Why to not engage in scientific peer review:
We have often received feedback in the form of questions on the lines of, 'If creation is scientific, then why don't you publish in peer-reviewed secular journals?' Andrew Kulikovsky answers this common question in detail. He points out the advantage of peer review but then documents its many shortcomings in practice, including rejecting top research while admitting fraud, as well as an all-to-common role in protecting the ruling paradigm. So it is folly for anticreationists to hide behind it instead of dealing with the arguments. This is why, to keep the advantages and overcome its drawbacks, creationists have started their own journals, e.g. CMI's longstanding publication now titled Journal of Creation.
Whaaaaaaaaaaa? Full version here.
- Log in to post comments
It's clear that they don't like peer review, unless it is good for them, then they do.
And I don't care what this guy writes - if he could get a YEC article published in a "Real Science" Journal, he would take it in a heartbeat.
It looks to me like this is just another of the many Lier's for Christ.
To be pedantic, the drivel published by these outfits in the Journal of Creationist Lies and other vanity journals probably is "peer-reviewed". The word "peer" means an an equal, so the peers of these mendacious manipulative delusional morons are other mendacious manipulative delusional morons.
I don't think most scientists would consider DI's liars to be their peers, would they? I hope not!
Glad it is never the quality of the work submitted but rather the evil reviewers.
Why did the word 'feeble' keep cropping up in my mind while reading the stuff?
Re peer review
To paraphrase Winston Churchill on the subject of democracy, peer review is a very imperfect system; however, all the others that have been tried are even worse.
Is the Journal of Creation the same rag that recently had two "research" articles (I forget the first; the second was how granite can form so quickly that geologic structure can be accommodated in a Young Earth timeframe.
I checked out one item at the link you provided--"The Green River Formation of the west-central United States: Flood or post-Flood?" Not exactly peer-reviewed research (a forum between two YECs). Not surprisingly, this article presents no evidence of anything! It merely states that some Creationists (notably Whitcomb and Morris, in "The Genesis Flood") believe that the Green River Formation was deposited during the flood, whereas others (unnamed) believe that it is a post-flood deposit. And the varves can't really be varves because that would mean the Earth is more than 6,000 years old.
I don't think these people are Liars-for-Jesus; they appear to be happily ensconced in a separate world of make-believe.