dumbfnck creationist mimicking/mocking scientific journals

[Phenomanul]

There are a few points to consider with regard to the Sternberg case:

When the article says that the paper in question passed "peer review," that is true administratively, but only because Sternberg bypassed the usual practice of sending the paper to an associate editor for review before reviewing it himself.

In addition, the paper in question was a literature review, whereas the journal in which it was published was meant to be systematic in nature.

Because Dr. Sternberg and Dr. Meyer are both members of the Discovery Ins ute (Dr. Meyer is actually program director), this was seen as a conflict of interest, and an inappropriate exercise of Dr. Sternberg's editorial authority.

Despite his abuse of authority with the journal, it is still possible the Smithsonian overreacted, and that their zeal to go after him stemmed from his involvement with Discovery.

It still points to an agenda that aims to push conflicting views out of the scientific spheres of influence... nevermind Sternberg's own interests in the the two programs.

Now with regard to creation and evolution both being matters of faith: baloney. Evolution is nothing more and nothing less than the current state of the art on the biology of species. It is a very strong theory. It is not comprehensive. It has holes. It has differences of opinion. Something could well come along later and blow it up, the way quantum mechanics did to classical physics.

See this is where we differ. I believe it stems from your classification of Abiogenesis as a completely independent theory from the theory of Evolution. Science has deemed the two theories as such out of convenience because while the latter is built on mountains of evidence, family trees, and taxidermical roots, the former leaves much to be desired. I still see the theory of biological speciation as nothing more than genetic adaptation woven into the fabric of every created creature - specifically every creature 'according to its kind' - which could be our modern day classification of 'GENUS' or 'FAMILY'.

Why is this important??... Because the processes behind evolution had to start at some point, they had to start on a strand of genetic material. Much like your "light in transit" observation, the theory cannot just assume everything was already there for the process to commence. That same process requires point zero to be defined - and the engine behind Evolution cannot define it. Belief in Evolution hence requires a step of faith in order for its construct to form the complete framework that can define biological diversity from point zero to the present. The theory of Abiogenesis was therefore required to bridge that gap - but more than anything to address the inconsistency of Evolution's point zero. Evolutionist's will always deny that this problem is even relevant, because the theory wonderfully describes page 2 through page 99 of our biological world and can even predict what may happen in page 101 - Most of them however rarely bother to question why page 1 is missing this same element of consistency.

I firmly believe that Evolution is a guided process. One that manifests GOD's purpose and design. I don't believe it to be a randomly selective process that came about from a lifeless chemical broth.

Creation is a theological and/or philosophical argument about whether and how a Supreme Being brought about the universe. As has been argued back and forth for years, there is really no way deductively to determine scientifically which view is correct. A person can accept the basics of evolution and believe in God, or not. A person can reject mainstream science and believe in God, or not.

A person has to decide inductively, based upon their own experiences and understanding, about God, and Christians are supposed to communicate their beliefs in order to guide people to an understanding about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

As we've debated before, Western culture, for all its technological and social advancements resulting from its successful use of rational thought, does not do a good job of conceiving of the spiritual and the abstract. People want something from God they can see and touch to prove he is there. The lack of physical evidence for God in a culture that relies on the concrete is a stumbling block for faith.

A further problem is that 150-200 years ago, Western rationality was a vehicle for evangelism in this culture. Now that dog won't hunt. But, sometimes it is more expedient to go on as it if still worked, and besides, the souls of laymen are still being saved, right? Redefining our encounter with God as numinous one, to swim against the dominant culture, is much more challenging.

Well said!

[Phenomanul]

BTW if we wish to discuss the topic further I'd rather we do it in a new thread... I find boutons_ thread le to be highly distasteful and it pains me to have bumped it up so many times already.