…and this is a 
A new source for fake science
Category: Creationism
Posted on: January 10, 2008 9:06 AM, by PZ Myers
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?
Politics
Comments
Yah, it's like watching an SNL clip show of their commercial parodies: When they cut to a real commercial, how do you know?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | January 10, 2008 9:23 AM
The "instructions to authors" ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/arj/instructions-to-authors.pdf ) is worth a read. The "Paper Review Process" section is particularly interesting - papers are required, among other things, to be faithful to "the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of scripture."
I can't wait to read me some hardcore science!
Posted by: Feste | January 10, 2008 9:23 AM
O/T, but here's an interesting DKos diary on a possible Alzheimer's treatment, with links to Mayo Clinic data among other things. The diary itself is so-so, but the links are interesting and I hope somebody who knows Pterry sees this:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/10/64628/3319/175/434102
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | January 10, 2008 9:27 AM
Although this is a blatant and devious attempt by AIG to overcome the 'no peer-reviewed papers' criticism often leveled at 'creation science', they are so far off-track that they don't even realise that their call for papers neglects the whole principle of science right from the start..
"Papers can be in any relevant field of science, theology, history, or social science, but they must be from a young-earth and young-universe perspective. Rather than merely pointing out flaws in evolutionary theory, papers should aim to assist the development of the Creation and Flood model of origins."
As PZ already pointed out, they're asking for papers that support a particular conclusion - the direct antithesis of science. What an incredible bunch of dishonest, clueless bozos.
Posted by: Steve Norley | January 10, 2008 9:33 AM
If you download the "Instruction to Authors PDF" there is a section that speaks on references.
Scroll down further to see how to properly reference the bible.
and then this
Thank the cosmic muffin they told them how to properly reference the great scientific works of the Bible to establish the credibility of their research.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 10, 2008 9:35 AM
Awesome! After the last dual-papers were rejected for publishing by APJ (after so much work and great data) I can just go ahead and publish it in ARJ. It's only a 1-letter difference.
The published "papers" are a hoot, too! It's so funny that I would almost call Poe's law on this!
Posted by: Rienk | January 10, 2008 9:39 AM
I think it's time for someone to submit a spoof. I'm sure they would never notice the difference.
Posted by: Kay | January 10, 2008 9:43 AM
This looks like a job for.... Super Sock Puppet!
Can write like a creationist without their head exploding!
Can Quote The Christian Bible without laughing out loud!
Able to fool Old Ladies with a single Praise Jesus!
Coming Soon To an AIG Journal Near You!
Posted by: J-Dog | January 10, 2008 9:46 AM
Legitimacy will forever elude these folks.
Is it fun to watch them try for it? I don't know.
I vacillate between extreme anger at their tactics/bullshit and feeling mildly entertained by it.
Half of me wants to slap or shake them awake. The other half is enjoying the show (sort of).
In the end, my anger usually wins out. Their manipulations and lies really piss me off.
I have a motto for the journal:
Answers: We have them. Now let's pretend to go find some confirming evidence.
Posted by: CalGeorge | January 10, 2008 9:51 AM
"this will be a professional peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary SCIENTIFIC and OTHER relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework."
I guess all the papers will be in the "OTHER" relevant research category.
Posted by: negentropyeater | January 10, 2008 9:57 AM
This is hilarious. It's such cargo-cult science. It's like they want to be scientists, and they know that scientists publish journals, so they're going to publish a journal!
And when that doesn't help them be scientists, they're going to re-design their lab coats. And put a better shine on their wicker microscopes.
Posted by: Greta Christina | January 10, 2008 10:02 AM
It has been said before: this is a cargo cult.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | January 10, 2008 10:02 AM
LOL! I had no idea how literal "It has been said before" would turn out to be. :-D
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | January 10, 2008 10:06 AM
"which will publish "cutting-edge research"
Ouch! don't you just hate those paper cuts!
Love this bit from the instructions ot authors:
"d. Spell out parenthetical Bible references, such as Ecclesiastes (to help readers who are unfamiliar with the Bible)"
'cause there's going to be lots of those...
Posted by: dave m | January 10, 2008 10:13 AM
To call it a cargo cult is to insult the original cargo cultists....
Posted by: Clare | January 10, 2008 10:14 AM
I have to agree with PZ, and add a little experience for any potential spoofers.
It will prove incredibly difficult to demonstrate that a successful spoof was actually a spoof to these morons.
If they like the spoof enough to publish it, it may well become part of their "scientific" literature, even if it is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the paper was intended as a spoof. Since their "scientific" literature only exists to strengthen the resolve of their true believers, it won't be difficult at all for their information managers to argue that what the writer intended as a spoof was actually divinely inspired, notwithstanding the original intent. Actually, I believe this has already happened.
One of the things that begins to discourage me is the increasing number of young, college-aged, secular intellectuals who have totally abandoned this struggle against sarcastic ignorance, arguing that (1.) there's no way to win against these morons, anyway, and (2.) there are so many of these morons that fighting them will ultimately damage their employment prospects. It's Ben Stein in reverse.
Posted by: Farb | January 10, 2008 10:18 AM
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?
This one always tweaks a nerve in me.
Posted by: Paul Koeck | January 10, 2008 10:18 AM
Ken Ham provides us with yet another case of parasitism. His Answers in Genesis operation previously used the subscriber list of Creation Ministries International's Creation magazine (which AiG used to distribute in the U.S.) to launch its rival Answers magazine. Having successfully stolen the bulk of CMI's subscriber base in the U.S., Ham now wants to poach on the territory of CMI's Journal of Creation, a so-called "technical journal" for creation-science "research."
Ham presumably no longer has access to CMI's mailing list, so his new pseudoscientific journal had to wait till the hoopla over the Creation Museum gave him an opportunity to launch it. But it's just more copy-cat stuff from shyster Ken Ham, who pretends his operation is not descended and evolved from its estranged parent CMI organization.
Posted by: Zeno | January 10, 2008 10:19 AM
...le ridicule ne tue pas...
(what's ridiculous doesn't kill)
Posted by: negentropyeater | January 10, 2008 10:20 AM
I find it interesting that authors are required to sign over all copyrights for all text, graphics etc. - it's quite comprehensive. Most "real" peer reviewed journals require a license to publish but allow the author to retain copyright. I wonder what the ulterior motive is?
Posted by: murgadroid | January 10, 2008 10:32 AM
Is there anything in the author's guidelines that mentions anything about, say, experiments, double-blind studies, observational evidence? Or is ARJ going to be a forum for recursive analysis of the (Protestant) Bible?
Like I said, my brain doesn't work that way.
Posted by: wheatdogg | January 10, 2008 10:44 AM
This is quite a coincidence, because just the other day, I was thinking to myself, "Now, since some creationists want to pretend to be scientists, but obviously are never going to break into the actual scientific community, why haven't they set up some kind of circlejerking group of creationist 'peers' so that they can claim to have published 'peer-reviewed' papers?"
And here it is!
Posted by: Stephen | January 10, 2008 10:58 AM
I wonder if I can get this published...
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2007/11/cuttlefish-in-genesis.html
Similarity shows that a common designer
With similar blueprints and parts
Constructed the human and cuttlefish forms--
I swear by all three of your hearts.
The God who created the heavens and earth
And killed dinosaurs off in The Flood
Used the same old ideas again and again
You can tell by your copper-green blood.
But the clearest, most obvious clue to His Touch
Is the similar form to our eye
(They are really quite different, in various ways,
But if you won't tell, neither will I).
Color-blind cuttlefish never see red
But they can see polarized light;
This common designer gets different effects
Out of human and cuttlefish sight.
Anatomically, too, these are two different eyes
They have retinas frontward-to-back,
And cuttlefish reshape the whole of their eye
Because shapeable lenses they lack.
The shape of the pupil allows them to see
To the front and the rear all at once
So similar, clearly, to what we can do--
If you dare disagree, you're a dunce!
When Answers in Genesis says it's design
And not just a matter of fitness
I know they're not fibbing--right there, number nine--
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
I only have one little, lingering doubt
Though I really, I promise, am trying--
If it's perfectly clear they see common design
It's even more clear that they're lying.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | January 10, 2008 11:01 AM
Ouch! Now my brain hurts! I just read the ARJ article about Genesis and germs. If that's their idea of original, cutting edge research, then this journal will be more of a joke that the Creashun Mooseem. The author has basically tried to take a bunch of round pegs (bacteria and viruses) and put them in square holes (the order of creation events). Only a ninny would accept his arguments as scientifically (or logically) consistent.
The creationists will love it.
Posted by: wheatdogg | January 10, 2008 11:03 AM
I like the science implied by these instructions to people sending in "science papers":
Why yes, the Bible is the foremost science publication to be referenced in journals of science.
What is sad is that creationist buffoons do more science than the IDists, who fail to directly reference the Bible. That's because the creationists, while not having a falsifiable science, at least have a falsifiable religion. IDists have neither, or at least their main goal is to have neither.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 10, 2008 11:08 AM
I would suggest that anyone writing a spoof paper should also write a point by point rebuttal of the paper as they go along.
I can just see the creationists claiming that the author of the spoof is only claiming it is a spoof to deflect the Darwinist death squads.
Posted by: JC | January 10, 2008 11:22 AM
I think this sentence from the submissions guideline page says it all:
Cranks just try to hard to sound professional while sounding just the opposite. It's like all the scummy theatrical producers that advertise in newspapers for "professional actors" for "professional" shows.
Oh well, they'll be less funny the day they realize actions are better regarded than words.
Posted by: blipey | January 10, 2008 11:42 AM
ceci n'est pas une science journal.
Posted by: stogoe | January 10, 2008 11:48 AM
papers are required, among other things, to be faithful to "the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of scripture."
Well, I suppose this isn't entirely negative news -- I've always felt that good grammar should be encouraged.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | January 10, 2008 11:59 AM
We're talking about religious people here. If there's one thing I've learned from the Hovinds, Haggards et al. of the world, it's that the religious care not a fig for actions, but swoon at pretty words.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 10, 2008 12:03 PM
How about a spoof on the origin of the octopus? Tracing it back to Cthulhu and the great flood.
Posted by: Cthulhu cultist | January 10, 2008 12:22 PM
How does Endnote handle the King James version?
Posted by: Sigmund | January 10, 2008 12:23 PM
I don't think the spoofs have any chance of being published.
Even ignoring the call for spoofs, they would already know of that possibility since there have been a number of well publicized hoaxes that they almost certainly know about.
If you are not a known YEC superstar very likely that they will actually read the submission carefully and will almost certainly check some of your references.
It would not be hard to contact the pastor of your alleged church or to verify any claimed professional credentials. And yes they are very likely to ask about both if you don't include them in your required biography. And don't forget they will be talking to you quite a bit in the revisions process.
So unless one are willing to make a convincing fake conversion to their brand of fundamentalism including being generous at the offering plate and the learning of their particular lingoes, you got very little chance.
Posted by: A Lurker | January 10, 2008 12:26 PM
Seriously, you should grow up. Poetry compromises information content, and isn't to be encouraged.
Posted by: Jamie | January 10, 2008 12:28 PM
I'd love to submit a paper to the ARJ, but I need some grant money to get my research going. Anyone know who's offering grants in Creation Science Research? ;-)
Posted by: TomDunlap | January 10, 2008 12:30 PM
There's as much information content in that poem as there is in any Creation science research paper. (YES I wanted to use scare quotes but I resisted).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 10, 2008 12:32 PM
I'd watch that kind of talk if I were you. Folks 'round here don't take too kindly to people hatin' on the Cuttlefish.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 10, 2008 12:33 PM
that should read.... "There's much more infor..."
sheesh.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 10, 2008 12:34 PM
Posted by: Jamie | January 10, 2008 12:39 PM
If my crank essay contains entire paragraphs IN CAPS, and lots of recursive parenthesis (like this (and this (this too))), does it stand a better chance of being accepted into the journal?
Posted by: Eisnel | January 10, 2008 12:49 PM
Who is it that needs to grow up again?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 10, 2008 12:50 PM
I was actually kind of curious about reading one of the articles (and witness some research, guess how well that worked)
The funny thing is what was written at the "references" section:
"These are pseudonyms. The writers, who hold PhDs in fields related to the topics of their abstracts, are scientists at prominent research facilities in the eastern part of North America. They prefer to keep their creationist credentials hidden for the moment until they achieve more seniority."
over here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/proceedings-microbe-forum
Posted by: Sickle Cell | January 10, 2008 12:51 PM
"....this will be a professional peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework."
And the "peers" that will review the papers will be the peers of AIG, not real scientists. A totally dishonest use of the word peers.
Posted by: dale | January 10, 2008 12:51 PM
They have set a high bar on the quality of submissions. Single spaced, RTF format, defined use of capitalisation. What are they going to do with all the submissions in green crayon, or 14 different fonts, or with entire phrases capitalised? They could miss the really good stuff!
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | January 10, 2008 12:55 PM
I wrote an earlier comment that is languishing in moderation purgatory (probably because it contained two links), so let me try a one-link version. I expanded my comment into a post over at Halfway There for those who want more (including the links), but the essence is this:
Ken Ham is really up to his old tricks. His U.S.-based Answers in Genesis outfit used to be affiliated with Australia's Creation Ministries International. A couple of years ago he broke the ties between the two operations while stealing CMI's subscriber base for Creation magazine and switching it to Ham's own Answers magazine. CMI also has a so-called technical journal. Now Ken has one of his own. It's all part of Ken Ham's continuing program of supplanting CMI in everything it does. Survival of the fittest?
[Link]
Posted by: Zeno | January 10, 2008 12:57 PM
Is there extra credit if the spoofer comes up with a title whose acronym would be "GODDIDIT"? How about "DARWIN"? "KENHAMISATWAT"?
Posted by: Ragutis | January 10, 2008 12:59 PM
I agree Jaimie, there is as much information in Cuttlefish's poem as in a Creation science paper. Its just that cuttlefish's poem contains accurate information, and is interesting and informative to read.
You'd be surprised by the different ways that people can learn. If some people can remember concepts and ideas by reading and writing poetry then there's no reason not to use it.
Its not as if Cuttlefish is without precedent. The biologist Walter Garstang wrote poetry that described the aspects of developmental biology that he worked on.
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | January 10, 2008 1:02 PM
Yes if the acronym of the title is hilarious, you get my sister.
Heehee/
HJ
Posted by: Bing McGhandi | January 10, 2008 1:02 PM
Visit Cuttlefish's site and read his other poems.
He is without precedent, and needs none.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 10, 2008 1:07 PM
#18 -- clearly, you've never seen Dr. Who.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXrAK6sUZ_0
Posted by: Andrea | January 10, 2008 1:24 PM
Jeez, Jamie, who pissed in your Cheerios? "Poetry compromises information content"? Since when is maximum information density the goal of all language? Human language is not like computer language -- since humans do not have perfect recall, its goal is frequently not to maximise information density but rather to increase its memorability. Or simply to entertain, for that matter.
On the other hand, if you just read so slowly that it pisses you off to have to read something that doesn't communicate the maximum possible amount of information, I apologise. But that's the only reasonable excuse for a lame-assed comment like that.
"Isn't to be encouraged." LOL! It sure is, by me at least.
I thought it was a good poem. Our Poet Laureate is slowly converging on a scientifically and cephalopodically oriented version of W. S. Gilbert.
Posted by: octopod | January 10, 2008 1:25 PM
@40 and pseudonymous authors - what about this:
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od201/peeringdbb201.htm
I am confused...
Posted by: Helblindi | January 10, 2008 1:28 PM
That wasn't intended as a slight against Cuttlefish at all, he's one of the highlights of this blog. I was trying to point out to Jaimie that poetry and science aren't such strange bedfellows as one might think.
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | January 10, 2008 1:29 PM
re: #38 Don't forget the Comic Sans font.
And what kind of English Lit teacher did little Jamie-troll have that turned him off to poetry?
-- CV
Posted by: CortxVortx | January 10, 2008 1:38 PM
Maybe they can retread some of those Soviet economists, like the one who "discovered" Soviet citizens had more buying power than western consumers, who were too poor to purchase all the goods off stores' shelves.
Posted by: eyesoars | January 10, 2008 1:49 PM
Look on the bright side, folks. We now have a front-runner for the author of the first crank paper: Jamie!
(I wonder if we could slip a crunk paper past the review board...)
Posted by: Kseniya | January 10, 2008 1:54 PM
This Answers Research Journal is begging to be lampooned. Perhaps the Pastafarians should stay competitive by starting a journal for scholarly research of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? It could be called the "FSM Science Monthly", or FSM for short.
Posted by: Eisnel | January 10, 2008 1:55 PM
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. (Those who say otherwise are, I suspect, simply deceiving themselves.)
Posted by: Jamie | January 10, 2008 1:56 PM
Don't worry, Jamie. We won't let the big bad poets get you.
Posted by: Rey Fox | January 10, 2008 2:04 PM
"I think there are plenty more entertaining things to do than writing and reading poetry."
Jamie
Like what? trolling?
Posted by: spurge | January 10, 2008 2:13 PM
The Philistine decries all kinds of rhyme,
And calls all forms of verse a waste of time,
Yet I have seen a pair of legs widespread
By four and ten iambic lines I said —
And heard her cries which called my work sublime. . . .
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 10, 2008 2:14 PM
It probably should be noted that there are already creationist "journals" out there. The ones I know about are the Creation Research Society Quarterly coming from the ICR, and Origins put out by GRI, the Seventh-day Adventist "creation research" institute.
I'm sure this new one will be just like the old ones, with a rather minimal amount of science, a whole lot of apologetics, and with everything checked by religion.
Unlike the IDist PCID, however, it will probably at least come out with new issues, as the older creationist "journals" do.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 10, 2008 2:16 PM
I, nor most others I suspect, would never dream of disagreeing with you about what you think.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 10, 2008 2:19 PM
The editor Snelling is in deep:
Even though God has left us with evidence for creation and the Flood, the Bible still says that without faith it is impossible to please and believe Him (Hebrews 11:6). Because we weren't there at the time of the Flood we cannot scientifically prove exactly what happened, so there will always be aspects that will involve our faith. However, it is not blind faith. As we have investigated the evidence, we have seen nothing to contradict what the Bible says about a world Flood. We can be satisfied that there are reasonable explanations, consistent with Scripture, for the seeming lack of human fossils in Flood rocks.
What a waste of brain matter this guy is.
Posted by: CalGeorge | January 10, 2008 2:21 PM
Awhile back, somebody published a Phys Rev Letter with his cat as second author. I wonder if ARJ will ever get an author that prestigious.
Posted by: Epikt | January 10, 2008 2:36 PM
Science. You're doing it wrong.
Posted by: Richard Wolford | January 10, 2008 2:51 PM
I see in the author's manual for the Answers Research Journal that one is supposed to italicize foreign words that would not be familiar to ARJ readers. The manual says that ARJ readers would recognize "angst" and "canard", so no italics. On the other hand, ARJ readers would not recognize Lebensraum, so italics are necessary. Does this mean that ARJ readers are not Nazis (after all, Nazis are evolutionists, right?) or that ARJ readers don't know any World War II history?
We'll have to guess.
Posted by: Zeno | January 10, 2008 3:34 PM
The sponsor of the contest is an English lit teacher. A lot of modern poetry is effete, feckless and dull. You can tell that a lot of it is written at Starbucks.
Computer languages don't have irony or a subconscious cognitive map of language.
The Nazi's were all in to Intelligently Designing a race of uber-monkeys.
HJ
Posted by: Bing McGhandi | January 10, 2008 3:56 PM
You know, I'm not terribly fond of poetry as a general approach either, but the difference is, I don't pretend there's a reason for that other than sucking at writing it.
Dumbass.
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 10, 2008 4:25 PM
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...)
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).
revue scientifique. :-)
(You got the gender of revue right!)
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.
You are saying Cuttlefish is not a poet.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | January 10, 2008 4:34 PM
It would not be hard to contact the pastor of your alleged church or to verify any claimed professional credentials.
LOL
"professional credentials"
yeah.
didn't they try this shit with the ISCID journal a few years back?
look how well THAT turned out.
IIRC, the last "publication" of that "journal" was over three years ago?
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 10, 2008 4:37 PM
Unlike the IDist PCID,
ah, that's the one i was thinking of.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 10, 2008 4:40 PM
And at any rate, I think there are plenty more entertaining things to do than writing and reading poetry.
frankly, I've been carrying around inspirational snippets from Wordsworth and Blake for decades.
I suppose you decry the value of art itself?
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 10, 2008 4:43 PM
Jamie @58,
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.
You write "hedonistically" as though that were a bad thing.
Seriously, I wonder whether there is a condition analogous to tone-deafness, an inability to "get" poetry -- let us call it illyricism -- and whether Jamie has it. To the illyrical, poetry might well be truly as dull as a poinsettia looks to a victim of red-green colour-blindness; "little cute phrases" and nothing more. His disdain for poetry, under such circumstances, would be entirely sincere and (subjectively) justified; though of course it merely points up a privation under which he suffers.
I don't like or agree with everything Dawkins writes, but unlike Jamie he is spot on about poets and poetry; see (I think) Unweaving the Rainbow and his turning of Auden's dukes-and-curates image on its head. It would be nice to think that Dawkins occasionally lurks here and thus has the great good fortune to read the little odes with which Cuttlefish favours us.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | January 10, 2008 4:51 PM
I believe Dawkins has actually commented here on a few occasions.
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 10, 2008 4:52 PM
I checked a couple of journals that I receive, one was Science from the AAAS. In AAAS author guidelines it says that the author licenses the work to the magazine but retains copyright.
Another is Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. This one doesn't specifically talk about copyright, but gives a wide range of ways in which the author can reuse and/or republish their work per a publishing agreement.
My point was that there seems to be something sinister about the copyright issue. Perhaps it's the sinister nature of the entire enterprise. But then, I don't want to be labeled a conspiracy nut! :-)
Posted by: murgadroid | January 10, 2008 5:01 PM
Also, Jamie is likely to incur the wrath of our host. For it was Plato whose republic would have outlawed poetry, whilst Aristotle was rather keen on proper μίμησις of πρᾱξις; and our host decided a while ago that he is an Aristotelian rather than a Platonist.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | January 10, 2008 5:10 PM
Poetry: A Waste of Paint?
TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!
Posted by: Kseniya | January 10, 2008 5:35 PM
Kseniya @77:
beautiful. The rest of us might as well just go home.
PZ: does Kseniya have a Molly yet? And if not, why not?
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | January 10, 2008 6:34 PM
Azkyroth (#75):
Yep.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 10, 2008 7:25 PM
Posted by: Richard Simons | January 10, 2008 7:53 PM
. . . in all the years I've been studying science I've never encountered a single person who finds scientific concepts best elucidated or memorized by means of poetry.
Erasmus Darwin, Charles' grandfather wrote "Loves of the Plants" in heroic couplets to illustrate and update Linnaean botanical classification system and disseminate it in an accessible style. "The Temple of Nature" (published posthumously) did the same for his (rather Lamarckian) theory of evolution. Both were bestsellers.
Posted by: David Godfrey | January 10, 2008 8:50 PM
The prize looks like it's going to be upped by a hundred dollars. Someone is planning to make a donation. Remember that you can participate in the contest be contributing a prize to the winner. I won't handle the money/merchandise/extra copy of Winged Migration you want to give away, but I will put winners and prize-givers in contact.
HJ
Posted by: Bing McGhandi | January 10, 2008 10:38 PM
Jamie @58, get educated and get a copy of the soon to be published Open Science Blogging Anthology. Digital Cuttlefish's poem is the opener. He shares the book with Pharyngula, The Bad Astronomer and many other Science Blogs.com authors...
... and consider yourself fortunate that you're subject to his sort of genius online, rather than middling-dull commentators like yourself. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Posted by: PB | January 10, 2008 11:56 PM
The problem with getting a crank paper published in ARJ is that, after it is revealed as a hoax and the furor dies down, the creationists will continue to cite it to support their lame arguments for the next ten years.
Posted by: Ex-drone | January 10, 2008 11:58 PM
Part of this is to encourage them to not trust anyone who sends them anything. That, in my fanciful mind, keeps their list of potential contributors rather short.
HJ
Posted by: Bing | January 11, 2008 2:27 AM