Peer Review Conspiracy

In the Ongoing Controversy thread, Almeyda had the following to say in response to Crashfrog's assertion that Creationist findings should be submitted to peer review: My question (for Almeyda and others) is this: Can anyone present an example in which Creationist findings have been submitted to peer review, and shot down for spurious reasons?If so, please present the example, along with the official reason why it did not hold up to peer review. Then tell us why that reasoning is flawed.

---

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Severely bumped.If no one has any examples, can we assume that this idea that academia is prejudiced against Creationism is false?

---

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

Dan Carroll asks:

quote:

---

If no one has any examples, can we assume that this idea that academia is prejudiced against Creationism is false?

---

I'm not so sure that's strictly true. It's a fine point, of course, but I think academia IS prejudiced against creationism. I don't think that's a bad thing. It's kinda like being prejudiced against cockroaches.

Dan, I tried this with the bible and homosexuality thread. Some of these people are really good at making claims that they can't back up.In my thread, I simply asked if anyone could give any example at all from the bible besides leviticus that condemns homosexuality, and I got zero examples.Same thing is happening here. Some people are too eager to make bold statements and then run away when asked to explain or to back them up with evidence.Here is a prediction that I'm confident will be more accurate than any prediction you have ever heard. You ain't gonna get any response that will give you a straight foward, no non-sensical, non-poetic answer. The best you can expect is a 20 some lines of poetry that tells you absolutely nothing.

---

The Laminator

​

A leading evolutionary scientist Richard Dickerson, an authority in chemical evolution said "Science, fundamentally is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No.1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behaviour of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural". So evolutionary science isnt necessarily a search for truth as we are usually told but a game which science try to find naturalistic causes even for the origin of the universe and everything inside no matter how complex.ALTERNATIVES OUTLAWED!Rule No.2: Doctrinaire evolutionists insist there is evidence for evolution because any alternative is outlawed by the rules. In other words its natural selection or a creator. There is no middle ground. This is why Darwinists,evolutionists cling on to their natural selection. To do otherwise would be to admit the probability that there is design in nature. Therefore a creator. (So any evidence against evolution is not even considered.)Rule No.3: The 3rd rule of this game of evolutionary science seems to be to insist that all scientist, by definition are evolutionists. Even though thousands of scientist believe not in evolution but in creation and they also have post graduate degrees in science and also pursue careers in science. These men are commonly ignored or ridiculed or even denied status as scientists by the evolutionary establishment. So the game plan is pretty much this. Believe in evolution or get out. No matter what credentials they may have. In their view scientists cannot be creationists without forfeiting their status as scientist.Rule 4: Do not let creationists become scientist at all!. An IOWA state University engineering professor once stated "As a matter of fact, creationism should be discriminated against. No advocate of such propaganda should be trusted to teach science classes or administer science programs anywhere or under any circumstances. More over if any are now doing so, they should be dismissed"Rule 5: Fail creationists!. Another IOWA professor said any professor (lecturer) should have the right to fail any student in his class, no matter what the grade record indicates if that profesor discovers the student is a creationist. Further more the students department should have the right of retracting grades and possibly even degrees if the student becomes a creationist laterTHIS IS INDEED QUITE A GAME SOME PEOPLE ARE PLAYING. So whats the plan of the game in a nutshell? Well i guess the supreme rule is to stiffle arguments against evolution ANY WAY YOU CAN!. Games Some People Play | Answers in Genesis Presuppositions in the Classroom | Answers in Genesis

Almeyda,Science works via the hypothetio-inductive method whereby an observation is made, & a hypothesis is inductively derived. This is about as far as creationism & supernaturalism goes. The important step is to deductively test your hypothesis, & accept potential falsifications.Creationism stops at the first post post. It has no deductive tests, just lots of inductively derived hypotheses that have no potential falsification.What you describe is methodological naturalism. Can you give an example of any physical discovery that has affected mankind for the better that arose via methodological supernaturalism?Consider the following scenario: two rabbits sit next to each other in a field, I hypothesise that they are talking to each other. Since rabbits alone can't talk, they must be rabbit gods. I capture the rabbits but those cunning rabbit gods refuse to be caught talking, nor do they wish to be exposed as gods by acting as anything but ordinary rabbits.My hypothesis cannot be tested, nor can it be falsified. The rabbits might be gods, but since I have no way of telling either way, the explanation has no efficacy. So it is with creationism.The hard core creationist like yourself will accept no falsification of their ideas. I have shown you that the odds of the K-T tektites not being 65 million years old are 70,000,000 : 1. Do you accept it? No, of course not, you just ignore it. I have shown you that the fossil record supports evolution to a colossal degree, do you accept it? No, you just ignore it & carry on like it didn't exist.This is typically creationist. You, & they, assume they are right before the evidence is presented, then refuse to accept it when it contradicts them.Where would we be if real science worked this way? We would still be savages chucking spears at animals, unable to produce any surplus that would allow urbanisation & civilisation (agriculture requires the scientific method - methodological naturalism).I'll take methodological naturalism any day. It works. Methodological supernaturalism is a misnomer, you can accept any untested, unfalsified bullpucky you like; & it hasn't produced a single positive outcome in science & technology that helps us today.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Almeyda,That's certainly a long cut'n pasted list of accusations.None of it, however, fulfilled my request for a specific example in which Creationist findings have been submitted to peer review, and shot down for spurious reasons.Got one of those, by any chance?

---

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

One problem with the request is that usually scientists don't go around saying "my paper was rejected by such and such a journal", we usually knuckle down and fix whatever major flaw(s) had been highlighted by the reviewer or resubmit to another journal with lower standards. When I review papers I don't expect my comments to go further than the journal editor and authors. I expect the same is true in other fields, so unless Creationists have submitted good papers that are then turned down on spurious grounds and then make a fuss over it we'd never know. So, whereas it's possible for a Creationist to come along and say "I had such and such a paper turned down" to prove one side, the lack of such a statement doesn't mean it's not happened.Though I'd guess that Creationists are fairly likely to make that fuss, thus providing the examples you're looking for.Alan

Every thing at AiG is rejected by evolutionists. Theres real scientist working there. But there work is rejected because it doesnt fit an evolutionary framework. What excuse could you possibly have against this?. Its real science real evidence but not evolutionary. And this reason only is why it is rejected. It does not fit the opinion of evolutionists which say only naturalism can explain the earth. Evolution is a natural form of science. Its not general science. Moreover its historical science which relies heavily on interpretation of evidence.

No. AIG is rejected because their Science is BAD, they lie and they are dishonest in the way they distort information.AIG is not rejected because they believe in GOD, but because they are wrong.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Go to AiG. Find an article that you can defend as being genuine, good science. Post the link, explain why it should be considered genuine, good science, and answer all the criticisms.If you can do that then you have a point.If you can't then you're in no position to claim that anything on AiG's site has been wrongly rejected.

Evolutionists are the ones taking you for a ride. Continually having to rethink theories. Never ever having truth while all along Gods word stands tall. The beginning of life is a problem and a half with evolutionists. Even one cell is too complex to arise on its own. Its nothing but your imagination and the opinion of an evolutionist. Yet they still claim against all odds that life arose spontaneously. I remember reading those quotes i wrote in another thread. Evolutionists speaking of evolution as a fairy story for adults. Everything you see you use natural selection for but natural selection continually shows that it has limited variation. Choosing from genetic information already present. Charles Darwin got it right when he described his great work as "too hypothetical". Mutations are used to describe evolution aswell but this shows loss of information and frequently do the subject more harm than good.What else is there? Theres also missing links. Why if everything evolved from a common origin why do we not find billions of fossils of creatures which were transitional?. Although billions have been discovered not one undisputed "in-between link" has turned up. All living organism seem to have appeared abrubtly with no series of fossil forms leading up to them, just about all have remained unchanged since they first appeared. You all say well fossilization is a rare thing. So where is this evidence coming from??? EVOLUTIONARY IMAGINATION!...Gods word never changes and fits the evidence beautifully as AiG shows. Although the world has evolutionized including scientific communities,universities,media,school. It has given rise to the anti creationists wave. Evolution does nothing but run into more and more trouble as scientific evidence accumulates against it. Dont call creationists liars call evolutionists liars and stop them from living a fantasy. We are basing it on the God who was there when it happened and this gives us an incredible advantage over the lie that is evolution.

You have had restrictions placed on your before. You will have them again.You are repeating unsupported assertions.You have not offered any coherant argument to support anything you've said.You have ignored evidence presented to you.You are not debating in good faith.Please attempt to do so.

Ok Lets take this one step at a time..First we must realise the religous nature of evolution. For this is only refuted by evolutionary opinions and biased opinions and not by an unbiased observer. It is the science of one religion vs the science of the other. Worldview | Answers in Genesis Amazing Admission | Answers in Genesis Evolution as Religion | Answers in Genesis Can an excuse be said to refute this? Will you evolutionists continue on pretending this is real science and that is just religion? Or will you accept they are both scientist working with different frameworks? They can both be falsified and they both cant be proven. Yes this is what many of you said makes evolution science. Its nothing but a propaganda plot to indoctrinate the generations to come into evolutionary philosophy. Which then often leads to athiesm and/or humanism. Which of course is without a doubt a religion. There is no way a person here could deny the religious nature of humanism. Secular humanism is a religion. If we can get to this point and acknowledge both attempts at the search for truth then maybe we can get one step forward in this great debate that will no doubt never get resolved.