High quality information is essential for our debates here at EvC. Very often in the scientific threads, citations are needed to buttress a point.
Evolutionists can sometimes offer something from a peer-reviewed journal, but give no credence whatever to creationist websites. Creos are sometimes very frustrated when a favoured argument on AiG, for example, is answered with nothing but ridicule and a link to the corresponding rebuttal at TalkOrigins’ FAQ.
Well, if creation science really is proper science, it should be able to get into peer-reviewed journals, right? Any creationist scientist would love to get published in Science, right? But it doesn’t happen.
Because it’s balderdash, say the evos. Bias and narrowmindedness! say the creos. It can’t be denied that authors attached to prestigious mainstream scientific institutions have less trouble than others in getting published.
Deadlock, it would appear. I wish to humbly suggest a modest proposal for a research program to help settle this question.
It will proceed as follows:
- Creos put their heads together and come up with a shortlist of work which in their view really merits publication .
- A published scientist working at an evolutionist institution approaches the psychology or anthropology department at their institution, explaining the facts of the case and suggesting a collaborative paper.
- The scientist fronts for the creationist research, submitting it to a variety of publications.
- The papers are accepted , or not.
- The creationists can have the merits of their work reviewed without fear of paradigm prejudice.
- The psychologist/anthropologist can also make an assessment of the fairness of the process.
- They and the scientist get to co-author a paper, with lots of media if they play it right.
A win/win situation? Any volunteers?
[This message has been edited by Chavalon, 12-30-2002]
[This message has been edited by Chavalon, 12-30-2002]