Theres a reason creationists and intelligent designers arent peer-reviewed. Its called philosophical naturalism.
Anyone can submit their research for peer review.
I googled "how do i submit my scientific research for peer review"
And found information on how to submit to a variety of different journals.
I had a look at a few and none of them had any restrictions on what you could submit.
I also found this question and answer that I thought was good enough to include -
quote:Question -Where do I publish my Creation Science research paper? How do I get National Science Foundation grant to study? Where do I publish my Creation Science research paper for peer review?
And how do I apply for grant money from National Science Foundation to study creation science?
There were two answers.
Answer one - The Round File Publishing Company is where I would start.
Answer two - One does not publish a paper for peer review. One submits a paper to peer review. Papers which appear in peer reviewed journals must undergo the peer review process BEFORE being published. After that, everything you get is feedback and critical analysis of your peer-reviewed, published work.
As that's the case, I would imagine you could submit your paper to the peer review process by sending it to any scientific journal you wish, though you are more likely to receive a response other than "this is not our field of publication" if you target journals that specifically deal with the areas your study deals with (for instance, if you are discussing how geology relates to creationism, you would not want to submit your paper to the journal Evolution).
However, unless your science is flawless, you should expect your paper to soundly fail the peer-review process, and be ready for some very scathing critiques of your work. Scientists tend to be very attached to the facts and they spend a great deal of time accumulating their knowledge. As a result, they tend not to take kindly to people they think are frauds.
And how do you apply for grant money from the National Science Foundation to study creation science?
Personally, I don't think you should bother because there's slightly less chance of the NSF awarding a grant to a creation scientist than there is of the Sun turning into a bran muffin next Wednesday.
I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
They actually have planes in Australia that fly and you flew on it? I thought that was a third world, jerk water country, ha ha
What a stupid thing to say: Australia has had running water and electricity since the late 1990s.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
Trial transcript: Day 11 (October 18), PM Session, Part 1
Q: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Remember, this is Dr. Michael Behe testifying under oath. . . .
There you have it, Dr. Behe calls astrology a "scientific" theory.
Sorry. This is an unfair appraisal of what Behe said. Astrology was "at one time" a proposed explanation of physical observable data. He didn't say it qualifies now as a "current" scientific theory. He was referring to the things "throughout the history of science." This would include alchemy and the flat-earth beliefs of people in the middle ages, and the beliefs of both common and educated and "scientific" minds back then that mens bodies had air instead of blood circulating. And of course it includes the beliefs of Darwin and his followers (both back then and today) which we "now think to be incorrect" and "nonetheless fit that."
So if your star sign is a virgo and your daily horoscope predicts that you are going win a million bucks later today, ID would classify it as “science”.
No. And this is a bogus extrapolation of what Behe said as well. He never said there was any scientific validity to astrology, nor is there, really, in Darwinism.
They don’t follow the scientific method. Therefore not science. Therefore not peer-reviewed.
It is Darwinists that don't follow the scientific method, actually. And it is Darwinism which isn't science. Peer review only has any value when there are people in the group that don't suffer from the same delusion as all the others. And, btw, there are creationist peer-review publications.
Correct. It fails to convey the utter failure of Behe and his supporters to provide any basis for Intelligent Design.
He didn't say it qualifies now as a "current" scientific theory.
Correct. He instead said that his own definition of a "scientific" theory would include such nonsense as astrology.
He never said there was any scientific validity to astrology
Correct. And using his definition of 'theory' also means that there is no scientific validity to Intelligent design.
It is Darwinists that don't follow the scientific method, actually. And it is Darwinism which isn't science. Peer review only has any value when there are people in the group that don't suffer from the same delusion as all the others.
...and here you dig yourself into a big pit of ignorance and paranoia.
And, btw, there are creationist peer-review publications.
Great. Hopefully that will silence all those creationists claiming that they are prevented from getting their "science" peer-reviewed - but I doubt it.
Welcome to EvC, WDM
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
Astrology was "at one time" a proposed explanation of physical observable data.
That doesn't make it science, nor does mean that it was science at one time.
"Science" doesn't mean proposed explanations of physical observable data that are believed by people. There's a lot more to science than that.
Peer review only has any value when there are people in the group that don't suffer from the same delusion as all the others.
Well, considering that there are many, many different peer-reviewed journals in the biological and geological sciences, each with its own independent editorial boards,
publishing papers by many, many different researchers, from different countries and cultures, from different social classes, and believing different religions (some of whom are Christian, by the way),
working in many, many different scientific fields, with their own standard procedures and their own training methods,
funded by many, many different agencies, each with their own independent review boards and making their decisions independently, and
are hired by many, many different research institutions and private business, each with their own independent hiring committees,
I think we can rule out the evolutionists from suffering from a common delusion, don't you? I mean, how could the same delusion be maintained among such a disparate group of independent entities for over a hundred years?
Peer review only has any value when there are people in the group that don't suffer from the same delusion as all the others. And, btw, there are creationist peer-review publications.
Creationist "researchers, by the way, are a fairly small group and all pretty much adherents to rather small sects that take a very literal reading of their sacred scriptures. I think that such a group is more likely to suffer from a common delusion, don't you?
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists. -- Abbie Hoffman
There seems an inordinate amount of recent attention on Darwin and evolution rather than the Big Bang. Portillo mentioned Darwin in Message 366, and only to make the point that one could be knowledgeable outside one's specialty, but off we went anyway.
I'm going to introduce Percy's Law: Any discussion between creationists and evolutionists, whether about cosmology, geology, physics, chemistry or biology, will eventually come down to Darwin.
Then there's Percy's Corollary: Any discussion about creation with creationists will eventually end up discussing evolution.
Behe made up his own definition of what he thinks a “scientific” theory is, all to pretend that ID is a “scientific” theory before the judge. Then he had to admit, under oath, that his made-up definition of a “scientific” theory would also include astrology as a “scientific” theory.
In other words, ID is pseudo-science. He had to admit it under oath. The fact that he still pretends that ID is “science” when he speaks to the sheep in church and in religious tracts (which he also calls scientific), does say a lot about what his idea of honesty is.
The 300 post limitation is being reinstated. This thread has surpassed that limitation and is now closed to debate. Participants will have 48 hours to submit one summary of their final position concerning the topic.
Do not respond to previous posts and do not respond to summations.
This thread will be closed for 24 hours to allow viewing of this message and preparation of summations.