Why don't creationists publish?

Jehovah's Witnes Discussion Forum ^ | 5-2-03 | German JW

[Con X-Poser]

Recently, Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig, a JW working in a leading position at the Gene-Science-Department at the Max-Planck-Institute, has been banned from the Institute's WebSite for spreading his view about Evolution. He promotes the so called "Intelligent Design".

Max-Planck-Institute calles this Creationism in disguise. They said they ridiculed themselves by letting him keep on. Despite he had the support of his boss, Loennig's WebSite is now gone and subject to investigation.

I am not competent in discussing the topic on this level but I prefer a dialogue to a ban. It seems the Max-Planck-Institute has run short on arguments.

You find Loennig private WebSite here: http://www.we-loennig.de/

You find a discussion of the ban (in German) here: http://www.vdbiol.de/debatten/evolution/evolution.html

[activationproducts]

I think they mean published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. The reason that creationists can't get published in said journals is that creationism is not science.

Creationists should just be intellectually honest and admit that they would rather use religion to answer the question "where did we come from?" than science. It is that simple.

[r9etb]

Fundamentalists try to put us all in the same atheist box, and it doesn't wash, and they get a bit upset about it.

Agreed. The creationists (not all "Fundamentalists" are creationists) attack the atheists, but in so doing, they attack the scientists as well.

"Science" is not absolved in this matter, though: the strong tendency is to label all challenges to the theory of evolution as "creationist attacks," and in many cases one can see scientists using arguments from atheism to defend their claims.

Personally, I don't much care -- my faith in God doesn't depend upon the falsification of evolution.

[Long Cut]

"Creationists should just be intellectually honest and admit that they would rather use religion to answer the question "where did we come from?" than science. It is that simple."

THIS, my FRiend, is likely the most reasonable and sensible thing anyone will say on this thread regarding this topic.

Thus, don your Nomex.

[=Intervention=]

Have you read peer-reviewed journals recently? If you have, you really can't make that statement with a straight face. As politics has crept into the collegic environment, it has crept into the journals as well. Increasingly, what is held up are things that support a leftist viewpoint, which is very often at odds with science itself. Pick up a few. You'll see what I mean. A case in point -- I was reading the some peer-review journal some years back when I stumbled across someone making the claim that even though science didn't support his claim, it was useful and necessary to support his conclusion because it was a progressive viewpoint. This stuff is sadly even more common now. You also have to factor in the whole social aspect of science, which is "paradigm defense". Science has its out groups and its blind spots, like any other endevour. Don't fool yourself into thinking that all scientists are dispassionate questers for the truth. That's NOT true. Many of them have years worth of work wrapped up in supporting a paradigm, and for it to fall or for it to be critiqued, is as much a threat to them personally, as a threat to someone's faith. In fact, it is actually a threat to their faith, if Michael McDermott (sp) is to be believed -- for to him, evolution is truth, and truth evolution. So he claims in his book. But you yourself have already admitted to this -- for conclusions must be correct for you. In other words, the data is irrelevent, and all that matters is the outcome. Sounds an awful lot like paradigm defense to me.

[activationproducts]

Thanks for the kind words. I always enter these threads adequately flame-proofed.

[Poohbah]

Ahem.

God created evolution.

That is all. Carry on :o)

[aruanan]

Why don't creationists publish?

One may as well as why Halton Arp has such a difficult time getting his data published. It's even more outrageous in his case since the reigning paradigm (stellar red shift equals recessional velocity; almost everything is redshifted; almost everything is rushing away from the observer, meaning at some point in the past--at the moment of the big Bang--it was all together) was established within living memory even though the theory has since been fatally undermined by indisputable observational data. But that doesn't keep orthodoxy from simply denying reality. It never has. And it doesn't make any difference whether it's theological or astronomical or biological or political orthodoxy (though some are more immune to change than others--experimental as opposed to historical biology, for instance). At the center of any one is a group of people trying to hold onto position no matter what. And they certainly won't let something so trifling as the truth interfere with that.

[Aric2000]

Personally, I don't much care -- my faith in God doesn't depend upon the falsification of evolution.


Good for you, now if more creationists would look at it this way, we would not have a problem.

and yes, not ALL fundamentalists are creationists.

Just be careful, because those of them that believe in creationism, will call you all kinds of nasty names.

[aruanan]

At the center of any one is a group of people trying to hold onto position no matter what. And they certainly won't let something so trifling as the truth interfere with that.

And a prime example is the Jehovah Witness religious hierarchy.

[Right Wing Professor]

case in point -- I was reading the some peer-review journal some years back when I stumbled across someone making the claim that even though science didn't support his claim, it was useful and necessary to support his conclusion because it was a progressive viewpoint.

Can you post a citation for this extremely unlikely claim?

[=Intervention=]

"Surely YOU know that every reputable geologist AND biologist in the world disagrees with this."

Stop making unprovable arguments.

[r9etb]

The reason that creationists can't get published in said journals is that creationism is not science.

The real reason is this sort of blockheaded opinion, which basically dismisses as "unscientific creationist stuff" anything that does not a priori assume the truth of evolution.

It's the argument of a specific vested interest, and profoundly unscientific.

This does not, by the way, absolve those who would argue against the theory of evolution, from producing actual science to back their claims.

But "Science" if it is honest, must honestly consider "non-evolution" claims -- even if only to disprove them -- when and if they are accompanied by scientific data.

Your statement is not scientifically honest.

[Right Wing Professor]

But "Science" if it is honest, must honestly consider "non-evolution" claims -- even if only to disprove them -- when and if they are accompanied by scientific data.

Agreed.

I'm not holding my breath.

[Poohbah]

But you yourself have already admitted to this -- for conclusions must be correct for you.

Uh, yeah.

At the end of the day, your proposed explanation must have the ability to explain existing data and correctly predict data that will be found in the future.

Creation Science and Intelligent Design have zero capability in this respect.

In other words, the data is irrelevent, and all that matters is the outcome. Sounds an awful lot like paradigm defense to me.

When you say your prayers tonight, be sure to thank God that He didn't make gross stupidity physically painful.

[Poohbah]

Fine. Start making some useful predictions with creation science.

[=Intervention=]

Creationism is a slur used by evolutionists to discredit intelligent design people, and you show your colors, here. I hope you don't claim to be impartial. (Johnson, in particular has not made a claim to be scientist. He's a philosopher!)

[Long Cut]

"Stop making unprovable arguments."

Unless you are in my Chain Of Command, stop issuing me oreders.

The statement stands. Search any REPUTABLE geology or biology department at any university of note, and you will find it to be true.

And Bob Jones U. doesn't count.

[Nataku X]

Probably thought a magazine like "Scientific American" (dumbed down tripe for the laymen often politicized) was a peer-reviewed journal. Or, else, he was reading in a journal in a less-scientific discipline like psychology, law, education, etc. Hope he can clear that up soon.

[Aric2000]

ID=Creationism, basic tenet is the same. Goddidit.

What is so difficult for you to understand?

When you follow the ID trail, you come to the beginning, and guess where the trail starts, why, from creationists trying to make thier Creation myth fit into science, so that it will be taught in the science classroom of public schools.

Well, it ain't science, and it sure as heck likes to scream that it is, but until you can scientifically PROVE the existence of the designer, then it so much religious gobbldey gook.

[Poohbah]

Johnson, in particular has not made a claim to be scientist. He's a philosopher!

OK, so you're saying that he is explicitly NOT using the scientific method, but is instead using "philosophy."

There are philosophies out there that hold the idea that objective reality is nonexistent. Does that mean that one should go out and play in traffic?