PDA

View Full Version : Peer-reviewed Creationist journal -- Answers in Genesis



daddarioc
02-28-2008, 08:18 AM
Well there is finally to be a place for 'scientific creationist papers':

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/call-for-papers

A few highlights of submission process as I've read through them:



VIII. Paper Review Process
Upon the reception of a paper the editor-in-chief will follow the procedures below:
A. Receive and acknowledge to the author the paper?s receipt.
B. Review the paper for possible inclusion into the ARJ review process.
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? If necessary, refer to: R. E. Walsh, 1986. Biblical hermeneutics and creation. Proceedings
First International Conference on Creationism, vol. 1, pp. 121?127. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation
Science Fellowship.
Remark:
The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith. The editors play a very important initial role in preserving a high level of quality in the ARJ, as well as protecting AiG from unnecessary controversy and review of clearly inappropriate papers.
(my emphasis)

...unnecessary controversy? Like what, discussion of facts and evidence that might run contrary to dogma in pursuit of truth? Isn't that sort of the point of a peer-review, and science, to pursue facts and truth where it may lead?


a. Gather at least three (3) reviewers (possibly including the editor), competent in the area of each paper. Competent creationists are to be sought. Though not required, each editor may get noncreationist criticism on each paper regardless of whether sufficient
qualified creationists were available for review, but caution and discernment should be exercised. (my emphasis)

res7426
02-28-2008, 08:20 AM
roflcopter

JAGERBOY
02-28-2008, 08:33 AM
lolmayonnaise

JAGERBOY
02-28-2008, 08:47 AM
http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g99/ZGSON/jeezus-1.jpg

AKR
02-28-2008, 08:56 AM
I'm tired of christians like this pretending to be scientific. It really just moves us backwards. It just muddies the waters of real science. Fukkers. (some christians actually are scientific, but these idiots aren't.)

riptor
02-28-2008, 09:00 AM
This isn't a peer reviewed journal if it only consists of people from one institution. Also, a peer reviewed journal that produces no citations in other journals is obviously nonsense.

jf1
02-28-2008, 09:26 AM
LOL!

OXYMORON OF THE CENTURY!
"scientific creationism"

JAGERBOY
02-28-2008, 09:32 AM
CREATIONIST SCIENTIFIC METHOD:

1. Observe phenomenon
2. Assume God did it (hypothesis)
3. Do not test hypothesis
4. Submit to peer review
5. Reject any contradictory criticisms or evidence regardless of validity
6. Conclude that God did it.

user89489489438943
02-28-2008, 09:42 AM
http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g99/ZGSON/jeezus-1.jpg

rofl

catmando
02-28-2008, 03:11 PM
"You can't call yourself a Think Tank if all your ideas are stupid". Bill Maher

timbo81
02-28-2008, 03:17 PM
I'm tired of christians like this pretending to be scientific. It really just moves us backwards. It just muddies the waters of real science. Fukkers. (some christians actually are scientific, but these idiots aren't.)

oh i'm sorry do you want us to apologize for not subscribing to your world view. Curse that freedom of speech.

dingdongdan
02-28-2008, 05:09 PM
A friend of mine writes for them..

Not into creationist stuff myself but hey whatever makes you happy.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/genesis.asp

He's written a couple of books too.

rampagefc77
02-28-2008, 05:22 PM
In for mature discussion regarding religion. *looks at members who have posted in thread*

nevermind...

AKR
02-28-2008, 08:59 PM
oh i'm sorry do you want us to apologize for not subscribing to your world view. Curse that freedom of speech.

WTF? What does this have to do with the fact that these people keep on pretending to validate their bull**** scientifically, while not really being legit?

Ruhanv
02-29-2008, 03:34 AM
http://photos-h.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v50/25/74/3113578/n3113578_30889527_7778.jpg

riptor
02-29-2008, 09:47 AM
In for mature discussion regarding religion. *looks at members who have posted in thread*

nevermind...

Answers in Genesis is a young earth creationist organization that claims the earth is only 6000 years old, that dinosaurs and humans lived simultaneously, that a global flood occurred and caused all of the geologic features now present, among other things. To accept these ideas you would have to throw out all of modern biology, geology, chemistry, physics, cosmology, astronomy, archeology, much of ancient history, and virtually every other -ology.

If you look at their mission and about us statements, it is clear that they form their conclusions before looking at the evidence based upon their religious beliefs.


We relate the relevance of a literal Genesis to the church and the world today with creativity.

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/mission

If you wish to argue for the validity of any of their claims feel free to do so.

ElderJefferson
02-29-2008, 11:47 AM
If you look at their mission and about us statements, it is clear that they form their conclusions before looking at the evidence based upon their religious beliefs.

It's not so much that they form their conclusions ahead of time, but rather they gather data which seems to support their preconceived conclusions, as well as interpreting the data based on those same notions.

This exact thing occurs in every major scientific facet from what I can tell. This has been my biggest hangup in regards to "scientific findings", as it seems the interpretation takes precedence over the data itself.

I've ventured to that website many times, and they seem to present valid scientific findings for the most part. It's their interpretations and theories that get shot down by most other scientists.

Fidelis
02-29-2008, 12:18 PM
This exact thing occurs in every major scientific facet from what I can tell. This has been my biggest hangup in regards to "scientific findings", as it seems the interpretation takes precedence over the data itself.
I don't doubt that this is true to some degree, but all of the major theories are based on observations rather than "preconceived notions". Scientists in the 1800s had no preconception of evolution by common descent. It was only after thorough investigations that they ever had that idea. No one had preconceptions about special relativity or quantum theory. Remember, people used to believe that the earth was flat, or that it was at the center of the universe. Scientists revolutionized our thinking about the earth and its placed in the universe in SPITE of the preconceptions that we had.

Yes, some scientists certainly do try to get their data to fit their hypotheses, but those are bad scientists. When you consider science as a whole, you find that it does more to dispell our preconceptions than to confirm them.

Aries21
02-29-2008, 12:28 PM
********

BIG JOHNNY C
02-29-2008, 02:17 PM
The Bible always had said that the earth was round, didn't anyone read it back then?

aiwass
02-29-2008, 04:06 PM
It's not so much that they form their conclusions ahead of time, but rather they gather data which seems to support their preconceived conclusions, as well as interpreting the data based on those same notions.

This exact thing occurs in every major scientific facet from what I can tell. This has been my biggest hangup in regards to "scientific findings", as it seems the interpretation takes precedence over the data itself.

To some extent, this is the case in any epistemological matter. One will always have some preconceived hypotheses.

However, there's a vast difference between at least 1) basing the fundament of one's hypotheses on empirical data (Darwin got the idea of evolution from observing differently adapted sub-species, Newton got the idea of gravity from observing things fall) while being open to revise one's ideas in the event of new discoveries, and 2) starting out with an ancient book of fairytales as the preconceived conclusion to which all new observations must conform.

Swamp Dog
02-29-2008, 05:15 PM
To some extent, this is the case in any epistemological matter. One will always have some preconceived hypotheses.

However, there's a vast difference between at least 1) basing the fundament of one's hypotheses on empirical data (Darwin got the idea of evolution from observing differently adapted sub-species, Newton got the idea of gravity from observing things fall) while being open to revise one's ideas in the event of new discoveries, and 2) starting out with an ancient book of fairytales as the preconceived conclusion to which all new observations must conform.

Can it be argued that scientists use Darwin's Origin of Species in the same way Christians use the Bible? What I mean is that it seems they start at evolution, not with a clean slate, to make conclusions. And yes I would say that Christians do the same with the Bible.

catmando
02-29-2008, 05:19 PM
http://photos-h.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v50/25/74/3113578/n3113578_30889527_7778.jpg
Now THAT'S a great cartoon!!

IraHays
02-29-2008, 05:20 PM
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q56/Irahays/_stagedive.jpg

aiwass
02-29-2008, 06:40 PM
Can it be argued that scientists use Darwin's Origin of Species in the same way Christians use the Bible? What I mean is that it seems they start at evolution, not with a clean slate, to make conclusions.

First of all, Darwin's work isn't beyond reproach or immune to revision the way the Bible is. If and when something in The Origin of Species turns out to be wrong, the scientific consensus will side with the empirical data, not disregard it in favor of the book.

Second of all, what do you mean by 'start at evolution'? The theory wasn't formed out of nothing, it was based on research. Sure, scientists today usually take it for granted that the theory of evolution is accurate (not to say that they would be blind to evidence to the contrary), but that's because countless other scientists have already done the preliminary work to verify its accuracy.