hezekiah jones

Nice try. You made the initial assertion. Defend it.

There is no question that "peer-review" at AiG consists of holding propositional statements against its peculiar reading of the Book of Genesis. No question at all. As a matter of fact, I heard "Dr. Safari" on the radio this afternoon, and that is precisely what he said to the program's host.

Which hoary middle-eastern creation myth do the editors of legitimate scientific publications hold the statements of their contributors against? The myth of natural selection?

Kosh

Well then surely you have a list of names (and
credentials) you can show us?

Or is this more like Pauls list of "500 witnesses"?.........

hezekiah jones

By the way, the "papers" posted as .pdf files at AiG's internet fantasy land are from its "technical journal," Creation Ex Nihilo. So if these aren't "peer-reviewed," the situation is even worse than previously adduced.

randman

Creation Ex Nihilo is peer-reviewed.
By the way, how about this guy? Paul Chien

<a href="http://www.discovery.org/crsc/fellows/PaulChien/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.discovery.org/crsc/fellows/PaulChien/index.html</a>

Seems in typical fashion, the evolutionist camp overstates the case. If you haven't met previously evolutionary biologists that now reject Darwin, then you are not bothering to listen to the critics of evolution, which is historically the way evolutionists have behaved.
The advocates of PE can come out and talk about stasis, and suddenly, it is a valid concept, but the Creationists who talked about it for decades were just wackos.
Listen guys, I am the public. I used to beleive in you. I am politically active, and I don't buy it anymore, and if I vote for expenditures by taxpayer money, it won't be to fund propoganda that doesn't do squat to help anyone.

hezekiah jones

You're right. You are the formidable debater, and master of the ipse dixit.

Which is precisely why creationism, and its latest Trojan Horse-like conveyance, "intelligent design," will not be included in the public school science curricula.

Kosh

Now we're scared. Who wants to carpool with me
to Church on Sunday?

Randman, what your level of education and area
of study in college?

notto

From Natures Website:
Nature Publishing Group - The Premier Scientific Publisher

The mission of the Nature Publishing Group is to become the premier scientific publisher, focusing always on the quality of the information we publish. NPG strives to serve scientific, technical and medical communities by delivering dynamic and audience-focused web services.

Our goal is to become the first choice of scientists in search of (1) ground-breaking original research that has been rigorously and rapidly peer-reviewed; (2) superior review, filtering and navigating material; (3) the most relevant career information; and (4) timely and essential breaking news
--------------------------------

From AIG
IV. General

The following are held by members of the board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture.

A. Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole Creation.

B. The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six (6) consecutive twenty-four (24) hour days of Creation.

C. The Noachian flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

D. The Gap Theory has no basis in Scripture.

E. The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into "secular" and "religious" is rejected.

F. By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.


------------------------
Also, from Nature
5. Conditions of publication

5.1 Competing financial interests. In the interests of transparency and to help readers to form their own judgements of potential bias, Nature require authors of original research papers to declare any competing financial interests in relation to the published papers. Full details of the policy can be found on <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/submit/competing/index.html." target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/nature/submit/competing/index.html.</a> The declaration is required from the corresponding authors of all accepted manuscripts received after 1 October 2001; a shortened form of the declaration is published as part of the printed paper, with a more detailed version, if appropriate, on the web site.

5.2 Prepublicity. Once submitted, contributions must not be discussed with the media (including other scientific journals) until the publication date; advertising the contents of any contribution to the media may lead to rejection. The only exception is in the week before publication, during which contributions may be discussed with the media if authors clearly indicate to journalists that their contents must not be publicized until Nature’s press embargo has elapsed (1900 h local UK time on the day before the publication date).

Nature allows presentation and discussion of material submitted to Nature at scientific meetings not open to the public. Discussion of material submitted to Nature at meetings that are open to the media should be avoided. If unavoidable, authors must indicate that their work is subject to press embargo and decline to discuss it with members of the media. Preprints of submitted or ‘in press’ papers may be distributed to professional colleagues, but not to the media (but see 5.3).

I could find no similar guide on the Creation magazine submissions.
-------------------


A few more things to note:

-Nature does not accept donations or have a "store".

-Nature does not have a "childrens section" in every issue.

-Nature does not sell itself as a "witnessing" tool.

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: notto ]</p>

Kosh

The irony of this statement is priceless!

hezekiah jones

It seems that creationists are specialists in producing irony, but never in recognizing it.

Valentine Pontifex

John Woodmorappe has been publishing in the creationist's vanity journals since the 1970s. He is the pen name of Jan Peczkis who has published strongly pro-evolution articles. John actually has had the nerve to cite Jan as if he was a different person.

If you want to show this is true, simply look at the address Woodmorappe gave for himself in CRSQ and compare to the address of Peczkis as given in the phone directory. The identification of who Woodmorappe really was has been known since 1991.