Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
It's the peer-reviewed creationist journal.
Creationists can claim "peer review" but this is just another example of their dishonesty.
Peer review has both a specific meaning and a specific implication. The specific meaning is in the world of science, where peer review refers to review by experts in the field. The specific implication is that they are looking for errors or problems with the submitted article. I've been through peer-review from both sides and have a good idea how it works.
The way creationists use it is dishonest. They say, "Hmmm. Scientists want peer-reviewed articles so we'll do it ourselves. Our way."
Only it isn't the same and everyone knows it.
Real peer review, done by scientists, first and foremost makes sure the submitted articles conform to the rules and methods of science. This is exactly what creationists seek to avoid in their "peer review." They can't conform to those rules and methods, so they have to fake it with their own "peer review." Dishonest.
This is much the same (failed) tactic they tried with creation "science." Creationism was tossed from the classrooms by a U.S. Supreme Court decision, so they simply changed the name and tried again. When that was tossed they changed from creation "science" to ID.
How dishonest can you get??
If your ideas and beliefs can't stand the test of the marketplace and scientific scrutiny, maybe they're wrong. Trying to disguise them as science when everyone knows that they are the exact opposite of science is just plain dishonest.
So don't cite creationist "peer review" as if it meant anything.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 120 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 8:17 PM|| ||slevesque has not yet responded|