quote:
AIG ought to be allowed to publish it?s reports in Nature but it doesn?t because of that publication?s bias.
AiG is most certainly allowed to publish in Nature or any other professional science journal. The problem is, so far Creationist's work hasn't met the standards for publication.
You do know that "Nature" is an extremely prestigious journal and it rejects most of the legitimate, high-quality scientific papers submitted to it, don't you? I mean, most of the best research done in the world still doesn't get published in "Nature". Unless it is really "sexy" research topic (meaning something really amazing or startling or unique), most scientists don't even submit their papers to "Nature", instead submitting to the relavent specific journals of their field.
What I want to know is how many times have Creationists
submitted for publication to
any scientific journal, and when they got the comments back from the reviewers, what did they do to make the revisions or do the furter research?
As far as I know, Creationists have never really even tried to get published in legitimate journals to any meaningful extent. It seems to me to be because they do not put a priority upon doing research. It doesn't seem that they handle rational inquiry very well, and that it the essence of the peer-review system, and
that is how one gets published in a real peer-reviewed jounal.
quote:
Yet, AIG and ICR both provide links to evolutionist reports, when able, so that their readers will have a comprehensive grasp of the subject.
They do? I just visited AiG and ICR and neither one of them links to full or in-context scientific papers that I could see, or even to lay person-friendly pro-science sites like TaklOrigins.
Mostly they take out of context quotes from scientific papers and then list all the reasons why the entire paper must be wrong.
By contrast, every essay on TalkOrigins has a link box on the first page which will link you directly to Creationist responses to that very essay, plus other Creationist and scientific links.
Why do you think AiG and ICR don't therefore link directly to the TalkOrigins responses to their claims? Could it be that they are afraid they will look ridiculous, or that they don't want the faithful to become too educated in science?
quote:
To close, no one has the complete fossil record from which to prove evolution, therefore, that theory is still in flux
There are several problems here.
First, you seem to think that there comes a point in time that a given scientific theory becomes unchangeable, but this is not the case. All scientific theories are changeable in the light of new evidence, and so they are
all in flux.
Now, you point to the incompleteness of the fossil record as a reason to disbelieve the Theory of Evolution, but there are several reasons that this is in error.
The first is that you claim that because we do not have perfect knowledge of the fossil record, we cannot use what we DO know about the fossil record as confirming evidence of the ToE. We don't have perfect knowledge about anything at all, but we can certainly observe what is there and draw conclusions from what we do know.
Secondly, if the only evidence we had for the ToE was the fossil record, your point might be stronger, but the fact is we have a great deal of evidence which supports the ToE from many diverse fields of science including Geology, Biology, Genetics, etc.
™ Version 4.2
