Scientific American on Creationism

This month's Scientific American has a couple editorials and an article on Creationism:

Bad Science and False Facts
Vox Populi - The voice of the people reveals why evolution remains controversial
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

--Percy

Here's AIGs rebuttal point by point of sciam's 15 points: http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.aspAnd for good measure here's their rebuttal of the PBS Evoltuion TV series: http://www.answersingenesis.org/PBS_Nova/

Wow! A 14,000 word rebuttal of a 4,500 word article!Before anyone posts a 50,000 word rebuttal to AIG, I wonder if someone might take a stab at boiling this down to its essentials, keeping in mind that this is the "Is It Science?" forum.The main point in this regard came from AIG when they stated their belief that because mainstream science is opposed to Creationist ideas they won't publish Creationist papers, forcing Creationists to create their own peer-reviewed journals.But does creating a peer-reviewed journal automatically make something science? In fact, given the wide range of Creationist thought from OEC to YEC to ID, are true peer-reviewed journals even possible? After all, an OEC couldn't possibly approve a YEC paper, and vice-versa. In fact, given how much their ideas conflict, Tranquility Base and Wmscott could not approve each others papers. But of course in reality they would, else all Creationist journals would be only two pages - the front cover and the back cover. So is the peer-review claim of AIG actually a sham?--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-27-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

But does creating a peer-reviewed journal automatically make something science? In fact, given the wide range of Creationist thought from OEC to YEC to ID, are true peer-reviewed journals even possible? After all, an OEC couldn't possibly approve a YEC paper, and vice-versa.

---

Good point Percy. OEC and YEC advocates believe that their respective positions are based on infallible literal interpretations of holy, infallible scripture. Therefore, whilst they may agree goddunit, they have conflicting views on how it was done, when it was done, how long it took to get done and even what was done. Therefore it would be inconcievable for say aig's "peer review" to accept an OEC based paper because it conflicts with their fundamental tenets and would therefore apear to give succour to heresy.Can anyone find an example where a paper or article by one camp was published or even cited favourably by the other camp? Why is there never a complaint that they never get published in the alternative creationists' journals when they share the characteristic of rejecting much of conventional science?

quote:

---

But does creating a peer-reviewed journal automatically make something science? In fact, given the wide range of Creationist thought from OEC to YEC to ID, are true peer-reviewed journals even possible? After all, an OEC couldn't possibly approve a YEC paper, and vice-versa. In fact, given how much their ideas conflict, Tranquility Base and Wmscott could not approve each others papers. But of course in reality they would, else all Creationist journals would be only two pages - the front cover and the back cover. So is the peer-review claim of AIG actually a sham?

---

JM: Actually, it is a sham. For example, Steve Austin published an article in International Geology Review on "Amos' Earthquake". The article had biblical content and was written by a young earth creationist. The article was based on solid science and was therefore accepted. Austin and Wise are regular attendees and presenters at GSA (Geological Society of America) conferences where they present 'alternative views' of geology. These abstracts are reviewed by session chairman and yet they are allowed to present their views. Gentry had his article published in Science and Baumgardner is well known for his creationist views and yet his articles are judged solely on the basis of their scientific quality. What creationists fail to acknowledge is that MOST reviewers attempt to make the science publishable. Even when I reject a paper, I encourage the authors to rethink their points and defend them better. I encourage them to resubmit. If a creationist article came across my desk, I would evaluate it in the same manner as any other article. How good are the data and how well defended is the argument? Creationists think there is some automatic rejection filter and there isn't. The reason for thinking this is because the alternative explanation (i.e. poor science) is unpalatable!CheersJoe Meert

Do you have a copy of Austin's earthquake article you can post? Placing an article in a mainstream journal is a major accomplishment for Austin and for Creationism in general, and it can serve as a model for other Creationists making similar efforts, such as our own TB and Wmscott.By the way, this link to an Austin article at ICR from your site has a typo in it on page More Faulty Creation Science from The Insitutute for Creation Research:

Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research (IMP224 by Austin)

"imp-3224.htm" => "imp-224.htm"--Percy

Joe,Is there a single point of entry for your Creationism webpages? I am trying to determine how best to add links to them to the site's Reference Library.--------------------EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

Originally posted by Admin:
Joe,

​

Is there a single point of entry for your Creationism webpages? I am trying to determine how best to add links to them to the site's Reference Library.

​

---

JM: Yes, I will put one up in a moment. The address will be: http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/credocs.htmCheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Wow! A 14,000 word rebuttal of a 4,500 word article!

---

Must have been a slow day over at AIG. It's a wonder how that can happen with all of that important research going on over there...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Do you have a copy of Austin's earthquake article you can post? Placing an article in a mainstream journal is a major accomplishment for Austin and for Creationism in general, and it can serve as a model for other Creationists making similar efforts, such as our own TB and Wmscott.

​

By the way, this link to an Austin article at ICR from your site has a typo in it on page More Faulty Creation Science from The Insitutute for Creation Research:

​

Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research (IMP224 by Austin)

​

"imp-3224.htm" => "imp-224.htm"

​

--Percy

---

Here is the GEOREF citation: NOTE: AUSTIN's WORKPLACE IS CLEARAmos's Earthquake; an extraordinary Middle East seismic event of 750 B.C.
AU: Author
Austin, Steven A; Franz, Gordon W; Frost, Eric G
AF: Author Affiliation
Institute for Creation Research Santee, Geology Department, Santee, CA, United States (USA)
AF: Author Affiliation
San Diego State University, United States (USA)
SO: Source
International Geology Review, vol.42, no.7, pp.657-671, Jul 2000
IS: ISSN
0020-6814
CD: CODEN
IGREAP
PB: Publisher
Winston & Son, Silver Spring, MD, United States (USA)
AB: Abstract
Widely separated archaeological excavations in Israel and Jordan contain late Iron Age (Iron IIb) architecture bearing evidence of a great earthquake. Masonry walls best display the earthquake, especially walls with broken ashlars, walls with displaced rows of stones, walls still standing but leaning or bowed, and walls collapsed with large sections still lying course-on-course. Debris at six sites (Hazor, Deir'Alla, Gezer, Lachish, Tell Judeideh, and 'En Haseva) is tightly confined stratigraphically to the middle of the eighth century B.C., with dating errors of approximately 30 years. Biblical and post-biblical sources indicate a single, regionally extensive earthquake in the year 750 B.C. The epicenter was north of present-day Israel, probably in Lebanon, as indicated by the southward decrease in degree of damage at sites in Israel and Jordan. A large area of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah was shaken at Modified Mercalli Intensity 9 or higher. The distance from the epicenter (north of Israel) to isoseismal VIII (south of Israel) was at least 175 km, but could have been as much as 300 km. The earthquake was at least magnitude 7.8, but likely was 8.2, the magnitude being estimated by scaling of isoseismal radii relative to smaller historic earthquakes in Israel and Lebanon. The M (sub L) nearly equal 8.2 event of 750 B.C. appears to be the largest yet documented on the Dead Sea transform fault during the last four millennia. This severe geologic disaster has been linked historically to a speech delivered at the city of Bethel by a shepherd-farmer named Amos of Tekoa. Amos's earthquake was synchronous with the introduction of "seismic theophany" imagery into Hebrew literature, with the appearance of the "Day of the Lord" eschatological motif, and with the explosive emergence of "writing prophets" in Israel.
FE: Features
References: 72; illus. incl. geol. sketch maps
LA: Language
English
PY: Publication Year
2000
PD: Publication Date
20000700
PT: Publication Type
Serial; Analytic
CP: Country of Publication
United States (USA)

[QUOTE][b]
The main point in this regard came from AIG when they stated their belief that because mainstream science is opposed to Creationist ideas they won't publish Creationist papers, forcing Creationists to create their own peer-reviewed journals.[/QUOTE][/b] There is some acutal truth in this idea and unless it be really about IQ controversy it seems hard for me to follow the considerations of the same by means of academic freedom. What also needs a little more notification is that molecular science as globailzation is at some variance with the alternatives that are being under represented. [QUOTE][b]
But does creating a peer-reviewed journal automatically make something science? [/QUOTE][/b] This is for me an issue in the secular creation of Panbiogeography as a Journal and not any Creationism for I guess it could still be argued by the likes of a Mayr that such a publishing medium does not make secular panbiogeography possible as a science so it is a no brainer to assume the position for anti-creationist rhetoric thought. Still it seems to me that science can not remain out of error really in this sense. If this means only that French population gentics can be differentiated from British population genetics THAT seems to be and then I would ask if the consequence of the question remains in the results a bit too general. The difference with creationism is that there is ALSO an outside source of truth accessible even for the same secualr duration so the quality of creationism peer-reviewed may reach a threshold ABOVE any scecular discipline such that DISCOVERY for all is possible anew. This has been a reason for thinking that at least socially, creation science may indeed create a community or created one in which new work is possible that while it may have been secularly criticized is not granted for economic leverage that that also displays an alternative community in the same anthropology for any given philosophy of statistical aggreement among the participants co-operating. [QUOTE][b] In fact, given the wide range of Creationist thought from OEC to YEC to ID, are true peer-reviewed journals even possible? [/QUOTE][/b] Seems to me that the four year Pittsburgh located creationist get to-gether is the closes thing to this idea as it exists in reality. I do not have a specific creationist opinion as to how OEC, YEC, Progressives etc can find the same broadcast or not.

I don't know about the first two but Harun Yahya has refuted the third, "15 answers to creationist nonsense" in his article, "15 errors of SCIAM" here >> http://www.harunyahya.com/70Sciam15Errors_sci31.phpRegards,
Ahmad

Somebody did wrote a rebuttal to the AiG version. Since the Harun Yahya version is more or less the same, this article can answer that too.http://creationcrap.batcave.net/aigresponse.html