Creationist "Peer Review"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-05-2016, 05:02 AM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2016 05:06 AM by Silly Deity.)
Creationist "Peer Review"
In its efforts to obtain a semblance of respectability for "creation science" the "Answers Research Journal" - which is one of the propaganda arms of Answers in Genesis - presents itself as a periodical that publishes "peer reviewed" papers.

Setting aside for a moment the oxymoronic nature of "creation science", let's look at the "Instructions to Authors Manual" of this prestigious journal shall we?

In the section on “Paper Review Process” it says:

The following criteria will be used in judging papers:

1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?

2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?

3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?

4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?

5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?

6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture?


No methodology, no empirical evidence, no hypotheses based on observations?

And...........you can submit anything you want provided it supports their biblical stance.

That's peer review?????Facepalm

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 13 users Like Silly Deity's post
17-05-2016, 05:37 AM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
Wow. Blink

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2016, 05:46 AM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
You missed the part about the statement of faith and references, one of which must be a pastor.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2016, 05:57 AM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
I love #3 and #4...

#3.. you should presuppose a young-earth
#4.. if for some insane reason you're going with an old-earth, don't shit on anything that mentions a young-earth and be ready to accept a young-earth as an alternate view. (Of course, we don't need to accept an old-earth as an alternate view because reasons)

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LostLocke's post
17-05-2016, 06:34 AM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
(17-05-2016 05:46 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  You missed the part about the statement of faith and references, one of which must be a pastor.

Facepalm

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2016, 06:40 AM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
When all your peers are idiots, you have to set your standards low, and settle for little in the terms of results.


..

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
17-05-2016, 07:13 AM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
(17-05-2016 06:40 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  When all your peers are idiots, you have to set your standards low, and settle for little in the terms of results.


..
"Hi, my name's Kent Hovind and this is my paper..."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2016, 07:34 AM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
(17-05-2016 05:02 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  In its efforts to obtain a semblance of respectability for "creation science" the "Answers Research Journal" - which is one of the propaganda arms of Answers in Genesis - presents itself as a periodical that publishes "peer reviewed" papers.

Setting aside for a moment the oxymoronic nature of "creation science", let's look at the "Instructions to Authors Manual" of this prestigious journal shall we?

In the section on “Paper Review Process” it says:

The following criteria will be used in judging papers:

1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?

2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?

3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?

4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?

5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?

6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture?


No methodology, no empirical evidence, no hypotheses based on observations?

And...........you can submit anything you want provided it supports their biblical stance.

That's peer review?????Facepalm

That's their peers!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2016, 08:10 AM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
And just to make it even funnier Ken Sham has announced the dates of the next International Creation Conference!!!!

Kenny boy excitedly states that, "Many staff members here at AiG, with doctorate degrees in a variety of science and other fields, plan to attend the ICC and present their peer-reviewed research papers. You’ve probably heard the false claims of many secularists who say that creation research isn’t conducted and reviewed. This major international conference refutes that ridiculous falsehood. Of course, many secularists claim that if a person (even a person with a PhD) believes in creation, then he or she can’t be a real scientist! That’s the sort of prejudice and intolerance that exists in the secular world."

Well Kenny boy, I think its fair to say that those peer-reviewed research papers will be an absolute hoot.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Silly Deity's post
17-05-2016, 12:35 PM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
I dug this up from a post I made a while ago but it pretty much screams confirmation bias.

Quote:By working closely with your editor you will better ensure final acceptance of your paper and
help the ARJ editorial staff in ensuring accurate publication of your paper. Working with your editor builds
an effective partnership whose goal is to ensure that the Creation and Flood model is given the best possible
development by all concerned.

This is the antithesis of how the peer review process is conducted in science.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: