[John H K]

He explains that his ministry, which defends the biblical account of creation, has had to produce its own scientific journals because of censorship by evolutionists. He says it is nearly impossible to have creation research papers published in magazines like Nature or Science.

Nature and Science have a bias against publishing papers by incompetent, biased morons, it seems.

[APBaer]

"Nature and Science have a bias against publishing papers by incompetent, biased morons, it seems."

A pity really, since instead they drag their nutty ideas into FR where some post stuff like "the earth is 6,000 years old."

[bondserv]

Did you know that when Mt. St. Helens exploded, megatons of mud from a variety of rock types was projected in one direction? These layers created a gigantic natural dam on a river nearby.

The river continued to fill behind the mud dam until it crested. When it crested it began quickly eroding the layers of newly layered mud.

Today there is a canyon there that is many hundreds of feet deep. It remarkably resembles the Grand Canyon (Layers of sedimentary mud of a variety of rock types appearing to be millions or billions of years old).

So you are OK when the scientific and journalistic community’s purposefully ignores these kinds of discoveries.

[stanz]

Nature and Science have a bias against publishing papers by incompetent, biased morons, it seems.

LOL

[Remedy]

Yo dudes, Back off, take a chill pill, pour a little sweet tea and drop those heart rates back to triple digits. -sharkdiver

Nature and Science have a bias like the major media has a bias:

How Does the World View of the Scientist & the Clinician Influence Their Work?

Does the world view of the scientist influence his work as an investigator conducting research and as a clinician treating patients? Many scholars in the history of science would answer that question with a resounding "Yes." Some, like Thomas Kuhn in his widely quoted "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," have argued that the scientific process is less than an objective critical empirical investigation of the facts. They claim the work of scientists is greatly influenced by their culture, by social and psychological environment, by what Kuhn calls the "paradigm"--that is to say, the preferred or prevailing theories, methods and studies of that particular discipline, and above all by their world view--their specific beliefs about "the order of nature." Kuhn writes that two scientists with different views of the "order of nature" . . . see different things when they look from the same point in the same direction . . . they see different things and they see them in different relations to each other." And we might add that they tend to see and to accept those data that conform to or make sense in light of their world view. So evidence exists that the world view of scientists and the presuppositions that view implies may influence not only the problems scientists choose to investigate but also what they actually observe and fail to observe.

[metacognative]

I notice the first resort of you doctrinaire darwinites is name-calling. Covering an insecurity, maybe?

[stands2reason]

2. Mischaracterization of the debate as one between science and religion.

3.The media will turn a blind eye towards, or is completely ignorant of evolution's religious roots.

Well, then, what is it, religion vs. religion? Certainly isn't science vs. science.