Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 1:51 AM
20 online now:
AZPaul3, Tangle (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,790 Year: 9,826/19,786 Month: 2,248/2,119 Week: 284/724 Day: 9/114 Hour: 3/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Answers Research Journal (new creation research journal)
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1878 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 1 of 17 (455503)
02-12-2008 5:45 PM


A new scientific journal has been launched that claims to be

Cutting-edge creation research. Free. Answers Research Journal (ARJ) is a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.

You will find it at the link below

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/current

Will this finally publish all the original research that Creationists and IDists claim is being undertaken?

Can it truly claim to be a peer-reviewed journal - where do we find a creation physicist?

Your paper will be published if it supports Creation and the Flood, or at least doesn't contradict it. You also hav to provide a biography so that your details can be posted on the Creation Scientist part of the site. So, no Roman Catholic authors then.

I suppose my question is can this "journal" satisfy the demands from th scientific community that Creationism and ID can't be consider science until they publish scientific research?

In my opinion it won't and for the very simple reason that papers will only be published if they conform to already stated conclusions - a problem which has beset all previous attempts.

Edited by Trixie, : Little r in the topic title had to grow up into a big R

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed topic title from "Answers Research Journal - New Kid on the Block" to "Answers Research Journal (new creation research journal)".


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 02-12-2008 9:34 PM Trixie has responded
 Message 5 by Vacate, posted 02-13-2008 12:30 AM Trixie has not yet responded
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2008 1:24 AM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3883
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 17 (455560)
02-12-2008 9:21 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 278 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 3 of 17 (455561)
02-12-2008 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trixie
02-12-2008 5:45 PM


It's not science, it's religion taking on the trappings of science to try to fool people.

Here is the AIG Statement of Faith, which one must follow to be associated with that organization.

See any science in there anywhere?

It's the exact opposite of science! Science looks for answers, AIG and related organizations seek only to support their particular view of revelation in spite of the massive amount of evidence to the contrary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trixie, posted 02-12-2008 5:45 PM Trixie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by bluescat48, posted 02-12-2008 9:47 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Trixie, posted 02-13-2008 4:16 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2362 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 4 of 17 (455570)
02-12-2008 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
02-12-2008 9:34 PM


Here is the AIG Statement of Faith, which one must follow to be associated with that organization.

See any science in there anywhere?

No science just fundie religion.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 02-12-2008 9:34 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2773 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 5 of 17 (455604)
02-13-2008 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trixie
02-12-2008 5:45 PM


I suppose my question is can this "journal" satisfy the demands from th scientific community that Creationism and ID can't be consider science until they publish scientific research?

I think a person should take note of the fact that while trying to do real science that supports their world view they are still unable to get their work published in existing and respected journals like everyone else does. Why is it that when some pseudo science gets ignored by the scientific community the non scientists just create a respectable sounding journal?

AiG can now join the ranks of all the other worthless journals that sound important while doing nothing of substance:

Homeopathy Journal
Acupuncture Journal
Paranormal Journal

I think the creation of this journal is a clear indicator of what one can expect from the research that will be published. The general public will be awed by the fact that creation science is now a 'serious scientific field' simply because it has a journal. It is just another step in their attempt to gain credibility to the general public while tearing down what science actually does.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trixie, posted 02-12-2008 5:45 PM Trixie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by tesla, posted 02-14-2008 9:08 PM Vacate has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15082
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 6 of 17 (455611)
02-13-2008 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trixie
02-12-2008 5:45 PM


I don't see why it should be any better than their old Technical Journal which was also supposedly peer-reviewed. Which meant that the articles were reviewed for theological "correctness" and not much else.

I suspect that this launch has more to do with the nasty split between the U.S. and Australian branches than anything else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trixie, posted 02-12-2008 5:45 PM Trixie has not yet responded

    
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1878 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 7 of 17 (455616)
02-13-2008 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
02-12-2008 9:34 PM


Instructions to authors
This is worth a read

http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/arj/instructions-to-authors.pdf

I'm interested in any defence that can be proposed for this because I can't think of any.

I wonder if they would publish a paper full of easily identified scientific errors as long as it supported a young earth or a global flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 02-12-2008 9:34 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by bluescat48, posted 02-13-2008 4:21 AM Trixie has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2362 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 8 of 17 (455617)
02-13-2008 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Trixie
02-13-2008 4:16 AM


Re: Instructions to authors
Trixie
I wonder if they would publish a paper full of easily identified scientific errors as long as it supported a young earth or a global flood.

They have been doing that for years, why would they stop now.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Trixie, posted 02-13-2008 4:16 AM Trixie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by CK, posted 02-13-2008 4:39 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
CK
Member (Idle past 2300 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 9 of 17 (455619)
02-13-2008 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by bluescat48
02-13-2008 4:21 AM


Re: Instructions to authors
Isn't that in fact a requirement?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by bluescat48, posted 02-13-2008 4:21 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
PMOC
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 41
From: USA
Joined: 06-01-2007


Message 10 of 17 (455643)
02-13-2008 9:15 AM


Andrew Snelling
It's pretty telling that the editor in chief is one Andrew Snelling. The same Andrew Snelling that is lampooned here: http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

Apparently Dr. Snelling has a legit Phd from a reputable university, but posts two types of articles: 1) Creo-babble and 2)legit uranium deposit research. It's absolutely clear that he conducts real research seperate from his creo-babble ways so that he can hang his hat on publishing in actual peer reviewed journals and collect his shill-money from ICR and the like.

When the editor in chief goes to these great lengths of deception, how can this possibly satisfy the demands of the scientific community for peer reviewed research?

As an aside, for those of you higher up in the academic community, is there any mechanism by which one can have his phd rescinded? Surely this kind of behaviour would violate most, if not any, ethical requirements.


Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by nator, posted 02-13-2008 9:43 AM PMOC has not yet responded
 Message 12 by CK, posted 02-13-2008 10:10 AM PMOC has responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 342 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 11 of 17 (455647)
02-13-2008 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by PMOC
02-13-2008 9:15 AM


Re: Andrew Snelling
quote:
As an aside, for those of you higher up in the academic community, is there any mechanism by which one can have his phd rescinded? Surely this kind of behaviour would violate most, if not any, ethical requirements.

Unless it can be shown that he falsified data or otherwise cheated or committed fraud of some kind specifically in the work he did for his PhD thesis, I don't think so.

He doubt, however, that any legitimate university would hire him if he tried to get into academia.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PMOC, posted 02-13-2008 9:15 AM PMOC has not yet responded

    
CK
Member (Idle past 2300 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 12 of 17 (455652)
02-13-2008 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by PMOC
02-13-2008 9:15 AM


Re: Andrew Snelling
quote:
As an aside, for those of you higher up in the academic community, is there any mechanism by which one can have his phd rescinded? Surely this kind of behaviour would violate most, if not any, ethical requirements.

As long as his proper work conforms to normal standards and he keeps his quack stuff outside of the confines of his university, it's nothing at all to do with the university - nobody will care.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PMOC, posted 02-13-2008 9:15 AM PMOC has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by PMOC, posted 02-13-2008 10:56 AM CK has responded

  
PMOC
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 41
From: USA
Joined: 06-01-2007


Message 13 of 17 (455665)
02-13-2008 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by CK
02-13-2008 10:10 AM


Re: Andrew Snelling
I thought as much. But I think if I were the department head I would be fuming as to how he has applied the degree he earned under my care.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by CK, posted 02-13-2008 10:10 AM CK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by CK, posted 02-13-2008 11:26 AM PMOC has not yet responded

    
CK
Member (Idle past 2300 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 14 of 17 (455673)
02-13-2008 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by PMOC
02-13-2008 10:56 AM


Re: Andrew Snelling
You'd be surprised how bent a lot of mainstream social sciences research work is (not sure about your actual sciences because we don;t mix with those types....).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PMOC, posted 02-13-2008 10:56 AM PMOC has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2230 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 15 of 17 (455983)
02-14-2008 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Vacate
02-13-2008 12:30 AM


science?
God belongs in science because he established it. but science at war with itself is not productive..

i would hope it isn't just trying to prove or not prove a global flood. that scientist will follow true science under Gods direction for his will.

dunno what this journal is going to try to do. but examination of T=0 by people seeking the truth will inevitably find the laws of God.

i wonder if the science i have offered in theory would be proven? would it then be creation science? or science?

there is only one science. and only one God. and God in science does not make it a new science. it would mean God is recognized in science. and because God is true, science would have better direction based on the truth of existence.

if this journal is going to propose a whole new science by adding God into science..it's disturbing.

but by the introduction topic, it would appear that the journal will only do what i have done.

examples:

gravity
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=505&m=31

cosmology
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=2&t=261&m=361

evolution
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=811&m=16#28

quantum mechanics
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=212&m=33#33

global warming , this post and after arguments.
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=336&m=31#39

if this type of science is in the journal, is it science, or creation science?

to me science is science.

Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

Edited by tesla, : last paragraph

Edited by tesla, : No reason given.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Vacate, posted 02-13-2008 12:30 AM Vacate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by CK, posted 02-16-2008 10:08 AM tesla has not yet responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019