Creationist "Peer Review"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-05-2016, 12:47 PM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2016 12:51 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"







Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-05-2016, 01:27 PM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
So now they've hijacked 'peer review?'

/facepalm

Ignorance is not to be ignored.

Check out my DA gallery! http://oo-kiri-oo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2016, 03:54 PM
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

I am so using this steaming heap of hypocrisy to slap the stoopid off the next cretinist that whines about how mainstream journals exclude their bullshit.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
17-05-2016, 03:56 PM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
(17-05-2016 01:27 PM)Loom Wrote:  So now they've hijacked 'peer review?'

/facepalm

They say that turnabout is fair play. Who wants to co-author a "peer-reviewed" paper? And how horrid can we make it before they figure it out?

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2016, 06:26 PM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
(17-05-2016 03:54 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  I am so using this steaming heap of hypocrisy to slap the stoopid off the next cretinist that whines about how mainstream journals exclude their bullshit.

Honestly, I doubt it would do much because your average Joe has no idea how the peer review process works in legit journals anyway. If they could spot confirmation bias they probably wouldn't be creationists in the first place.

"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, 06:48 PM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
(17-05-2016 06:26 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(17-05-2016 03:54 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  I am so using this steaming heap of hypocrisy to slap the stoopid off the next cretinist that whines about how mainstream journals exclude their bullshit.

Honestly, I doubt it would do much because your average Joe has no idea how the peer review process works in legit journals anyway. If they could spot confirmation bias they probably wouldn't be creationists in the first place.

Not exactly what I meant. We hear a lot of "Waa! Waa! Big mean science journals conspire to silence creationists and won't publish our fantastical tales! Opression! Censorship! Help! I'm being repressed!" and then they turn around and publish a rag that won't accept anything that's even remotely critical of their dogma.

Oh the hypocrisy!

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
17-05-2016, 07:07 PM
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

It's totally pointless, they have already assumed the conclusion.

And they wonder why they're not taken seriously.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2016, 07:28 PM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
Holy crap.

Seriously.

I always thought their process was garbage...but the reality is so much more....

Worse?

I don't think that's a strong enough word.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2016, 07:39 PM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
International Flat Earth Conference.
- Sponsored by G2-D, Geo 2-Dimensions.

"Many staff members here at G2-D, with doctorate degrees in a variety of science and other fields, plan to attend the IFEC and present their peer-reviewed research papers. You’ve probably heard the false claims of many secularists who say that flat earth 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 geo-lateralism, then he or she can’t be a real scientist! That’s the sort of prejudice and intolerance that exists in the secular world."

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
17-05-2016, 07:52 PM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
Damn DLJ I don't want to live on this planet anymore.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: