Creationists launch their own peer reviewed 'science' journal

[gravenewworld]

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080123/full/451382b.html


My brother went to the new creationist museum just for a kick. He said it was hilarious how ridiculous it was.

 

[Kurdt]

I suppose this is to answer the criticism that they don't have any peer reviewed works. The problem is that all their reviewers are said to be sympathetic to the cause, in which case what is the point other than trying to pull the wool over the gullible publics eyes.

 

[G01]

Wow, this is disturbing. It is scary to think how many lawmakers could be fooled by one of these "peer-reviewed" articles.

 

[drankin]

The only problem I have with it is that they call it "science". Other than that, more power to them.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Finally, Darwinists will no longer stand in the way of epic strides in the field of Creationism.

Err... wait, what is there to discover again? I thought they did all of their research by reading an old book...

 

[Danger]

That's one problem that I've always had with the term 'peers'. You're acquitted/convicted by a jury of your 'peers'. 'Peer' simply means one in a similar situation, an equal in society. I could have thousands of 'peer reviewed' papers if any of my peers could remain sober long enough to read one.

 

[G01]

I could have thousands of 'peer reviewed' papers if any of my peers could remain sober long enough to read one.

Hahaha!:rofl::rofl:

 

[Cyrus]

The only problem I have with it is that they call it "science". Other than that, more power to them.

How can you say you have a problem with them calling it "science" and "more power to them" in the same breath?

No. No power to them.

 

[russ_watters]

That's one problem that I've always had with the term 'peers'. You're acquitted/convicted by a jury of your 'peers'. 'Peer' simply means one in a similar situation, an equal in society. I could have thousands of 'peer reviewed' papers if any of my peers could remain sober long enough to read one.

It's a wonderful irony that it really is peer reviewed.

 

[drankin]

How can you say you have a problem with them calling it "science" and "more power to them" in the same breath?

No. No power to them.

?

Hey, if they want make a museum for The Flintstones, more power to them. Just don't call it science.

 

[Cyrus]

Again, no power to them.

 

[drankin]

Again, no power to them.

C'mon! A museum for The Flintstones?

 

[Cyrus]

I don't want a damn thing paid for by creationists in my country. Period. Not even if it feeds starving orphans, because they will point and say: "look, we feed starving orphans were not that bad".

 

[lisab]

Again, no power to them.

I agree. The problem is, it doesn't stop at the creationist museum. There's a teacher at my daughter's school who always refers to evolution as "just a theory," whenever the subject comes up. Since she teaches Biology I imagine it would come up rather frequently.

As you might guess, the teacher is VERY religious.

 

[gravenewworld]

As you might guess, the teacher is VERY religious.

While that it is true, let's be clear here--most xtians don't believe in fundamentalism. There are over 1.1 billion Catholics on the Earth. I went to Catholic school for 17 years and was always taught evolution, and never 1 shred of creationism. Creationists are simply insane, they are the minority when compared to other xtians.

 

[jim mcnamara]

I agree. The problem is, it doesn't stop at the creationist museum. There's a teacher at my daughter's school who always refers to evolution as "just a theory," whenever the subject comes up. Since she teaches Biology I imagine it would come up rather frequently.

As you might guess, the teacher is VERY religious.

Just a theory - there are words in Science that do not mean the same thing in comm parlance. Theory is one of them.

(thanks again to Zz for this link...)
http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_1/8_1.shtml

 

[out of whack]

Launching a peer reviewed journal is a good tactical move for the creationists. Articles will likely be screened to include those that support the pre-established conclusion, of course. If the editors allow a debunking article, it will likely be one that can be interpreted and mitigated. This will allow them to show that not all authors agree on everything, therefore creationism must be real science. What is troubling is that for some lawmakers, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

 

[Moridin]

C'mon! A museum for The Flintstones?

Making a creationist museum is like making a museum that supports Holocaust denial. It just should not happen.

 

[D H]

No. No power to them.

The First Amendment certainly gives them the right to publish this garbage and the right to call it "peer-reviewed". Freedom of speech means acknowledging that everybody has the right to have their say, especially those who hold views exactly counter to your own views. So, more power to them.

Freedom of speech also means have the right to educate the scientifically-illiterate decision makers that this is anything but science and anything but true.

 

[Cyrus]

The problem is, I am not holding a 'view'. Its a fact. What they are doing is disingenuous.

 

[D H]

What they are doing is disingenuous.

So what? The First Amendment exists first and foremost to protect political speech, and much of that is also disingenuous (and that's saying it nicely).

 

[lisab]

While that it is true, let's be clear here--most xtians don't believe in fundamentalism. There are over 1.1 billion Catholics on the Earth. I went to Catholic school for 17 years and was always taught evolution, and never 1 shred of creationism. Creationists are simply insane, they are the minority when compared to other xtians.

You're right. Although it probably can be said that all creationists are religious people, it's not true that all religious people are creationists. Mea culpa!

 

[Poop-Loops]

So what? The First Amendment exists first and foremost to protect political speech, and much of that is also disingenuous (and that's saying it nicely).

Sure, but their plan is to get this crap taught in schools, which Separation of Church and State definitely forbids.

 

[Ben Niehoff]

You're right. Although it probably can be said that all creationists are religious people, it's not true that all religious people are creationists. Mea culpa!

While it is true that most Christians are not fundamentalists, it is true that most Christians believe in some version of Creation; it is, after all, the subject of the first two chapters in Genesis. In order to avoid cognitive dissonance with modern science, most rational Christians take an apologetic approach: either that Genesis is a metaphor for evolution, or that God directed evolution, or both. Another possible view is the Deist one: that God set everything in motion at the beginning of time, and thereafter left the universe to its own devices.

In general, while plenty of Christians accept the broad statements of evolutionary theory (i.e., that species change over time, and eventually diverge into different species), most Christians have difficulty accepting the statistical nature of evolution (that direction by God is completely unnecessary), or they are holding off on abiogenesis (i.e., maybe God just did that).

Of course, the distinction must be drawn between generic Creationists and Young Earth Creationists (or Recent Creationists), who are the small segment of wackos who believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Unfortunately, it is a Young Earth Creationist who is currently sitting in the Oval Office.

 

[Ben Niehoff]

Sure, but their plan is to get this crap taught in schools, which Separation of Church and State definitely forbids.

Actually, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution (it's from a letter of Thomas Jefferson, I believe), and so it is a bit unclear whether there is absolutely a prohibition on teaching religion(s) in places such as public schools, and whether public schools are in fact extensions of the State. The current interpretation of the courts, however, is that separation of church and state is indeed an intended consequence of the Establishment Clause, and moreover, that that separation should extend to the public school system.

Personally, I think freedom from religion is an important fundamental freedom that the Founders did not fully recognize or take into account; if I were able to re-write the Constitution today, I'd make sure to explicitly include it.

 

[drankin]

The problem is, I am not holding a 'view'. Its a fact. What they are doing is disingenuous.

People are going to teach (or try to) others what they believe. Whether it's right or wrong. It's a free country. And the Flintstones are kewl.

 

[Cyrus]

People are going to teach (or try to) others what they believe. Whether it's right or wrong. It's a free country. And the Flintstones are kewl.

Yabba-dabba-do

 

[russ_watters]

In general, while plenty of Christians accept the broad statements of evolutionary theory (i.e., that species change over time, and eventually diverge into different species), most Christians have difficulty accepting the statistical nature of evolution (that direction by God is completely unnecessary), or they are holding off on abiogenesis (i.e., maybe God just did that).

I don't see why that's necessary. If you made 10 different copies of Earth a billion years ago, you'd get 10 different sets of species today and some Earth's could be vastly different from each other. The statistical probability issue just makes us completely unique. That sounds like something a creationist could sink their teeth into to me.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution (it's from a letter of Thomas Jefferson, I believe), and so it is a bit unclear whether there is absolutely a prohibition on teaching religion(s) in places such as public schools, and whether public schools are in fact extensions of the State. The current interpretation of the courts, however, is that separation of church and state is indeed an intended consequence of the Establishment Clause, and moreover, that that separation should extend to the public school system.

Personally, I think freedom from religion is an important fundamental freedom that the Founders did not fully recognize or take into account; if I were able to re-write the Constitution today, I'd make sure to explicitly include it.

The courts do not agree that this is a debateable issue, never have, and never will. The establishment clause is an iron-clad separation of church and state. Jefferson ought to know what the first amendment means - he wrote it. The fact that the words don't appear in the Constitution itself is a non sequitur smokescreen religious people like to use in an attempt to weaken it. Don't fall for the trick. Separation of church and state is explicitly included in the Constitution.

 

[Cyrus]

Actually, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution (it's from a letter of Thomas Jefferson, I believe), and so it is a bit unclear whether there is absolutely a prohibition on teaching religion(s) in places such as public schools, and whether public schools are in fact extensions of the State. The current interpretation of the courts, however, is that separation of church and state is indeed an intended consequence of the Establishment Clause, and moreover, that that separation should extend to the public school system.

Personally, I think freedom from religion is an important fundamental freedom that the Founders did not fully recognize or take into account; if I were able to re-write the Constitution today, I'd make sure to explicitly include it.

Wow, no clue what your talking about. Amazing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The protection from religion comes from the fact that there can be no laws respecting the establishment of religion. But I find it interesting that the members of Congress will openly pray together while in sesssion [or maybe just before opening the session?].

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Did you know that fisherman even have their own pier reviewed journals?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

so it is a bit unclear whether there is absolutely a prohibition on teaching religion(s) in places such as public schools, and whether public schools are in fact extensions of the State.

If tax dollars pay for a thing, doesn't that make it an extension of the State?

 

[Hurkyl]

Did you know that fisherman even have their own pier reviewed journals?

Bah, stop trolling!

 

[Gokul43201]

But I find it interesting that the members of Congress will openly pray together while in sesssion [or maybe just before opening the session?].

Interesting? I find it disgusting! For over 2 centuries, taxpayers have paid the salary of a Christian chaplain who begins every session of Congress with prayer! When will these people grow up?