Pharyngula

A new source for fake science

Answers in Genesis, fresh from their success at aping real science with their fake “Museum,” has a new dishonest enterprise in the works: they’re starting a fake science journal, the Answers Research Journal, which will publish “cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of’created kinds,’ and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins.” Isn’t it sweet how they declare up front exactly which answers they’ll accept?

I hope they’re planning to have a very tight review process. They’re going to face some Sokal-like challenges, as one person has already announced a competition to get a crank paper published.

Keeping in mind that this is the organization responsible for the disgraceful Creation Museum, I am issuing a challenge to the skeptical community and to those of you interested in maintaining high standards in American science education. The first biologist, historian, anthropologist, archaeologist, or astronomer who can get a crank paper published in the Answers Research Journal and reveals their hoax on this site will win…a very special award to be determined later!

Silly person. Don’t you know that everything published in that journal will be a crank paper?

Comments

  1. #1 David Marjanovi?, OM
    January 10, 2008

    References are an important part of any research paper because they establish the credibility of your research and provide the readers with a source of further reading.

    It has been said before: this is a cargo cult.

  2. #2 David Marjanovi?, OM
    January 10, 2008

    LOL! I had no idea how literal “It has been said before” would turn out to be. :-D

  3. #3 David Marjanovi?, OM
    January 10, 2008

    Aaaarrggghhh!

    “Evidences” is not the plural of evidence! It’s a fucking VERB! If they can’t even use the language correctly, or a dictionary, how can they expect to do anything useful?

    Since when, actually? While nowadays it’s a shibboleth for scientists vs others, I’ve read a scientific paper from the 1950s from a native speaker of English that talks about plural evidences.

    Has “information” always been the singular-only word in English that it is now? (In German and French, for example, it’s not…)

    Most “real” peer reviewed journals require a license to publish but allow the author to retain copyright.

    That’s unfortunately not true. Typically you only retain the right to use the figures again elsewhere and to use the text in future compilations of your work or things like that, and to freely distribute the reprints (but not to copy them).

    ceci n’est pas une

    revue scientifique. :-)

    (You got the gender of revue right!)

    They have set a high bar on the quality of submissions. Single spaced, RTF format

    Single-spaced? Seriously? Told you it’s a cargo cult. Journals always want double-spaced manuscripts so the editors and peer-reviewers can print it out, read it, and make annotations by hand at leisure. Few people can brag (like me) to be able to read off a screen for hours. And why not .doc or .pdf??? .rtf files are even bigger than .doc files.

    Yes, I agree that poetry is about entertainment. From this it follows that poets ought to wipe the smug grins off their faces. They’re hedonistically playing about with little cute phrases; they’re not writing anything profound or doing anything constructive. And at any rate, I think there are plenty more entertaining things to do than writing and reading poetry.

    You are saying Cuttlefish is not a poet.

  4. #4 David Marjanovi?, OM
    January 12, 2008

    PZ: does Kseniya have a Molly yet?

    Sure, since May 2007. She’s just too shy to mention that.

    (Which latter phenomenon is, unlike hedonism, not a good thing.)

  5. #5 David Marjanovi?, OM
    January 13, 2008

    Now, it is the case that I (for one) don’t find much value in vast amounts of poetry or literature, but that doesn’t mean there is no such thing as entertaining poetry or good literature.

    However, the highest form of it all is not poetry, but the gag comic.

  6. #6 David Marjanovi?, OM
    January 13, 2008

    Another thing no-one has commented on is the prevalent consensus, at least among people from the humanities, that poetry is somehow philosophically profound and replete with wisdom. Now this is complete bullshit.

    I agree in the vast majority of cases. So what?

    so, what is it?

    just lonely?

    ex girlfriend was an artist?

    Having had to learn Shakespeare by rote without being taught what grammar like “thou spakest” means?

  7. #7 David Marjanovi?, OM
    January 14, 2008

    Incidentally, the Kalevala wasn’t in Finnish in the strict sense. It was in Karelian. Don’t ask me what Elias Lönnrot did to the vocabulary in order to preserve the meter when he wrote it down…

  8. #8 delta4ce1
    April 29, 2009

    It’s sad and amusing at the same time that evolution is still just a theory without a shred of actual evidence to back it up. Yet, it is always presented to the public as a fact. How could anything be more dishonest and fraudulent? Nothing.

  9. #9 Rorschach
    April 29, 2009

    delta4ce1 drive-by troll @ 213 cowardly lying for jebus :

    It’s sad and amusing at the same time that evolution is still just a theory without a shred of actual evidence to back it up

    You dont say ! Are you sure you know what a theory is? Or evidence,what those words mean?
    Poor xtian zombie retard.

  10. #10 Josh
    April 29, 2009

    …that evolution is still just a theory…

    I wonder just what this troll expects it to become

    SCIENCE FAIL.

  11. #11 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 29, 2009

    It’s sad and amusing at the same time that evolution is still just a theory without a shred of actual evidence to back it up.

    Our poor ignorant drive-by troll hasn’t checked the peer reviewed primary scientific literature prior to lying his ass off. There are probably a million or so papers directly and indirectly supporting evolution in all the fields of geology, biology, paleontology, biochemistry, molecular biology, etc. Absolutely nothing supporting creationism or ID, which are religious ideas, not scientific theories.

  12. #12 Kel
    April 29, 2009

    evolution is still just a theory

    Yes, those pesky theories: like gravity… is it really too much to ask that anyone who criticises evolution at least grasp the basics of the scientific method?

  13. #13 Lilly de Lure
    April 29, 2009

    Kel said:

    Yes, those pesky theories: like gravity… is it really too much to ask that anyone who criticises evolution at least grasp the basics of the scientific method?

    Judging by the trolls regularly spotted on Pharyngula our survey says yes, I’m afraid.

    Depressing isn’t it . . . .

  14. #14 Kel
    April 29, 2009

    Incredibly depressing. It’s amazing the arrogance of ignorance that is displayed – these people have no idea whatsoever. Why not ask about the evidence for evolution, why not ask about the difference between theory and fact in science? Can’t have that. That would show a capacity for humility and a desire to learn. Instead just another pathetic godbot who doesn’t know the first thing about anything.

  15. #15 Josh
    April 29, 2009

    …is it really too much to ask that anyone who criticises evolution at least grasp the basics of the scientific method?

    I’s say the answer to this is a pretty emphatic yes. As we repeatedly see, here and elsewhere, knowledge makes the baby Jesus cry. Lying, however, doesn’t appear to bother the Big J at all.

  16. #16 Josh
    April 29, 2009

    In other news, I actually sucked up the shit it would spew on my hard drive and followed the link to that AIG journal. There’s a paper in there that tries to argue that chalk deposits are congruent with the Noachian Flud. I haven’t finished it yet because I can’t read more than about a paragraph without having to stop and breathe for a minute because I’m laughing so hard.