• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Why don't creationists publish?

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame

You guys who believe in evolution are always saying: "Why don't you Christians publish in science journals?" If a science journal is dumb enough to publish something that says everything came from nothing for no reason, I'm not too impressed. I'm not sure I want to be associated with that kind of stupidity. You have to go to college for years to be that dumb.


source.

:darwinsm:
 

oatmeal

New member

You guys who believe in evolution are always saying: "Why don't you Christians publish in science journals?" If a science journal is dumb enough to publish something that says everything came from nothing for no reason, I'm not too impressed. I'm not sure I want to be associated with that kind of stupidity. You have to go to college for years to be that dumb.


source.

:darwinsm:

Interesting
 

Arthur Brain

BANNED
Banned
If that's the "calibre" of the argument then it's no wonder there's little to none in the way of articles submitted for peer review that have been given any credence? You do realize that peer review isn't just a bunch of atheists hanging around a lab ready to dismiss anything that doesn't fit with their preconceptions? That it's a very stringent process that's ongoing etc?

Ya know, just making sure...

:plain:
 

6days

New member
Arthur Brain said:
...then it's no wonder there's little to none in the way of articles submitted for peer review that have been given any credence.
It's pretty simple Arthur. Journals are private enterprises that cater to a specific audience. An atheist should not expect to get published in peer reviewed Christian journals... Nor does a Christian expect to get published in secular journals if they attack the the ruling paradigm / belief system of the subscribers.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It's pretty simple Arthur. Journals are private enterprises that cater to a specific audience. An atheist should not expect to get published in peer reviewed Christian journals... Nor does a Christian expect to get published in secular journals if they attack the the ruling paradigm / belief system of the subscribers.
Peer review is not a necessary part of the scientific process.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Peer review is not a necessary part of the scientific process.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

They are a key part of the scientific process. One of the key principles of the scientific process is repeatability. If you publish something that others cannot reproduce/independently verify then you have a problem.

There is no reason that a "creation scientist" would not be published in a mainstream scientific journal if their work rises to the level required for publication.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
They are a key part of the scientific process. One of the key principles of the scientific process is repeatability. If you publish something that others cannot reproduce/independently verify then you have a problem.
Cabinethead thinks peer review is necessary for an experiment to be repeatable. :plain:

Nope. Peer review is not a necessary part of the scientific approach. Experiments can be repeated on ideas that have not gone through peer review.

It's bizarre that you would suggest otherwise.

There is no reason that a creation scientist would not be published in a mainstream scientific journal if their work rises to the level required for publication.
And they are.

Yay, Cabinethead is here to contribute absolutely nothing again.


Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Cabinethead thinks peer review is necessary for an experiment to be repeatable. :plain:
Well there is a complete lie from Stripe. What I said was, "One of the key principles of the scientific process is repeatability. " Note that I said nothing anywhere near to what Stripe is saying.

Nope. Peer review is not a necessary part of the scientific approach. Experiments can be repeated on ideas that have not gone through peer review.
Sure they can. But when you publish in a peer reviewed journal, it initiates a much more formal process. Your peers look at your work and will scrutinize it. If they find an error or an inconstancy or have a question, they will send a formal response that to you and you have to address those comments and republish. The peer review keeps everybody honest.

It's bizarre that you would suggest otherwise.
What's bizarre is you commenting on a process that you obviously know nothing about.


And they are.
Good for them! HAve any links to support this assertion?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well there is a complete lie from Stripe.
Oh, so you were just quoting me and disagreeing for the thrills. :plain:

The peer review keeps everybody honest.
:darwinsm:

What's bizarre is you commenting on a process that you obviously know nothing about.

Good for them!

:thumb:

:loser:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
they have become a key part of the scientific process, relatively recently in terms of scientific exploration
I suspect that there is a reason for that. Don't you?



that doesn't require publication in a peer reviewed journal
No, it doesn't. But when you do publish, others will likely repeat your experiment and see if they get the same results.

gonna stop you right there


modern publication in a peer-reviewed journal does not serve science

it serves academia
As most of the pure research science is done in the academic realm, it serves both science and academia. I don't see you think this is some sort of problem. People have gone after Einstiens's work for years. Many have set out to disprove what he proposed and have instead ended up verifying that he was right. Academic rivalry actually helps the scientific process.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
I suspect that there is a reason for that. Don't you?

of course - the explosive growth in academia


As most of the pure research science is done in the academic realm, it serves both science and academia.


ideally, yes

and this is still largely true in the disciplines of pure science, to a lesser degree in the disciplines of applied science and not at all in the fields of social "science"
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
"In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud, [peer review] is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias and easily abused."

source.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
When you do publish, others will likely repeat your experiment and see if they get the same results.

:rotfl:

One in a thousand.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Peer review has nothing to do with repeatability.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

ok doser

Well-known member
"In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud, [peer review] is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias and easily abused."

source.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk



it's a game that you have to play in certain areas of academia - those who learn to play it well tend to get promoted
 
Top