Oh dear. Where to begin?

If the peers of creation scientists are other creation scientists, are they in fact using an actual peer review process?



And I'm glad they do. Keeps all the fraudsters and crazies in line (cloning in Korea, anyone? Or insert your favorite scientific scandal.).





As to the first: No, it's not. No, it wasn't. No, it wasn't. And if the rest of the paragraph were true, of course not.

As to the second: Yes, you do. After a bit, I realize that you're not the author, but I'd prefer not to have to wonder. Could you make it easier?

As for the rest...my head hurts. Maybe later.

Christian television often airs debates between creationists and evolutionists. A common "dig" of evolutionists is to insult creationists for not having peer reviewed papers. Of course, peer-review to them means it is reviewed in by scientists that believe in millions-of-years evolution. That is a common practice in the how-to-debate-a-creationist handbook. So context is everything. Asking about peer-reviewed publications in the contexts of a Creation vs. Evolution discussion is a means to belittle the opponent.

Placing a quote from another source in a post without using the quotation box is a common practice when the posting member is not adding any commentary. Check out the following link.

Other Member's Recent Post

Sometimes a posting member will do this and make his or her commentary another color of font. No intention of plagiarism exists.

It's not a dig; it's the way the scientific community works. While I don't know the genesis of the peer-review system, I find it hard to believe (yet if true, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong) that scientists sat around and dreamt up a system that would intentionally keep creationists out. I'd guess that the system evolved because it works to keep the scientific community honest.

By and large, scientists don't expect other scientists to take their work at face value. If they did, it could hardly be called science.



I understand that, and I'm not accusing you of plagiarism. I am asking that you make it easier for me, the reader (with the added thought that it might help other readers as well).

Scientific journals are supported by either grants or subscriptions. A scientific journal that regularly publishes articles by creationists runs the risk of losing subscriptions or rocking the boat of those that award the grants. Thus creationists tend to have their own publications where they publish their articles. Creationists do get published in non-creationist journals when their articles do not deal with origins. There are creationist geologists working in the oil, gas and mining industries that publish their work in scientific journals but it is not origins related. Similarly there are medical doctors that are creationists that have their work in medical journals but it is not origins related. Creationists publishing articles about origins are rarely going to find a scientific journal willing to publish their work. There is a bias that prevents that. So it is rather disingenuous to ask if a creation scientist has peer review work unless other creation scientists are consider his or her peers.

[quote=Shane]

We really have no reason to think otherwise, Shane. The way you posted makes perfect sense to me.

<< Creationists publishing articles about origins are rarely going to find a scientific journal willing to publish their work. There is a bias that prevents that. So it is rather disingenuous ... >>

Science, hopefully, is without bias - otherwise it runs the risk of publishing fictions/myths, not fact. If creationist's papers are rejected in the field of "origins", there must be a good reason. Perhaps they introduce unscientific 'evidence.' Perhaps they cite the Bible, or the Koran, or the Mahabarata (sp?).

Just what is the bias?

This is exactly my point: such papers are rejected, not because of systematic bias, but because they are not science. Once the conclusion is assumed before the experiment is done, based on a non-empirical source, then no matter how well the work is done and no matter how laudable the work is, that work is not science, and will not be published as science. That is not a conspiracy, that is science working properly.

No-one seems to have taken up the issue that, of the list of scientists in the original GRI article, for *all* those who have publications those publications describe life on earth millions of years ago. That seems like kind of an important point.

On the publishing thing, I think given a potentially prickly debate, you've reacted in an overly prickly manner, Shane. Vera was *not* making an accusation of plagiarism in any shape or form, she was simply suggesting a way (which, let's face it, is *really* easy to do) of making posts easier to read and understand. If you don't want to do it that's fine too, but I don't think you should feel a need to defend your honour. You were asked, politely, to do a small thing to make someone's use of the forum more enjoyable, not accused of a crime.

Wishful thinking and perhaps a bit naive. Science is limited in its scope. The whole study of origins is pseudoscience. Science is observable, measurable and repeatable. Origins is not observable - because we can't travel back in time. It is not measurable - because it deals with past events. It is not repeatable. So the study of origins, even within a scientific realm is really unprovable knowledge seemingly scientific because it is acquired by scientific processes. Origins can only be honestly studied by bringing together the disciplines of science, philosophy, history and mathematics.