quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
1)You may be correct on saying that it wouldn't neccessarelly be 'peer review', that is, in your context of the word and its meaning.
2)Creationists looking over an Evolutionists work and vice versa are more likely to pick out errors in various places. For example, If in an evolutionists writting it says that 'Creationists think that this happend' when infact they do not, or it is a easy straw man approach. In this a creationist would ask them to consider another approach or a more effective rebutal toward what they may actually think.
3)I am having second thoughts on the system, it seems it could be tuned more. Mabye a selected people in different groups to have access in this review. What gaps may you see that need some work in this system, what would your considerations be?
1)It wouldn`t be peer review in the sense that it is commonly meant TC....
2)Actually when saying evolutionists review evo articles and creationists review creation articles I meant pre-publication review. The reasons are as follows....
a)An evolutionist would not groundlessly obstruct publication of an evo article and a creationist would not groundlessly oppose publication of a creationist article...
b)However an evolutionist would be more rigorous in opposing weak or falacious arguments for evolution and a creationist likewise with arguments fodr creation...
They have a vested interest in only permitting strong rigorous work to be published....
A way around the strawman problem is to have guidelines that permit only the discussion of what your side believes, any critique of the oppositions position should occur post publication of that position, possibly in a rebuttals section...
Possibly logical arguments worded as "If group A belive postulates X,Y and Z how do they justify the implied contradictionbetween the consequences of these postulates X
c,Y
c and Z
c?" this sort of statement only argues against a hypothetical group A and if it is an innaccurate representation need not be replied to other than to state "We are not Group A because we believe F,G and H!"....
3)Possibly a system where there is a pre-publication review area where selected evolutionists would review evo arguments and selected creationists would review creationist documents, when a submission had a required number of approvals it could then be published....
™ Version 4.2