ICR article image.
Posted on 08/31/2016 2:38:47 PM PDT by fishtank
Do Creation Scientists Publish in Mainstream Journals?
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
If ICR scientists are “real” scientists, then they should publish in respected, peer-reviewed, mainstream journals, right? In fact, many have.1 But mainstream journal editors’ zeal for naturalism can keep them from fairly analyzing contrasting views on origins—leading them to say “no” to quality creation science.
Science reviewers and journal editors serve as gatekeepers, closing the gate to prevent bad science from reaching the printed page. For example, they are right to reject a submitted article if its conclusions rest more on speculation than on results.2 But they can also close the gate for unscientific reasons.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
ICR article image.
By the way, an FR word search on “journals” turns up some interesting results...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;q=quick;s=journals
Exactly. Given the way “peer review” has been more or less a complete failure in recent years, being denied by a gatekeeper has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of research or science in a paper.
Good article. I linked to it on Twitter. Thanks.
creation science is an oxymoron
there are no creation scientists
The “mainstream publications” do their best to prevent publishing them.
If a geography publication received a submission that purported to show the earth was flat then would you expect them to publish that as well?
The editor excluded the paper because they didn’t want to have to explain an inconvenient truth.
The academic community doesn’t just close the gates on their publications. You have to go to specific universities if you want a PhD in archeology and happen to be a Bible believing Christian. One of my friends hit that particular gate. The committees take a dim view of anyone who actually believes the Word of God.
BTW: In the early 1970’s I attended a debate at the University of Oklahoma between creation science proponents from off campus and the head of the Geology and Zoology departments.
The geology prof admitted that one could examine the geological evidence and build old earth models and relatively young earth models. He stated that either worked. But he worked with old earth models because of what he “knew” about biology. That admission effectively took him out of the debate.
The author of the flat earth paper could say the same thing.
Is dat wat Boudreaux done tole you?
Law, he doan no nuffin'!
This “flat earth” paper is YOUR straw man! It doesn’t exist except in YOUR mind.
A uniform layer of fossils spanning several states DOES exist. It begs for an explanation. Apparently, people who propose a reasonable explanation which does not line up with your presuppositions must necessarily be excluded from the discussion.
Occam’s Razor would suggest that such a layer was produced in a relatively short amount of time. Since this might be construed to support a world-wide flood, it MUST not be discussed.
Naturalism is a religion. Get over it. [It’s is similar to the religion of man-made global warming.]
God is NOT amused by man’s attempts to write Him out of His creation.
Is evolution just a creation story? http://www.faithfacts.org/evolution-or-creation/evolution-science-or-creation-story
Look at Gerald Schroeder’s work on creation
Ever go back and read something you wrote and think, “Hey — is that right...?”
LOL!! I just looked at the book: YOU spelled his name right! ‘-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.