Jump to content


Photo

Peer Review = Valididty


  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

#41 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 November 2009 - 08:58 PM

It's quite funny how you say this:

In the case of the AiG journal, the bias is clear and undeniable (because, well, they say so).  In the case of, say, the Journal of Applied Physics, there's no reason to suspect a bias.  You can try and say that they have secret biases that they're keeping hidden from everyone, but you have no evidence for that claim.

View Post

...and then this...

But they DO let in real scientific studies such as on the variable speed of light, the recession of the moon, the changing magnetic field of the Earth, and so on.  They just don't let in the absurd YEC deductions from that evidence, because, well, they're absurd.

View Post

...without pausing to ponder the implications or scratching the surface of the merit of what I'm trying to tell you. :blink:

#42 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2009 - 09:39 PM

Absurd only because they don't agree with the conclusions.  They don't even use the same standards for YEC and Old Earth.  For instance, you discounted several of the YEC evidences because they regard factors to have some constant reliability.  However, the moment stable factors are a problem for old earth criteria, "there is no reason to assume they would be constant".  Come on.  You implied you want honest debate.

But we do have reason to think that, say, the speed of light really is reasonably constant (I say "reasonably" since there are valid studies into the exact constancy of the value, although the proposed variations are nothing near what YECs suggest) - not least because theories based on the assumption of its lack of variation predict testable results, such as in relativity. That's how science works -- if you assume something and it makes predictions which you can test and verify, you can feel comfortable in making the assumption. There's simply no like-minded reason to assume that, say, the population growth rate has been constant -- and indeed, there's good reason to think it's been nowhere near constant, when you take into account near-extinction events, plagues, etc.

I'll be the first to admit that some YEC evidences are invalid.  However, there are many that appear to have merit.  Unless, the Old Age supporters are allowed to adjust criteria ONLY when it suits their peer reviewed argument.

Name a specific one that you think has merit.

You claimed the size of Sol is not necessarily constant so cannot be relied on as evidence of Earth's age.  Also a popular Old Age counter.  But according to astronomy, stars have a reliable, predicatble life cycle.  They use this cylce AS EVIDENCE of old universe.  So explain why it is so predicatble UNLESS it allows for proof of Earth's young age??

View Post

A predictable life cycle on a large scale - that life cycle doesn't account for small variations over small amounts of time. Besides, like I already said, the measurement of the sun's change in size has proven to not be a replicable measurement, which makes the whole thing irrelevant anyways.

I made the other thread, btw.

It's quite funny how you say this:

...and then this...

...without pausing to ponder the implications or scratching the surface of the merit of what I'm trying to tell you. rolleyes.gif

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yes, scientists review scientific publications. It may not be the perfect system, but it's the best one I can imagine.

#43 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 26 November 2009 - 11:11 PM

But we do have reason to think that, say, the speed of light really is reasonably constant (I say "reasonably" since there are valid studies into the exact constancy of the value, although the proposed variations are nothing near what YECs suggest)

View Post

I'll address the other issues on the other thread. Been there already.

The question remains though; Whom is watching the gatekeepers. The persons charged with validating whether proper criteria are met, refuse any assumption of young age, because their assumptions disagree.

In light of recent and still compounding evidence, it can no longer be claimed that the "scientists" are un-biased.

#44 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2009 - 11:24 PM

Well, who else do you suggest to review the articles? Like I said, peer review isn't a flawless system, but it's just about the best one I can imagine.

#45 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 26 November 2009 - 11:52 PM

Well, who else do you suggest to review the articles?  Like I said, peer review isn't a flawless system, but it's just about the best one I can imagine.

View Post

I agree that it is a useful system with limitations. We should be able to recognize that peer review is not necessarily the equal of validation. It is only and nothing more than acception by concensus. And facts are not set by democracy.

That combined with the nature of humanity is enough to allow that non-peer reviewed material might be more valid than peer reviewed. So, when researching, use your own brain. Don't barrow another's, you never know where it has been :blink:

#46 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 November 2009 - 12:03 AM

I agree that it is a useful system with limitations.  We should be able to recognize that peer review is not necessarily the equal of validation.  It is only and nothing more than acception by concensus.  And facts are not set by democracy.

View Post

More or less, I agree.



But I maintain that "creation science" would have at least a few more articles in the literature were it valid. The way I'm looking at it is this: okay, let's assume that some scientists are fundamentally biased against creationism, and that some of those scientists are part of the peer review process. And let's assume that there are some valid creationist articles. In that case, then sure, a few of those creationist articles would probably be unfairly rejected. But ALL of them? Not nearly so likely.

#47 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 27 November 2009 - 02:00 AM

More or less, I agree.
But I maintain that "creation science" would have at least a few more articles in the literature were it valid.  The way I'm looking at it is this: okay, let's assume that some scientists are fundamentally biased against creationism, and that some of those scientists are part of the peer review process.  And let's assume that there are some valid creationist articles.  In that case, then sure, a few of those creationist articles would probably be unfairly rejected.  But ALL of them?  Not nearly so likely.

View Post

It is not only likely, it happens on a rather large scale. Formerly prominent researches in the field of origin/evolution and like sciences have not only been refused publication because they have professed evolution is not viable, they have been dropped from the echelons of science, removed from positions and disgarded. Not becuase they supported creation, some still don't. But they no longer support evolution, and so they are out.

#48 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 November 2009 - 02:32 AM

It is not only likely, it happens on a rather large scale.  Formerly prominent researches in the field of origin/evolution and like sciences have not only been refused publication because they have professed evolution is not viable, they have been dropped from the echelons of science, removed from positions and disgarded.  Not becuase they supported creation, some still don't.  But they no longer support evolution, and so they are out.

View Post

Examples?

#49 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 27 November 2009 - 03:49 AM

Examples?

View Post

I was surprised to find this one.
http://www.ridgecres.../sage/v7i9n.htm

This one I add because there are some names but more because I think it might be an interesting read for you. In fact the site is one I have often refered to for research. The site seeks to prove through science and does not use faith based reasoning.
http://www.ridgecres...sage/v5i10f.htm

Iowa State University astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, author of The Privileged Planet.

British Royal Society Official Resigns Over Creationism Controversy.

Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society in London, resigned from his position last week after some comments he made were construed as being supportive of teaching creationism as science. Reiss said that "when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have...[and] have a genuine discussion. The word ’genuine’ doesn’t mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time." He also said that the approach to teaching evolution in this way depends on the "comfort of the teacher...I don’t believe that such teaching is easy." Despite his caveats, some British media outlets and scientists accused Reiss of advocating the teaching of creationism in science class, and the Royal Society subsequently put out a statement saying that Reiss resigned because his comments were "open to misinterpretation" which "has led to damage to the Society’s reputation." 1



Technically, he resigned. He wasn’t really fired. But notice that he was “accused” of advocating the teaching of creationism, and that his comments damaged the Society’s reputation. And even though he tried to backpedal by saying that creationism doesn’t deserve equal time, he still had to go.

This was gleefully reported to all members of the AAAS, to assure them that any questioning of evolution would not be tolerated by the British Royal Society. It also conveyed the message that if any AAAS members were thinking of being so foolish as to express any doubts about the theory of evolution, it could happen to them.

There wasn’t even any kind of charade. They didn’t say Reiss resigned because he wanted to spend more time with his family, or he wanted to spend more time doing research. They admit he was forced to resign because he advocated academic freedom. He wanted students to be able to “raise doubts” and have a “genuine discussion” about the theory of evolution.

Okay, I can keep tagging sites. They are out there, people once in the fields and now not able to be published. How many? I am not even going to specualte. Seems to me one is too many. I am confident from a short search that I will find dozens. I would not be surprised to find hundreds, thousands? I really can't say.

#50 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 November 2009 - 04:27 AM

This one I add because there are some names but more because I think it might be an interesting read for you. In fact the site is one I have often refered to for research. The site seeks to prove through science and does not use faith based reasoning.
http://www.ridgecres...sage/v5i10f.htm

Most importantly, the names of scientists who reject evolution just don't matter. But even if it did, the best estimates do place about 0.14% of biologists believing in creationism. And no, high school science teachers really don't count, because many to most of them lack a complete education in the subject.

From what I gather Reiss's troubles were entirely with media misrepresentations, not from within the scientific community.

Dini's tale is irrelevant to the topic at hand, that being: "Formerly prominent researches in the field of origin/evolution and like sciences have not only been refused publication because they have professed evolution is not viable, they have been dropped from the echelons of science, removed from positions and disgarded. Not becuase they supported creation, some still don't. But they no longer support evolution, and so they are out."

#51 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 27 November 2009 - 06:32 AM

Most importantly, the names of scientists who reject evolution just don't matter. But even if it did, the best estimates do place about 0.14% of biologists believing in creationism.  And no, high school science teachers really don't count, because many to most of them lack a complete education in the subject..

You ignored the end result of the statistics gathered. .14% in 1987. The Newsweek information continued to show that in 1997, 5% (24,990 scientists) expressed a belief in creation.
Now I could claim it reasonable to extrapolate those figures and estimate a similar compounding. Simple math would be doubling; 50,000 in 2007. But that reality is that dounle is probably not accurate. The spread in normal patterns of human interelations might exponentionally increase the number as awareness of the scince of creation and of the acceptance became mkore widespread, reducing the stigma once attached. That could raise the number to over 1million scientists in the year 2010. How many scientists are there?
But I won't do that. Obviously the number was increasing.

From what I gather Reiss's troubles were entirely with media misrepresentations, not from within the scientific community.

How do you come to that conclusion? It is clear that he made a statement which was (regardless of his intent) understood to give some credence to ID. He was then pressured to resign. In their follow-up press release the British Royal Society confirmed the reason for his resignaton as exactly that, his comment "has led to damage to the Society’s reputation." Because he was wrong? No. Only because he made a comment suggesting ID be offered for consideration.

Dini's tale is irrelevant to the topic at hand, that being:

View Post

Dini's story is not irrelevant, it is evidence of the mind set of the evoultionists. Dini was performing the function of peer review early.

#52 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 November 2009 - 12:31 PM

You ignored the end result of the statistics gathered.  .14% in 1987.  The Newsweek information continued to show that in 1997, 5% (24,990 scientists) expressed a belief in creation.

But using different criteria for "scientist", as the linked article even admits.

How do you come to that conclusion?  It is clear that he made a statement which was (regardless of his intent) understood to give some credence to ID.  He was then pressured to resign.

Because that's what some alternative news outlets said, which seemed equally valid.

In their follow-up press release the British Royal Society confirmed the reason for his resignaton as exactly that, his comment "has led to damage to the Society’s reputation." Because he was wrong?  No.  Only because he made a comment suggesting ID be offered for consideration.

I was under the impression that that quote was from Reiss's resignation letter. Which leads us to another point -- that, yeah, Reiss resigned. Not sacked. Resigned.

Dini's story is not irrelevant, it is evidence of the mind set of the evoultionists.  Dini was performing the function of peer review early.

View Post

I was asking for examples of "Formerly prominent researches in the field of origin/evolution and like sciences have not only been refused publication because they have professed evolution is not viable, they have been dropped from the echelons of science, removed from positions and disgarded. Not becuase they supported creation, some still don't. But they no longer support evolution, and so they are out." Dini isn't such an example.

#53 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 27 November 2009 - 11:57 PM

But using different criteria for "scientist", as the linked article even admits.

They are scientists, PHD's in scientific fields. Which fields of science do you believe are not qualified to assess the plausibility of ID?

Because that's what some alternative news outlets said, which seemed equally valid.

You are ignoring the content provided by the British Royal Society, they admitted he left because of the ID comment and their desire. Of course later media content will try to "spin" the story to something less. I'm sure there are even follow up stories with the British Royal Society reducing there input to an advisory or even just accepting his resignation wohile claiming not to understand why he was leaving.

I was under the impression that that quote was from Reiss's resignation letter.  Which leads us to another point -- that, yeah, Reiss resigned.  Not sacked.  Resigned.

He made the comment. Was critisized for making the comment. He tried to alleviate tention by suggesting he was only offering a discussion, not supplying an opinion. That was not enough for the British Royal Society. He did resign. But not buy choice. Like when a politician does poorly and the president accepts his resignation. Resigning does not remove the benefits which would be lost in termination. It is a tactic common in every industry. "Resign or we will fire you and you will be cut off".

I was asking for examples of "Formerly prominent researches in the field of origin/evolution and like sciences have not only been refused publication because they have professed evolution is not viable, they have been dropped from the echelons of science, removed from positions and disgarded. Not becuase they supported creation, some still don't. But they no longer support evolution, and so they are out."  Dini isn't such an example.

View Post

I think I provided you some, I can find more. I'll tell you there the numbers won't impress you. And you will simply disccount them because you will decide they were "outed" for worthwhile reasons.

The point of this thread is; does it happen? It obviously does. Does it happen in large enough numbers for you to be concerned with? I doubt it. Be cause you consider the "outed" scientists ideas to be unworthy. What you are not considering is; somebody has to make the first attempt. Only after their numbers are large enough will the sciences have to alow their findings to be given credit. Right now there are only a few willing to put their credentials on the line for their research. The question is, will your generation continue to allow the sciences to lie? Or will you insist on research regarding all possibilities?

Peer review prejudism is real. It is small. It may be able to quiet the opposition as it has succeeded so far. Is that acceotable to you?

#54 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2009 - 01:02 AM

Okay, sounds reasonable enough for the Reiss deal (although it was only a few scientists that spoke out, not the entirety of the British Royal Society as you implied). But it's still irrelevant for what you claimed, which was (again) "Formerly prominent researches in the field of origin/evolution and like sciences have not only been refused publication because they have professed evolution is not viable, they have been dropped from the echelons of science, removed from positions and disgarded. Not becuase they supported creation, some still don't. But they no longer support evolution, and so they are out." Just show me three examples of papers that were unfairly rejected from the journals, whose authors then went on to be discarded from their scholarly ranks due to their beliefs, and I'll let it go.

#55 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 28 November 2009 - 02:05 AM

Okay, sounds reasonable enough for the Reiss deal (although it was only a few scientists that spoke out, not the entirety of the British Royal Society as you implied).  But it's still irrelevant for what you claimed, which was (again) "Formerly prominent researches in the field of origin/evolution and like sciences have not only been refused publication because they have professed evolution is not viable, they have been dropped from the echelons of science, removed from positions and disgarded. Not becuase they supported creation, some still don't. But they no longer support evolution, and so they are out."  Just show me three examples of papers that were unfairly rejected from the journals, whose authors then went on to be discarded from their scholarly ranks due to their beliefs, and I'll let it go.

View Post

Forrest Mims III
http://creation.com/...ire-creationist
Raymond Damadian
miacheal Ruse's comments are very reveealing of the mind set in "science"
http://creation.com/...-nobel-decision
Guillermo Gonzalez (his case is not as clear as others, but deserves inclusion in our discussion because it does fit the pattern I implied.)
http://creation.com/...ce-strike-again
Richard Sternberg (A self proclaimed Agnostic)
http://creation.com/...erg-controversy
I include the following list also because these are Scientists currently contributing to the progress of science. There are many in the varous fields. So, though the problem of peer review exists, it is also possible to overcome it. Maybe they kept quiet until their personal, scientific value made them difficult to challenge for their views. I have no support for that thought, but I don't doubt it either.
http://www.creationinfo.com/list.htm

#56 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2009 - 02:42 AM

Forrest Mims III
http://creation.com/...ire-creationist

This doesn't count:
- Scientific American isn't a peer-reviewed journal; it's a popular science magazine
- We only have Mims' word for it that his beliefs were the cause of his not being hired
- Mims hasn't fallen out of standing in the scientific community
- This was a matter of job application, not of publishing a scientific paper

Raymond Damadian
miacheal Ruse's comments are very reveealing of the mind set in "science"
http://creation.com/...-nobel-decision

This has nothing at all to do with peer review or demotion within the scientific community - it's just an issue with a certain awards ceremony.

Guillermo Gonzalez (his case is not as clear as others, but deserves inclusion in our discussion because it does fit the pattern I implied.)
http://creation.com/...ce-strike-again

Again, this has nothing to do with peer reviewed journals or rejection of an article in said journals.

I'll just quote wikipedia here: "The Chronicle of Higher Education said of Gonzalez and the Discovery Institute's claims of discrimination "At first glance, it seems like a clear-cut case of discrimination ... But a closer look at Mr. Gonzalez's case raises some questions about his recent scholarship and whether he has lived up to his early promise." The Chronicle observed that Gonzalez had no major grants during his seven years at ISU, had published no significant research during that time and had only one graduate student finish a dissertation.[21] The Discovery Institute misrepresents an op-ed by John Hauptman, one of Gonzalez's colleagues in the physics department. Hauptman states clearly that Gonzalez's work falls far short of what scientists know to be science, containing not one single number, not one single measurement or test of any kind.[22][23] [...] Gonzalez's failure to obtain research funding has been cited as a factor in the decision. "Essentially, he had no research funding," said Eli Rosenberg, chairman of Gonzalez's department. "That's one of the issues."[25] According to the Des Moines Register, "Iowa State has sponsored $22,661 in outside grant money for Gonzalez since July 2001, records show. In that same time period, Gonzalez's peers in physics and astronomy secured an average of $1.3 million by the time they were granted tenure."On February 7, 2008, his appeal to the Board of Regents was denied.[26]"

Richard Sternberg (A self proclaimed Agnostic)
http://creation.com/...erg-controversy

I'll just link to expelledexposed.com, which responds to Expelled's claims about the matter: http://www.expellede...truth/sternberg



So, none of those had to do with rejection of an article from a peer-reviewed journal, which was very clearly what I asked for.

#57 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 November 2009 - 03:09 PM

On the contrary, I think my statement was relevant.  If there's no real scientific support for these things, then you simply can't expect them to show up in the peer-reviewed journals -- whether or not they're being rejected solely for subject matter, they have no place there.

View Post



This is not only a prejudicial statement, its one of the very reasons that Christian scientists have their own peer review journals, and leave the evolution religions with theirs.

#58 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 November 2009 - 04:16 PM

Once again, if there IS real scientific support for a young earth, then show me a few examples of articles that were rejected from the journals solely for that reason.

#59 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 29 November 2009 - 04:50 PM

Once again, if there IS real scientific support for a young earth, then show me a few examples of articles that were rejected from the journals solely for that reason.

View Post


And it is this exact same type of attitude taken by evolutionist, as to why they reject creationist. This is no mystery, and you are proof that it happens. It's this same attitude.

#60 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 November 2009 - 05:41 PM

Once again, if there IS real scientific support for a young earth, then show me a few examples of articles that were rejected from the journals solely for that reason.

View Post


Sure, here ya go :huh:


The Scientific Case for Creation - Henry Morris, Ph.D.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users