Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peer Review or BUST??
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 73 (618918)
06-07-2011 3:59 AM


It seems when it comes to Creationists claims they are often refuted with "prove it" or "show some evidence". Since most if not all of what Creation scientists come up with will not be peer reviewed by the "real" Scientists then all we have is Evolutionists saying "PRATT" to new posts or comments. The only "evidence" Evolutionists will take is from the "real" Scientists. Basically Creation Scientists are censored. They do have their own peer reviewed journals, which can be used for evidence but not so with Evolutionists.
So, what to do? Well, since most of us aren't PZ Myers or Kenneth Miller we get our information from sources. Both sources are peer reviewed but only one source is recognized. Does everyone believe every single thing they see on the news? Or just what's reported? Sometimes it's whats not being reported. There are other sources. Just because they refuse (yes refuse)to peer review Creation Scientists it does not mean we are lying or trying to deceive. We just happen to believe the evidence that is presented to us like Evolutionists do when it's presented to them.
Also, most evolutionists like to say they have Science and evidence to back up their claims and we have the Bible or silly Creationist websites. If Creation Scientists are out there doing research ( and a lot of them are ) and they have journals of peer reviewed articles why can we not reference them? Why doesn't it "count"? Most of you are not out there researching and testing like they are. Yes, we get a lot of info from Creationists websites which are very informative IMO and there is a checks and balances system they go by. Education is sort of one sided since TOE is the only thing taught in Schools. So if you have a Phd for instance and a Christian doesn't the evidence is still the evidence no matter your education.
If the Evolutionists will never take our evidence serious what's the use?
{This message 1 was message 4 of the "Proposed New Topic" version - Adminnemooseus}
{Some past peer review topics: Refereed (peer reviewed) Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?, Links on Peer Review Process, Peer Review Conspiracy, peer reviewed-int. design?, The State of Peer Review - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Topic promotion information.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : List of previous relevant topics.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Dr Jack, posted 06-07-2011 4:48 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 06-07-2011 5:02 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-07-2011 6:30 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 7 by Panda, posted 06-07-2011 6:52 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 06-07-2011 9:56 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 06-07-2011 10:10 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 10 by frako, posted 06-07-2011 12:14 PM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 12 by Taq, posted 06-08-2011 5:21 PM Chuck77 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 73 (619174)
06-09-2011 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coragyps
06-07-2011 10:10 AM


From Coragyps "That sounds like a thread all of its own - can you identify some of these folks that are "doing research" into origins/evolution/etc.? Scientific research? I would prefer people who haven't signed a pledge that "if it disagrees with the Bible it ain't true," but I would look at those, too. "
Well, off the top of my head there is Stephen Meyers and Michael Behe for starters. Both of which have been published in "real" Scientific journals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 06-07-2011 10:10 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 73 (619176)
06-09-2011 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Taq
06-08-2011 5:21 PM


From Tag "No one is stopping you, so why don't you? Pick your favorite paper, start a thread, and then defend it from criticism. You know, do what scientists do. You could even invite one the authors to discuss the paper with us.
This is an open debate forum. No one is stopping creationists from presenting their evidence. So why doesn't it happen? "
Tag, im fairly new here and just getting my feet wet but I will do that soon. I think i'll start will Stephen Meyers peer reviewed article on " Intelligent Design-The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" Published by the proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Taq, posted 06-08-2011 5:21 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-09-2011 12:40 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 06-09-2011 3:56 PM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 07-24-2011 6:35 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 73 (619177)
06-09-2011 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by frako
06-07-2011 12:14 PM


From Franko "Chuck do you realy think there is some worldwide atheist/scientist conspiracy to ridicule creation, and supplement it with creation to get you all to turn away from god. "
Yes Franko, I do. It's called Naturalism. No mention of God whatsoever in any Scientific discussions. Well, except for Issac Newton and the Generals of Science that aren't around anymore. Now we have the likes of Richard Dawkins. Ever heard of him Franko? He kind of exposes your own comment. And then there is eugenie Scott, kenneth miller and PZ, who do everything in their power to fight against a god they don;t believe in. So to answer your question it's a big fat yes. I suppose the God delusion by Richard Dawkins is trying to prove the existance of God? Or the flying spagetti monster I forget?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by frako, posted 06-07-2011 12:14 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by DrJones*, posted 06-09-2011 12:27 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 24 by frako, posted 06-09-2011 3:51 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 29 by GDR, posted 06-09-2011 11:14 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 73 (619178)
06-09-2011 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by nwr
06-07-2011 9:56 AM


From nwr "If those articles are available, then you can certainly cite them in posts here. Expect criticism, particularly criticism about bad methodology."
Thanks nwr, I plan on it. But im sure it's nothing that hasn;t been covered before. We'll see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 06-07-2011 9:56 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 73 (619180)
06-09-2011 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dr Adequate
06-07-2011 6:30 AM


From Dr Adequate "But this is not true. Hardly any creationists submit their stuff to scientific journals; but when they do they are certainly reviewed. And then rejected 'cos of being crap:"
Really? How would you know it's crap if it never gets a chance? Please, don't tell me they don;t submit them. They sure used to and will good cause, but they refuse to publish any of them and the ONE time they do the guy gets fired for it! You know Stephen Meyers wonderful paper that was said to not have gone thru proper review. Thats a lie. It went thru three respevted Scientists hands before being published byu Eugenie Scott and the rest of the anti god crew were besides themselves and the editor got fired becaise he went against the TOE and let another view in. So after that do you REALLY think anyone will ever publish another article from and ID'er or Creationist. Nope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-07-2011 6:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2011 2:18 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2011 4:19 AM Chuck77 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 73 (619181)
06-09-2011 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by DrJones*
06-09-2011 12:27 AM


Im sorry, Dr Jones, is there some big following and tons of evidence of this Odin for the last 2000 years that he would be worthy of mention?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by DrJones*, posted 06-09-2011 12:27 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by DrJones*, posted 06-09-2011 12:33 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 73 (619189)
06-09-2011 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Adminnemooseus
06-09-2011 12:40 AM


Re: I guess we could do it again, but...
Oh great, thanks Adminnemooseus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-09-2011 12:40 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 73 (619203)
06-09-2011 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Adminnemooseus
06-09-2011 12:40 AM


Re: I guess we could do it again, but...
From Adminnemooseus:
" there is a 201 message, existing topic on the matter. It's even still open."
Great, I wonder what it would be like here if ALL the moderators weren't Evolutionists. He wants to send me to a thread where the last comment was in 2005.....besides his that was in 2009 as a follow up of the 2005 comment. Yeah, thanks. In other words buzz off. Gotcha. I know it's just crazy to actualy want to maybe start a new thread on it and not comment on one that is 6 yrs old. Too much to ask I suppose. I already feel cramped here. It's the evo way or the highway. Seems fair.
{Adminnemooseus is responding to this via Private Message - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Private message comment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-09-2011 12:40 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2011 6:36 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 27 by Son, posted 06-09-2011 9:37 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2011 10:30 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 31 by misha, posted 06-09-2011 11:48 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 73 (619899)
06-13-2011 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
06-10-2011 4:19 AM


But this is not true. Sternberg's own website says that he resigned voluntarily before the publication of the controversial paper, and that: "By the time that the controversy emerged I was finishing up my last editorial responsibilities. Thus, my stepping down had nothing to do with the publication of the Meyer paper."[/qs]
Well, this is where I got my information from. Here's a little of the piece. i'll post the link below (if I can)
"Dr. Sternberg's future as a researcher is in doubt because of what was published under his watch, even though the article passed peer review and even though he is not a proponent of ID. According to a recent article by David Klinghoffer in the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Sternberg has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology, and his religious and political beliefs questioned. "
" The article was submitted for the normal peer review, and it passed. So Dr. Sternberg put it in.
Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues - the museum's number two senior scientist denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded email calling it "unscientific garbage."
Other groups, including the publisher, disassociated themselves from the article, saying that it should not have appeared."
" The chairman of the Zoology Department at the Museum, Jonathan Coddington, called Dr. Sternberg's supervisor soon after the article appeared. According to a complaint that Dr. Sternberg filed with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC): "First, he asked [the supervisor] whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization. . . . He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; . . . he asked, `Is he a right- winger? What is his political affiliation?' " The supervisor later told Dr. Sternberg about the conversation."
"In October, Dr. Coddington told Dr. Sternberg to give up his office and turn in his keys to the entire area, thus denying him access to materials he needs for his research. Dr. Sternberg was also assigned to the close oversight of a curator with whom he had professional disagreements unrelated to evolution. "I'm going to be straightforward with you," said Dr. Coddington, according to the complaint. "Yes, you are being singled out."
Klinghoffer tried to contact Dr. Coddington and Dr. Sues, but they did not return his repeated calls for comment.
Dr. Sternberg begged a friendly curator for alternative research space and he still works at the museum. But many colleagues now ignore him when he greets them in the hall, and his old office sits empty. Old colleagues at other institutions now refuse to work with him on publication projects.
According to the OSC complaint, one museum specialist chided Dr. Sternberg, saying: "I think you are a religiously motivated person and you have dragged down the Proceedings because of your religiously motivated agenda." Definitely not, Dr. Sternberg told Klinghoffer. He is a Catholic who attends Mass but notes: "I would call myself a believer with a lot of questions, about everything. I'm in the postmodern predicament."
Dr. Sternberg now rests his hope for vindication on a complaint he filed with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) of discrimination on the basis of perceived religious beliefs. A museum spokesman confirmed that the OSC is investigating. "
Sorry for the long quotes, but that's about the gist of the whole thing. I find it curious that he said he " resigned voluntarily" BEFORE the publication. Isn't that strange to you? He is OBVIOUSLY trying to save his career as he is not taken "seriously" anymore. Im sure he actually thought the paper was Scientific and still does but the amount of backlash it recieved wasn't something he anticipated im sure.
Here's the whole article: Persecution of Richard Sternberg / Amnon Goldberg | Evolution | Scripture & Science | Reformation International College
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2011 4:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-13-2011 5:50 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 38 by Wounded King, posted 06-13-2011 7:52 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2011 7:59 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2011 8:35 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 41 by Trae, posted 06-15-2011 7:06 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 73 (625568)
07-24-2011 2:40 AM


My perspective, now.
Content deleted
*****EDIT***** Im not sure why I posted this here. I got my threads crossed and thought it was my origianl post or Evo or Creo site. My bad. Maybe I should move it?*****
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : Wrong thread
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide most of message, off-topic banner.
Edited by Chuck77, : Deleted the content
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2011 3:21 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 44 by DBlevins, posted 07-24-2011 3:27 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-24-2011 4:45 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 46 by bluegenes, posted 07-24-2011 5:40 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 47 by Son, posted 07-24-2011 5:53 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 49 by Admin, posted 07-24-2011 6:46 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 50 by Taq, posted 07-24-2011 11:11 PM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 73 (625845)
07-26-2011 12:44 AM


Peer review and censorship
I kinda got off track there with that useless rant of mine which was WAY off topic. It happens, I apologise to everyone. As far as I know im way more logical than emotional, but debating and such can be draining and I lost perspective. my bad. Im no cheerleader and don't want to be one, but I think Creationists need to be more supportive of eachother, which would be nice but it's hard to get everyone on the same page it seems.
I think actually peer review has a lot to do with it. if we had some concrete reviews in journals, we could focus on that.
I've already said that Creations have submitted papers and they get laughed at. Although im not so sure peer review is so great anyway.
economist Robert Higgs:
‘Peer review, on which lay people place great weight, varies from important, where the editors and the referees are competent and responsible, to a complete farce, where they are not. As a rule, not surprisingly, the process operates somewhere in the middle, being more than a joke but less than the nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny that outsiders imagine it to be. Any journal editor who desires, for whatever reason, to knock down a submission can easily do so by choosing referees he knows full well will knock it down; likewise, he can easily obtain favorable referee reports. As I have always counseled young people whose work was rejected, seemingly on improper or insufficient grounds, the system is a crap shoot. Personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion and a great deal of plain incompetence and irresponsibility are no strangers to the scientific world; indeed, that world is rife with these all-too-human attributes.’
Im not sure if all this takes place but who knows. it's just someones opinion.
That quote is from this article: Creationism, Science and Peer Review - creation.com
The article just sheds some light on the censorship of creationism and the peer review process. instead of me quoting the whole article (i've read it) if someone wants to pick something from it and discuss it, cool. Or at the bottom of thaqt article are other ones also.
It seems fair (the article). This is how I feel about the situation. Creationists are a joke to a lot of people and no matter what they do won't ever be published. That why they created their own, which are good. I get the info bites from CMI. It's probabnly my favorite site along with Biblical creation.
You already saw what happened to the dude who published Meyers paper. Blacklisted, ousted, ruined, etc etc...( that's another forum tho).

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Taq, posted 07-26-2011 1:35 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-26-2011 1:38 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 07-26-2011 2:13 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 61 by Pressie, posted 07-26-2011 2:54 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024