Reply With Quote
Ahhh, finally I agree with boutons
May 2, 2007 12:25 PM PDT
Creationists launch peer-reviewed journal
Posted by Stephen Shankland
Creationists are adapting another element of the traditional scientific realm to their cause: the peer-reviewed journal.
The Ins ute for Creation Research, a prominent believer that the scientific method can validate a literal reading of the Bible's account of the creation of the universe, Earth and humanity, has begun soliciting papers for the International Journal for Creation Research.
Peer review, in which a scientist's paper is scrutinized by a group of colleagues, is designed to find errors and weed out crackpots. And although some have criticized peer review for rejecting new ideas just because they're too radical for the establishment to stomach, in the long run, science has marched along through various paradigm shifts.
The IJCR, though, has a few extra requirements to make sure scientific findings stay subordinate to creationist tenets.
"IJCR provides scientists and students hard data based on cutting-edge research that demonstrates the young earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of the species, and other evidences that correlate to the biblical accounts," according to the ins ute's description. In the call for papers, it adds, "Papers can be in any scientific, or social scientific, field, but must be from a young-earth perspective and aim to assist the development of the creation model of origins." And the three or more people who reviewer each paper are advised that each paper must "provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatico-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture."
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-971...tml?tag=blog.1
Ahhh, finally I agree with boutons
I don't buy into all of ICR's theories but I don't discredit their goal - even when I feel they'll never attain it. Having gone through a brief Creationist phase myself I eventually came to the conclusion that sometimes their zeal is blinding.... Nevertheless, I still believe that GOD is the Creator of the Universe and everything therein - that has always been my position.
In the end however, I don't believe one can prove that which was 'supernatural' with natural theories - which is why their approach ultimately fails. Rebuttal in this instance is a moot argument. How can one disproove that which can't be proven? "Gimme the keys to that time machine!!'
GOD's presence is very real. But no amount of physical evidence will ever convince anyone of that fact especially if they have already made a conscious decision to reject Him. To each their own.
boutons_ hate, however is still very much unwarranted... I wonder what Creationists ever did to him to scar him so? I guess he feels that only his faction is en led to "freedom of thought". Dude, we get it. You hate anything having to do with GOD.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 05-02-2007 at 04:55 PM.
"I still believe that GOD is the Creator of the Universe and everything therein - that has always been my position."
that's what I believe too, but with an extremely different cosmology from the fairy tales in the OT.
"hate, however is still very much unwarranted."
Did I say hate? These dumb creationists Bible-thumpers have as their goal the overturning, negation of one of mankind's most magnificent achievements, science and scientific methods.
God = universe, so knowing the universe through science is knowing God through science.
the devil, evil = darkness, sin, anti-nature. These regressive dumb s are spreading evil and ignorance and darkness in the name of their (infantile, backwoods) "God".
NO one is overturning science.... Strict Creationists are simply an extreme. They counterbalance the other end of the spectrum... scientists (and their followers) who claim that Science is the catch all end all argument to everything.
GOD = universe? I'd be really interested to read an elaboration of this concept.
Please elaborate
Robert already?
Pantheism.
That was my wild guess. I just want to see boutons defending it.
Somehow I doubt his religious philosophy is all that deep.
From the context provided by his posts... I don't believe ethics even enter his supposed 'pantheistic' inclinations. It goes beyond moral relativism... it's almost as if he advocates a moral anarchy... 'people should do what they please, because there is no higher accountability.'
So according to boutons, only one view
of anything is allowed.
I thought "science" sought and encouraged debate on "theories".
And evolution is after all the theory of
one person. It has not been proven
as far as I know. Many point to
what they claim are evolutionary
changes, but still have not really been
proven.
But science has been proven wrong
time and time again on any number of
different things, science is not
infallible and science on any particular
subject is subject to change at any
time. Like the flat earth theory.
I find this subject and treatment
thereof much like the man made
warming of the earth theory. No dissention allowed. Much like Al Gore allows
no news media at his presentations.
is allowed.
Biblethumper!
The debate has to be grounded in intellectual honesty. Creation scientists determine the conclusions they want ahead of time, and then cherry pick evidence which superficially appears to support them.
False. That was 150 years ago. The theory of evolution has advanced leaps and bounds beyond what Darwin developed.
False, for as far as "proving a theory" has any meaning. The support for evolutionary biology is arguably stronger than that for the theory of gravity.
True.
That never really was a scientific theory.
All the layman sees is the politics. In the scientific arena, there is a lot of diagreement about details of evolutionary theory, and lively debate.
Well, at least as much as a bunch of eggheads can be "lively."
Where I see the bullying about evolution is when people try to use it, or deny it, to drive home what they want to believe about God. That's not science.
As if this doesn't happen in all science.
It Has? It has been expounded on and I suppose youFalse. That was 150 years ago. The theory of evolution has advanced leaps and bounds beyond what Darwin developed.
could say "advanced". But has it been proven?
Huh? I don't think so.False, for as far as "proving a theory" has any meaning. The support for evolutionary biology is arguably stronger than that for the theory of gravity.
All the learned people (scientist) at the time stated itThat never really was a scientific theory.
as fact, as well as that the Earth was the center of the
universe. Both were later proven to be wrong.
Again, your supposition, as you see it, is that they useAll the layman sees is the politics. In the scientific arena, there is a lot of diagreement about details of evolutionary theory, and lively debate.
Well, at least as much as a bunch of eggheads can be "lively."
Where I see the bullying about evolution is when people try to use it, or deny it, to drive home what they want to believe about God. That's not science.
facts as they find them to make their point. May I ask:
what does the "other" scientist do? How do they
attempt to make their point?
The only point I was attempting to make was that there
are opposing views to evolution/global warming and
they are made/given by people who are scientist and
knowledgeable in their fields, but are discounted because
they are opposed to other widely held views, which may
or may not be necessarily true.
A creation scientist, in particular, does not use facts to make his point. He uses pseudoscientific babble and slick presentation to try to trick people who don't know any better. Look at the tactics being used by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists --> that is what the creation scientists do.
They are not knowledgeable.
They are not learned in their field.
They con you with scholarly les, and flowery language, and fake journals to make you think they are.
dan let his guard down in the 9/11 threads and admitted that, to him, debating is about "building coalitions based upon ideas," not about proving facts. Convincing people of his political ideals is more important than being truthful. He probably believes that the relative well-being of millions of people is at stake with his ideology.
The CSers are analogous. The argument is that social order depends upon personal morality, and that morality is based in religion, and that a religious morality that works has to be based upon absolutes, and discipline, and authority. That morality in Christianity comes from the Bible, so people need to believe the Bible. But if people interpret it for themselves, they might come to immoral conclusions, so they need to be told how to interpret it. And that interpretation needs to be simple. If people are told that this part of the Bible or that part is "symbolic," well maybe they'll believe that "do not murder" is symbolic too. If the Bible says the Earth was created in six days, that has be be 6 calendar days, as in 144 hours, because the Bible has to be read literally for people to follow the moral law rather than doing as they please.
So the debate to them is about bringing people in line with their theology to advance their vision of how to bring about social order, not about actually probing the details of creation. They probably believe that the survival of civilization, and on top of that, the salvation of millions of souls depends on it.
It doesn't mean they are correct, and it doesn't mean they should be taken seriously.
And my point is that the analogy doesn't hold. I grant there are meterologists with integrity who are still skeptical about anthropogenic climate change. They may get beaten down because their views are unpopular, since those who believe in it have a sense of urgency about policy change. The scientific community will have to do the tough job of distinguishing between the honest skeptics and the mere shills who will say whatever their bankroller wants them to say.
I don't, however, grant that there are biologists with integrity who are still skeptical about evolution. Their arguments are based upon gross distortions which they assume the layman won't be able to parse, and it has nothing at all to do with science.
ES you make some very good points. I will get back to you
later when I have little more time. On some of the points you
make I am not well enough versed in them (no, I am not
going to do a "google") to give an intelligent answer. But a
little busy right now....
Says you.
I agree with the rest of the post... except for the bolded part. Science has not yet instated the "Law of Evolution" for a reason - it has remained as a theory.
Pretty strong statements Stout. You are prepared to back them up with substance?
Here's a link to the faculty and their credentials (Although, based upon your charges I assume you're already quite familiar with them).
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...physci#saustin
Oh yeah... I didn't completely buy into this assertion either. You may believe that their goal is misplaced, or even call them out for mistakes... but you cannot outright claim that they are unknowledgeable in their respective fields.
That is simply your opinion based solely on the fact that you disagree with their ideology and their methods.
Steven Austin, for one, is a fraud in the area of radiometric dating. He is also a liar, who loves to tell people that his "research" at Mt. St. Helens converted him from evolutionism to creationism. However, it has been shown that he published at ICR under a different name in the 1970's.
That's one.
Vardiman is a fraud in the field of atmospheric sciences who peddles a blatant lie about helium ac ulation in the atmosphere, which totally ignores the polar wind.
Then there is Russell Humphreys, a nuclear weapons physicist whose creationist claim to fame is a cosmology paper.
Oh yeah, the paper rather ludicrously defines the Earth as the center of the universe, and violates the laws of physics by imposing an arbitrary boundary on the universe, in order to claim that general relativity can make the universe 6,000 years old and 6 billion years old at the same time.
Do I have to keep going?
Okay, you've cast aspersions on one of them with unsubstantiated charges. Substantiate the charges you've attributed to him, and then proceed to explain (without name calling) how he's not knowledgeable or learned in his field.
And since when is the use of an earned "scholarly le" the basis for ridicule...?
Also you bring up their "flowery words" as a point of ridicule...?
If you happen to sustain your charges against Steven Austin, do proceed with reasonable arguements as to why the other credentialed faculty are unknowledgable and unlearned in their fields.
Thanks.
p.s. The use of size 7 font does not enhance your arguement in the least.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
