[_ Old Earth _] Creationists launch peer-reviewed journal.

[John]

Creationists are adapting another element of the traditional scientific realm to their cause: the peer-reviewed journal.

The Institute for Creation Research, a prominent believer that the scientific method can validate a literal reading of the Bible's account of the creation of the universe, Earth and humanity, has begun soliciting papers for the International Journal for Creation Research.

Peer review, in which a scientist's paper is scrutinized by a group of colleagues, is designed to find errors and weed out half-baked ideas. And although some have criticized peer review for rejecting new ideas just because they're too radical for the establishment to stomach, in the long run, science has marched along through various paradigm shifts.

The IJCR, though, has a few extra requirements to make sure scientific findings stay subordinate to creationist tenets.

"IJCR provides scientists and students hard data based on cutting-edge research that demonstrates the young earth model, the global flood, the nonevolutionary origin of the species, and other evidences that correlate to the biblical accounts," according to the institute's description.

In the call for papers, it adds, "Papers can be in any scientific, or social scientific, field, but must be from a young-earth perspective and aim to assist the development of the creation model of origins." And the three or more people who reviewer each paper are advised that each paper must "provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatico-historical/normative interpretation of scripture."

Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9715114-7.html

 

[John]

http://answersingenesis.org/arj

 

[Barbarian]

Like all religious organizations, the approved topics are those that don't challenge the religious beliefs of the owners.

That's not peer review; that's imposing dogma.

Give them credit for being honest about it, though.

 

[John]

Like all religious organizations, the approved topics are those that don't challenge the religious beliefs of the owners.

That's not peer review; that's imposing dogma.

Give them credit for being honest about it, though.

:wink:

 

[DavidLee]

Like all religious organizations, the approved topics are those that don't challenge the religious beliefs of the owners.

That's not peer review; that's imposing dogma.

Give them credit for being honest about it, though.

:o

 

[BobRyan]

you can't HAVE a "peer review journal" IF atheists are not in charge of it John!

Why is this not clear by now?

Maybe we can solve this by -- another court trial with a clueless judge presiding so we will have no more claims to "peer review" by non-atheists!!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Well known atheist darwinist Colin Patterson admits to the blind religionist dogma in atheist darwinism...

Again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

 

[freeway]

Well known atheist darwinist Colin Patterson admits to the blind religionist dogma in atheist darwinism...

Again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

There are so many atheist or Darwinians that do not truly believe what they believe... but the alternative is God and they just can have that... how many quotes can there be... don't have time right now but tonight may have time to list just a few............freeway 8-) 8-)

 

[Barbarian]

Sorry, you've been suckered by the quote-miners, again. The quote had been excised from a talk by Patterson about systematics, not evolution, and was doctored to make it appear what it was not. Here's Patterson's statement on it:

Dear Mr Theunissen,

Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.
Yours Sincerely,

[signed]

Colin Patterson
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

You've been hovinded again. You're their prey only as long as you continue to trust them.

 

[Barbarian]

you can't HAVE a "peer review journal" IF atheists are not in charge of it John!

Why is this not clear by now?

Odd then, that Francisco Ayala, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Kenneth Miller, and Francis Collins have been/are referees and editors of journals. All of them are devout Christians.

Again, you've been lied to by people who give no evidence of being Christians.

 

[John]

you can't HAVE a "peer review journal" IF atheists are not in charge of it John!

Why is this not clear by now?

Odd then, that Francisco Ayala, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Kenneth Miller, and Francis Collins have been/are referees and editors of journals. All of them are devout Christians.

Again, you've been lied to by people who give no evidence of being Christians.

LoL here he goes once more. Your still a christian if you believe in an Old earth and evolution theory.

 

[Barbarian]

LoL here he goes once more. Your still a christian if you believe in an Old earth and evolution theory.

Sure. You can still be a Christian if you don't believe in an old earth or evolution. You just are a somewhat unorthodox one.

 

[John]

Sure. You can still be a Christian if you don't believe in an old earth or evolution. You just are a somewhat unorthodox one.

You should follow along in the apologetic and theology forum, I've started a neat thread that deals with what the Bible actually says, there is too many people agreeing with me we need some more opposition, lol

 

[BobRyan]

Sure. You can still be a Christian if you don't believe in an old earth or evolution. You just are a somewhat unorthodox one.

You should follow along in the apologetic and theology forum, I've started a neat thread that deals with what the Bible actually says, there is too many people agreeing with me we need some more opposition, lol

Problem is -- those who believe in the doctrines of atheist evolutionism know almost nothing about the Bible -- they don't want to talk about it because they do not generally know anything about it. So that thread is only going to get Bible-believing Christians to respond.

Bob

 

[John]

Yeah, true enough.

 

[Barbarian]

Problem is -- those who believe in the doctrines of atheist evolutionism know almost nothing about the Bible --

More accurately, those who believe in the existence of "atheist evolutionism" know almost nothing about science. The only people I know of who believe in "atheist evolutionism" are creationists.

they don't want to talk about it because they do not generally know anything about it. So that thread is only going to get Bible-believing Christians to respond.

As you learned, it is impossible for a Bible-Believing Christian to consistently accept YE creationism, since Genesis directly denies the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of the YE religion.

 

[BobRyan]

Barbarian -- Sorry that once "again" you've been suckered into thinking that in PAtterson's letter below he denied ANYTHING of what was quoted prior -- IN FACT he AFFIRMS it.

Maybe a little "red lettering" will help disabuse you of the myths you seem tied to

(this is from YOUR OWN quote of Patterson -
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p386847 )

Dear Mr Theunissen,

Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. [/color] The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

Instead of HELPING your argument -- you just unwittngly shot yourself in the foot using Patterson to finish what my first Patterson quote started -- why do that? How is shooting your own side "more" helping you??

And then worse (as if you don't even read your own posts) you then claim that it is those who READ the details in what Patterson's letter said as he (one of our leading Atheist Darwinists) AFFIRMS that the initial quotes were "Accurate as far as they go" --- you want to claim THEY who SEE your blunder are "suckered"??

you need to actually read what you post as step 1. Then make a rational argument to support your position -- 2. Don't simply blindly "believe" whatever the leadership in the atheist darwinis dogma camp tell you to "think" about the letter Patterson wrote -- go ahead and actually READ it.

Patterson continues:

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort.

Notice that in this part of the Letter Patterson inserts a "build up" as if he is about to debunk all that was quoted by showing DETAILS that are not correct or out of context... and the DETAIL he singled out??? "KEY NOTE ADRESS"

BTW -- did you find a "KEY NOTE ADDRESS" phrase in MY QUOTE? No?? but yet you choose to claim that THIS IS the part of my post that is in error??

Do you even read the text of what get's posted on this thread?

Colin Patterson said:
It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification).

So Patterson's OWN CLAIM to have given a talk on the glaring fact that EVOLUTION has done MORE HARM THAN GOOD -- is your way of saying that those "who notice that fact" in what Patterson said.. are wrong??

Do you even READ your own posts???

Patterson said
I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.
Yours Sincerely,

[signed]

Colin Patterson

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

Clearly you've been atheist-dogmatized into thinking that the letter Patterson wrote was supposed to HELP you instead of merely CONFIRMING THE DETAILS of what was already posted. But remember you are only the prey of those atheist religionists as long as you continue to trust THEM and turn a blind eye to facts -- (even when those facts are in your OWN POSTS!!).

Notice that in this final salvo against your position Patterson exposes one last glaring elephant standing in your living room --- the glaring fact of your uncritical approach to the myths and storytelling of evolutionism -- a "critical view" that Patteson says is key to REAL science.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Ok so now some "behind the scenes" insight into that blunder that Barbarian just laid on this thread.

I found the Talk origins link many years ago and to my surprise the devotees to atheist darwinist dogma were treating the quote AS IF it actually helped their case when in fact if you LOOK at the details IN the quote -- Patterson merely "digs the hole DEEPER" for the atheist dogmatist.

The reason that the devotees to atheist are so easily duped into thinking that the quote HELPS them is that Patterson SETS IT UP AS IF he is about to debunk some key argument made against Evolutionism when in fact (if you take the time to actually READ the letter) all he does is AFFIRM the key details of the previous quotes AND ADD MORE damaging arguments against evolutionism TO BOOT!!

Although I often quote the snippet from the letter "stories about how one thing came from another... NOT SCIENCE" I never start out with Pattern's full letter nor do I give a link to that quote - rather I use the other quotes from Patterson - because I WANT the less-thorough students of atheist darwinism to unwittingly post the Talk Origins letteer where Patterson ADDS even MORE arguments AGAINST evolutionism. I need them to THEN claim that they think the letter HELPS their case (as Barbarian is so helpful in doing for us) -- because this PROVES Patterson's previous statement about evolutionism conveying "anti-knowledge" by DEMONSTRATING IT in action as these devotees unwittingly resort to this Patterson letter "solution".

I really should PAY them. I just can't beleive they blunder into this time after time AS IF they have helped themselves. Frankly I find it amazing!!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Now just so we don't lose context --- here is that atheist darwinist Patterson quote again that "supposedly" is getting "debunked" by the atheist darwinist Patterson letter - where in fact Patterson ADMITS that the quote is "ACCURATE as far as it goes"...

Well known atheist darwinist Colin Patterson admits to the blind religionist dogma in atheist darwinism...

Again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

And of course the ONLY Part Patterson edits/corrects from this quote is the part where it mentions the phrase "KEY NOTE ADDRESS"....

Oh WAIT!!

That part is not in my quote above AT ALL! Hmmm wonder how that got left out! :wink:

Hint for those in Rio Linda -- the quote above does not NEED a "key note" phrase inserted to make it's case!!

:-D

Obviously.

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Bobryan, correct me if I am wrong, but did you ever provide any testable predictions from YEC, or any application?

Without them you must admit YEC isn't science.

I think that I asked you that a while ago and do not remember you ever answering. but again, correct me if I am wrong