Praise for the RATE Group

Actually the conspiracy is real. Censorship of ID and Creation ideas is real and documented. Go figure...

No bluff to call. Just a little research is all that is required. There are more instances that can be found in books...In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters. Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters. This admission is particularly significant since Science’s official letters policy is that they represent the range of opinions received (e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions). Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.

​

Humphreys’ letter and Ms. Gilbert’s reply are reprinted in the book, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)

​

On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article *Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn’t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn’t even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a slight bias exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.Subject: Re: inquiry about submission
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 10:21:54 ?0500
From: [the editor]
To: "Michael J. Behe"

​

Hi Mike,

​

I'm torn by your request to submit a (thoughtful) response to critics of your non-evolutionary theory for the origin of complexity. On the one hand I am painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the scientific community to non-orthodoxy, and I think it is counterproductive. But on the other hand we have fixed page limits for each month's issue, and there are many more good submissions than we can accept. So, your unorthodox theory would have to displace something that would be extending the current paradigm.Now I am quite sure neither of these examples will satisfy you as it is obvious evolutionists have issues with real evidence...

Learn how to read Cora:Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.

Alex you too should learn how to read:
Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.

Actually there is Mark24. I presented two cases. Neither case was rejected due to poor scholarship. I can list many other instances of censorship. However real evidence is lost on the evo-ilk...

Meert:
JP knows absolutely nothing about publishing so anything he says should be taken as Monday morning quarterbacking by someone who never watches football.John Paul:
More baseless and unsubstantiated spewage from the pro of spewage. JM knows absolutely nothing about me so anything he says about me should be taken as meaningless.skl

Meert:
I know two things about you JP that are fairly uncontroversialJohn Paul:
Yup, sure you do.Meert:
1. You are not a scientistJohn Paul:
Funny, I fit the definition and I do actual research. Go figure...Meert:
2. You do not publish in scientific journals.John Paul:
That is irrelevant.skl

Most of my scientific work is in the venue of research & development (technology), ion mobility spectrometry and communications. For example did you know that if you switch the Rx & Tx local ocillators on a CB (for example) you will get frequencies below the current band. No one else is down there so the reception/ transmission is clear.

Percy, considering most of what I do and have done is classified I cannot go in to details.Quick definitions (Scientist)noun: a person with advanced knowledge of one of more sciencesEncyclopedia articleA scientist is a person who is expert in an area of science and who uses scientific methods in research.Yup, that fits me.What do you think makes one a scientist?

Meert:
I also know you're a handsome fellow, but you really should remove that tatoo.John Paul:
I know I am but you wouldn't. And my tatoos are staying.Meert:
It makes you look like a dork.John Paul:
That's not my picture. I have never been that fat or ugly in my life. Meert:
Publishing ones research findings is quite relevant. It gives you some feedback on the quality of your science.John Paul:
The quality of my science comes out in practical uses. If my science was bad my projects would fail. That is all the review I need.Many engineers, like myself, are both scientist & engineer. We have to do leading edge research and then develop those ideas for practical use.[This message has been edited by John Paul, 04-30-2004]

Percy:
Your short definitions of scientist describe half the people I know, and none of them are scientists.John Paul:
I asked what you consider a scientist....Percy:
But it's the impression you give others that counts.John Paul:
Not really. It's the work and research I do that counts. I don't care what people I don't know think about me. Also if what you say has any merit I have yet to see a "scientist" on this board.How do scientists behave? I know quite a few...

If technology is a scientific field then I fit your definition. If chemistry is a scientific field I fit that definition by my IMS analysis.I disagree in that engineers do have to use the scientific method. I would say that good technicians do also. I have received two awards for my "scientific approach to resolving..." issues that pop up.What if someone publishes an article that adds knowledge to a majority but a minority already had that knowledge? Is that person a scientist just because his/ her findings were made public?

Meert:
If it's not your picture, then why use it?John Paul:
Oh and that is YOUR picture for your posts?Meert:
Quite simply, you are a technician of sorts most likely with an engineering degree or some trade school experience.John Paul:
Yeah, right. That must mean you are quite simply a school teacher who looks at dirt and rocks.Meert:
Your knowledge of science (or more importantly your lack of knowledge) comes through loud and clear everytime you post.John Paul:
Nice anti-christian assertion (read- LIE). Anything to substantiate your claim?I am considered a scientist by my employer and peers. That is enough for me.If I appear unhappy it has to do directly with dealing with you and your ilk.skl

BTW JM I will take my understanding of science over yours everyday of the week. All I see you do is present un-verifiable theoretical musings of the past. What I do helps people of today and people of the future.

What makes you a scientist Joe? What knowledge have you increased? (and is it really knowledge if it can't be verified?)Again, for the learning impaired, I am both a scientist and an engineer. What bothers me is you don't know the difference and obviously couldn't see the forest because the trees get in the way.What details, seeing I leave those out, do I embellish on?