish to do with the origin and subsequent development of life is "anti-god" and hence religious. If trying to take an objective view not involving your chosen set of assumptions is a religious position then you are ruling out all science by definition.
Now either show me even one advance in human knowledge that has improved people's lives that *directly* follows from your religious beliefs (in contrast to the large number which come from the scientific "religious beliefs") or go away please.
Peer review =/= peer pressure. An article that contained good science that falsified evolution would not only be accepted, but could well get a Nobel prize. Falsifying established scientific ideas is very much what science is about. But creationists do not have any legitimate scientific evidence that would falsify evolution, only a lot of misrepresentations.
"If a publication’s referees reject quality (but evolution contradicting) articles at the outset and then turn around and claim that “creationists don’t publish in the journals” that is a convenient contradiction."
Fortunately, there are no quality evolution rejecting papers, so that problem never arises.
"Some persons put their religious beliefs ahead of science."
Those persons are called creationists. Thus creationists print their nonsense largely outside the evidence requiring scientific journals where only gullible fools will read them and not ask embarrasing questions.
Below are examples of Creationist research articles.
* Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
You fail, P.A.
Feel free to present and interpret the evidence that you have, any way you like.
What, no evidence? Only an allegorical claim and personal conjecture? Get outta town, chump. Science needs reality-based evidence. And no, populist bullshit doesn't count as science, no matter what the sheeple believe.
Science does not come secondarily to scientist, that's why they're called scientists. On the other hand, science doesn't COME to creationists, that's why they're called idiots.
Creationist articles are rejected by scientific journals because the "science" in them is so poor.
That some people put their religious beliefs ahead of science is certain, but it's not the scientist who are doing it.
Some creationists don't want to go through the long and difficult process of meeting scientific publication standards, when they can write sloppy, incomplete and unreferenced popular works and sell them to fundies for a profit. ID proponent William Dembski, for instance, has had numerous problems of incomplete work pointed out to him (in mathematics, there's not much room for opinion on these matters) and has as much as said he doesn't intend to respond to the objections. You can't expect to publish a scientific paper if you take the attitude that it's the reader's job to look up references, fill in holes and leaps of logic and answer legitimate questions.
"If a professor wants to stay employed then he or she must submit to the consensus of evolutionary beliefs. Science then comes secondary."
Yes, it'd be like you requiring that a poster agree with your position before allowing them to participate in 'debates' on your forum...
"[L]earn that creation is true, then come back."
Oh, that's right, you do!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
