I think that Creationist research should be peer-reviewed same as any other. That will only force them to have iron clad research which helps their side, and/or force Evolutionists to confront the fact that not all Creationist research and/or claims are without merit. Everybody wins.
I certainly agree with you there, but in the 25-plus years that I've been following creationist exploits I have witnessed the exact opposite. It is our long and ever-disappointing practical experience with creationism that fuels our skepticism.
For example, when I was researching the ICR moondust claim (
No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/moondust.html) made by Henry Morris citing as its source a "1976" NASA document ("well into the space age" as Morris and just about every other creationist would intone), Duane Gish responded with their source, "research" done by Harold Slusher in which he had created his own formula and plugged in values that he pulled from that document. The moment I pulled that document off the library shelf, I knew that Slusher had misrepresented that
1967 printing of papers from a
1965 conference. And upon reading the document I discovered that Slusher had further misrepresented his "source"
and the rules of mathematics in order to inflate his results by a factor of 10,000.
When I presented my findings to Gish, he completely ignored them. I also pointed out that Morris had obviously never verified Slusher's reference to the NASA document, let alone ever even seen that document -- mind you, Morris himself claims that that NASA document is the source of his claim, not a letter written by Harold Slusher, another lapse in scholarship. I pointed out that this lapse in basic scholarship caused Morris to make a false claim and that a bit of simple scholarship (ie, looking up and verifying the sources of a claim) would have saved the Morris and the ICR the embarassment of having that false claim exposed. Gish replied, and this is the truth, that since they don't get millions of dollars in grant money like scientists do, they can't afford to verify their claims.
What!?! I replied again with the results of my research (ie, yet again I sent Gish xerox copies of the front page of the document) and pointed out that if they don't have much money, then they most certainly could not afford to waste any of their money on false claims, not to mention the damage false claims do to their cause. No response.
Similar patterns of behavior:
1. In correspondence with a local creation science activist, I would frequently catch him lying. Seriously, he was constantly lying. Now, I had always been taught that lying is a sin, but when I tried to take him to task for it, he would claim that he was doing it because he loves Jesus and since I'm not a Christian I have absolutely no right nor authority to question whether a Christian is sinning. Several other creationists have also voiced that claim.
2. When another creationist would try to use that first creationist's claims and I could show that that first creationist was lying and give specifice examples of that first creationist conducting himself in an un-Christian manner, to the point where that other creationist could not help but admit to the first creationist's misconduct, that other creationist (who personally knew the first creationist) would refuse address the first creationist on that matter. His refusal was based on the claim that it was absolutely none of his business to warn a "brother in Christ" from a sinful path that would endanger his soul. Of course, he did consider it his business to confront non-Christians with a burning concern for their souls, but not for the soul of a fellow Christian and a personal friend. WTF?
3. Most creationists are not interested in the truth, but rather want to gather "ammo" for their proselytizing efforts.
4. PRATTs exist and persist, despite being demonstrably false and despite having been refuted more than a thousand times in the decades that they've been around, precisely because creationists are not interested in the truth, but rather because they want convincing-sounding ammo.
And, I feel, that is key. As I discuss on a page I had started work on, "Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists" (
No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/cs_vs_sci.html, scientists seek to discover new truths about the natural universe, so they earnestly engage in research, they test and verify their results, they test and verify the results of other scientists (especially those upon whose work they would base their own research), and they do not tolerate any fraud or shoddy scholarship. Creationists, on the other hand, are not concerned with discovering any truths (they already believe they have it) but rather are concerning with
convincing people. So they create
convincing-sounding claims and they repeat the convincing-sounding claims of other creationists. And the rank-and-file creationists are drawn to the more convincing-sounding claims because that looks like they'll be the best "ammo" for their proselytizing. And the creationists who can produce the most spectacular convincing-sounding claims enjoy great success and popularity. And if any of their convincing-sounding claims are refuted, well, creationists just ignore that fact and keep using those claims. And if a claim is too soundly refuted such that it damages them publicly, then they just tuck it away for a few years until everybody has forgotten it and then they trot it out again on a new generation of suckers.
Sorry, but we've been around for quite a while and that is what we see happening over and over again. And that is why we are so skeptical about creationist claims.
I agree completely that creationist need to employ proper scholarship. The late Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. Duane Gish both had legitimate PhDs (in Hydraulic Engineering and Biochemistry, respectively). A big part of getting those degrees is learning scholarship and how to conduct research
and the vital importance of checking sources. So why is it that as soon as they start practicing creationism all concern for scholarship flies out the window? No! Even when doing creationism
they must hold to the same standards of scholarship as if they were doing science! That they consistently refuse to do so is rather telling.
Now, over the years I have come across some actual research that has been conducted by creationists. Nobody ever hears of them, not even creationists, because their work is not sensational enough. Indeed, more often than not, they show that other creationists' claims are flawed and so the creationist community doesn't want to hear them.
That is what happens to peer-review in the creationist community! It's just ignored and swept under the rug. That must change!
I believe God will stand up to anyone's scrutiny.
So what does God have to do with any of this? Creationism is not based on God, but rather on a particular fallible human interpretation of the Bible and beliefs about the Bible. If all of "creation science" is shown to be completely and utterly false, that would say nothing about God, but rather about the theology (which is Man-made, after all) that requires belief in "creation science".
It is the claims of creationism that are under scrutiny, not God.
PS
You present yourself as being an honest creationist and I do believe that you are sincere.
However, from what I've seen, extremely few honest creationists last for very long. As they discover more and more of their claims to be false, they start to slip back out of sight and withdraw from creation/evolution discussions, often with great speed. Many even switch sides; eg Merle Hertzler whom I knew on CompuServe as one of the first honest creationists there -- within a year he had switched sides (see his story at
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Evolve2.html). I believe you will find that several "evolutionists" here used to be young-earth creationists. And many end up losing their honesty, because their sectarian religious beliefs mean more to them than the truth and truthfulness do. And finally, very very few of them retain their honesty.
One of the more notable honest creationists is Dr. Kurt Wise (no relation to me). Look for an interview with him on AiG in which he recalls how, as a teenager, he consciously decided against evolution for purely religious reasons. A lot of his research had the effect of testing and refuting other creationist claims. Last I heard, he had aligned himself with the ICR, so I'm not sure how well his honesty is still holding up.
Edited by dwise1, : PS
{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber,
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.(Sherlock Holmes in
The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield,
Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
™ Version 4.2