So, Answers in Genesis cranked out the first issue of its new journal, and with all deliberate speed! It's remarkable. I'm guessing that creation research doesn't take quite as long as, say, real science. The pilot issue is a true testament to the idiocy of the Creation Cult. I guess we have to actually look inside this waste of electrons to see what's going on.
While it is true that no scientist with an intact cerebral cortex will take the Answers Research Journal seriously, still, it's hard to ignore. If this is the best shot the Creationist cults can do at making their point then I don't think the NIH is going to be sending them a lot of money any time soon. Each article from the pilot edition has its own kind of stupid..
Remember that "Answers" is supposed to be a "professional, peer-reviewed technical journal." One article is called "Proceedings of the Microbe Forum", but what this "forum" was is not clearly indicated. This doesn't start well (nor does it end well). If fact, it ends so badly, that I'll start with the footnotes:
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.
If you publish a scientific paper anonymously, it isn't scientific. There is no way to verify anything. If what they publish is quality research, then they have nothing to fear. If it is crap, well, then academia can be very harsh on non-productive idiots (productive idiots, however...). Let's go back to the top and see what has the authors so verschrecked.
Introduction
For many years the roles of microbes as part of God's wonderful design have been neglected. Creationist literature is largely void of topics related to these tiniest creatures. Perhaps it is because many people associate microbes as the cause of death, disease, and suffering. This is true for only a fraction of microbes; the large majority are extremely vital for sustaining life on earth. Their roles range from recycling nutrients in soil and water to symbiotic relationships that provide necessary factors to their host. Their role in death and disease is a result of the Fall and the Curse on all living things.
Ouch! That is a steaming pile of burning stupid. I can see why the authors are scared. A tenure committee would look pretty foolish if they promoted a microbiologist who believes that "the role [of microbes] in death and disease is a result of the Fall and the Curse"....
In addition, how do we classify microbes taxonomically from a creation perspective? Do they fit into conventional or baraminic taxonomical convention? How do we view them biblically? What day were they created? What were they originally created for? Were they created as separate baramins or were they created as parts of other organisms? Or were they created as part of the earth on Day Three? These are just some of the intriguing questions facing the field of creation microbiology.
These are not the questions of a scientist. If these questions had answers, what would it help us predict? Let's say that we were able to "prove" that microbial life was created on Day 3. Does that help us predict how they will respond to selective pressures? Does it help us to predict what type of bacteria might be found in various environments? Does it help us cure disease?
I'll leave it you, dear reader, to continue reading the article, if you have the stomach for it. But I agree with the authors' decision to remain anonymous. If I were on a tenure committee and read this, I don't think I'd recommend them as a graduate student, much less a tenure track position. This "journal" is a project doomed to failure as a scientific venture. It may some day have historical interest, as our descendants wonder what the hell we were thinking.
Be that as it may, let's look at another article, say, Microbes and the Day of Creation, by Allen Gillen. Let's remember, this is supposed to 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." Yes, I know, the premise is ridiculous, but still, let's give them a chance, shall we?
First, Gillen is listed as a Professor of Biology and Chemistry at Liberty U. Hmm...not looking so good. Let's see what he writes about microbiology. Anything better than the above "forum"?
The world of germs and microbes has received much attention in recent years. But where do microbes fit into the creation account? Were they created along with the rest of the plants and animals in the first week of creation, or were they created later, after the Fall? These are some questions that creation microbiologists have been asking in recent years.
Talk about begging the question! All science starts off with certain assumptions, e.g. gravity exists, what we perceive somehow represents reality, etc. This article adds the assumption that Genesis is literally true. How do you reason with people whose preconceptions don't even allow examination of the facts? Oh, and find me one legitimate microbiologist who gives a shit about where "germs" (sic) fall in the hierarchy of a fringe Christian cult?
Very little has been written in Bible commentaries or in creation literature on the subject of when microbes were created.
And this is really the point. The goat herders who wrote the Bible didn't know about microbes. And given the cult's belief in Biblical inerrancy neither did their God.
In a world where God does not show up to explain Himself, all of their "research" must be based on human interpretations of the actions of an imaginary deity. In other words, the entire article is nothing more than theocratic masturbation, not science. As with masturbation, they should probably do it in private, rather than clogging our precious intertubes with their rantings, but, hey, at least it's entertaining.
The Cultists who publish this trash keep harping on "peer-review". Peer review depends on who your peers actually are. If you are writing for the New England Journal of Medicine, your peers are other physicians and medical researchers who are at the top of their fields. If you're writing for a Creationist rag, who are your peers?
I'm not sure, especially with all the anonymity going around, but here is what one of their articles says about it:
Despite the centrality of peer review to the development of a scholarly community, very little is known about the biblical basis and Christian conduct of peer review. We find that peer review is rooted in several Christian virtues, such as reflecting Christ, being honest, seeking wisdom, humbly submitting, showing Christian love, correcting error, and being accountable. Given these principles, we recommend that creationists use a double-blind peer review system, wherein the identities of the author and peer reviewers are confidential. Additionally, we recommend that creationist publishers develop a regular public audit of their peer-review process
.
What good is a "double-blind peer review system" when everyone involved is already blind to the truth?
"References"
Answers Research Journal 1 (2008). http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj (reportedly non-fiction)
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Well we know one is from Liberty U and they did use the plural, "prominent research facilities", so my guess is the other one is Bob Jones U and the super secret pseudonyms, while maybe actually pseudonyms, are merely a ruse.
If you publish a scientific paper anonymously, it isn't scientific. There is no way to verify anything.
Although I agree overall with your critique of the journal, I disagree with this specific claim. I believe that an anonymous research paper can be every bit as scientific as one with named authors, but what's going on here is even better than with some anonymous papers. If you happen to have a question for the authors, presumably the journal will be willing to forward it to them and give you an anonymized reply. Assuming that's the case, I don't see what there is to object to. The only thing we're missing is the identities and affiliations of the authors, and that shouldn't really matter.
Wow. That's just a big ol' bubblin' pot of stupid stew.
Just out of curiosity, I checked out the submission guidelines for the publication, this extract pretty much says it all: "...must be from a young-earth and young-universe perspective."
So much for unbiased scientific method and free inquiry...
Damn! Too bad it sucks so bad, cuz I had a couple of GREAT Slogans made up for them:
Answers Research - The Journal 6,000 Years In The Making!
The Wit and Wisdom of Bronze-Age Goat-Herders.
Don't Stone Your Kidz Without The Journal!
Answers Research Journal - Come For The Pictures, Stay For The Fun!
"How do we view them biblically? What day were they created? What were they originally created for? Were they created as separate baramins or were they created as parts of other organisms? Or were they created as part of the earth on Day Three? These are just some of the intriguing questions facing the field of creation microbiology."
Fascinating. And how, precisely, does this author propose to answer these intriguing questions? What research does he propose doing to find out whether microbes were created on Day Three of creation? What -- hm, what's the word I'm looking for here -- science does he suggest be done in this field?
Funny you should write about this today. Yesterday I received my long-awaited copy of the first volume of Quest for Right by C. David Parsons. It's a pretty little textbook full of some interesting made up "facts." My favorite fact is that the earth's center is not made of molten iron, like the Darwinists claim. They have been lead astray by their atheism and the obstructionism of the liberal faction of the NEA.
It is worth every penny that I paid for it.
David is doing it wrong in his quest for right.
Good old creationists are always trying to look more scientific, so the Answers Research Journal is just the latest manifestation of an old ploy. The term "baramin" is kicked around by creationists as if it's a term with genuine meaning, but it seems to be nothing more than an awkward synonym for what most fundamentalists call "kinds". If each creature is commanded by God to reproduce its own kind, then new species cannot possibly arise. Evolution is refuted! But creationists can't really give "baramin" a clear definition, so it knocks about in their literature without accomplishing much. Sad.
I'm looking forward to the first Sokaling of this "journal".
But how would you--or could you even?--convince these IDiots that a "Sokal" paper is loopy?
Mike, I just have to know- what do they claim the earths core is made of then?
The center of the Earth is made up of the highly compressed souls of the damned. Duh.
The real question facing ceation science is at what temperature and pressure do the souls of the damned reach a superfluid state, and how is this responsible for earth's magnetic field?
We really should be more particular when we say that "peer reviewed" journals are the gold standard. Perhaps a qualifier like science-based competently peer reviewed journal, or some such.
Guthrie - It is a gravity crystal, material not specified, but very smooth. It's all in the Bible if you interpret with new terminology not available in the 17th century.
I have re-read the chapter on the crystal a few times, and it still doesn't make sense to me, it makes no reference to any material save "Creation Juice" which accreted and solidified. I think he thinks that the planet has nothing molten in the center. He calls the modern version of the Earth romanticized.
It's so nutty it's funny. He is mad at me because he sent me a free book and I didn't give it a positive review.
Anne-Marie knows where to look for laughs--the Instructions for Authors. I guess the editors are unclear on the concept of science. I like the part about can't have no "unnecessary controversy" here.
The following criteria will be used in judging papers:
1. Is the paper's topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
2. Does the paper's topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?
6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture? If necessary, refer to: R. E. Walsh, 1986. Biblical hermeneutics and creation. Proceedings First International Conference on Creationism, vol. 1, pp. 121-127. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.
Remark:
The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith. The editors play a very important initial role in preserving a high level of quality in the ARJ, as well as protecting AiG from unnecessary controversy and review of clearly inappropriate papers.
Simply wonderful. I particularly loved the section on "Creation, Evolution and Protozoan Parasites".
That would mean they sorta changed, um... maybe even evolved? I always wondered what the creation-stupid explanation would be for the existence of organisms like Plasmodium falciparum (and others which have no non-human host) after the fall. Noah and co. presumably carried all these parasites, and must have been pretty damn ill - too ill to scoop out the 60 tons of animal poo that accumulated every day on their ark. But now I get it - before the fall, parasites were delightful, life-enhancing critturs that floated around radiating goodness like Tinkerbelle sprinkling fairy dust.
As they explain:
Is that the same sort of thing as a gypsy curse, or are they talking women's problems?
Anne-Marie, perhaps you haven't noticed that the folks who ru this blog all come from the same world-view and they are totally intolerant of all others.
If you are truly scientific, you are not so dogmatic about what has never been proven. Most of the scientists who don't let their philosophy color their interpretations freely acknowledge unanswered issues. Only the brash agendized folks make ad hominem attacks on others.
If you saw "Expelled", can you deny the bigotry against those with alternative viewpoints? No wonder there are those who wish to operate low to the ground.
Anne-Marie, perhaps you haven't noticed that the folks who ru this blog all come from the same world-view and they are totally intolerant of all others.
Anne-Marie, perhaps you haven't noticed that the folks who ru this blog all come from the same world-view and they are totally intolerant of all others.