randman

1. The critics of Gentry that I have read acknowledge that although Gentry doesn't state the implications of his claims outright that it is clear as to what they are. On this point, ther should be no debate. There is no way these journals would let him do that, and any honest obsever knows what is going on.
2. I am not here to defend Gentry. I posted here because this somewhat disingenious, or dumb, proponent of evolution claimed Gentry never publshed anything on the subject, and it was kind of silly aftew awhile to hear his lame defense, but I thought ya'll might know a little more. As I mentioned, I have read critics of Gentry, many from the Creationist camp, but wanted to know what had been written in the same journals subsequent to Gentry. I admit that peer-reviewed journals do not make something so, but wanted the info for the other board.
3. BY the way, AIG links to articles from a peer-reviewed publication. To state the articles are not peer-reviewed is just false. Just because the majority of the Phds in the peer-reviewed process of those publications are Creationists or ID doesn't take away from the fact it is peer-reviewed by the same standards as the journals which are dominated by scientists who accept evolutionary dogma.

I don't have a smuch time today, but I will check into some of the links given.

hezekiah jones

If AiG's "science" is peer-reviewed by "creationists," then indeed it is not peer-reviewed by the same standards as the journals which are "dominated" by practitioners of actual science.

AiG's own Jonathan Sarfati, lest we forget, is the man that sided with Dr. Dino in the Hovind/Ross debates on The John Ankerberg Show. Hence presumably Hovind's papers (if he's actually written any) would pass the "peer-review" of Sarfati. Quite impressive.

[Edited to add: AiG's notion of "peer-review" very obviously is little more than the comparison of a paper with AiG's ridiculously literal reading of the Book of Genesis. That anyone would seriously equate such a procedure with the mechanics of peer-review in a legitimate scientific journal is laughable at best, and at worst, bordering on the clinically delusional.]

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

randman

Hmm..so easy to just define anyone with a Phd who is working as a scientist but that beleives in Creationism is now not qualified.
Basically, this tells me right there you are not a credible debater.
Typical, just write off everyone who disagrees with you as biased.

Daggah

For the most part so far, most of these Ph.D-toting creationists have proven that they're not qualified fully on their own with drivel too stupid to come out of most intelligent thirteen-year-olds mouths. Truth hurts, doesn't it?

hezekiah jones

What's even more amusing are the "papers" themselves, at the AiG website, if you can even find them buried under all the worthless crap Ken Ham is flogging to pay for his "creation museum."

One such "paper" on "Hypercanes," by John Woodmorappe, is five pages long, and contains a grand total of 17 footnotes.

Footnote 1 reads: "That is, they are sceptics towards anything to do with the Bible, but exercise no scepticism whatsoever towards the most baseless of materialistic conjectures." Just the sort of footnote one would expect to see in any scholarly publication.

Footnote 2 relates to a mocking and disdainful quotation of a statement in a geology textbook published in 1965; mocking and disdainful because, according to Woodmorappe, the statement "automatically rules out the biblical worldview."

Footnote 4 refers to a paper delivered on "vapor canopy temperature profiles" to the 4th International Conference of Creationism.

Six footnotes appear to be gratuitous citations from legitimate journals (four of the six reference the same article).

Footnote 16 refers to a book by M.J. Oard.

The remaining seven footnotes reference Woodmorappe's own prior "scientific" travesties, including one to his own "paper" on the "40-day global Flood rainfall," delivered to the same "International Convention" mentioned above.

The best part is, only 15 of the 17 footnoted items appear in the body of the text! I realize this proves nothing in and of itself, but it sure is amusing.

Woodmorappe, by the way, has a Masters degree "from a midwestern US state university" (very mysterious!) in geology, not a Ph.D.

hezekiah jones

Evidently you don't care to debate pursuant to the statements you made above, that "peer-review" among the "creation scientists" is identical to, and as legitimate as, peer-review in the mainstream scientific literature?

RufusAtticus

If you are refering to Hovind. His doctorate is in Christian Education. Not the kind of field that makes one an expert in biology or geology. Furthermore, his degree is from a diploma mill. I don't see anyway you can defend Hovind's credentials.

Here's another question. I have yet to see a single Creationist who is an evolutionary biologist, either by training or experience. This is the most damamging observation for creationists, who go on and on about the errors inherient in evolution yet not a single one of them is actally experienced with the science evolution. And if evolution was so obviously wrong, we should see evolutionary biologists, who are most familiar with the evidence, realizing this, yet we don't. Hmm....

-RvFvS

Vorkosigan

To state the articles are not peer-reviewed is just false. Just because the majority of the Phds in the peer-reviewed process of those publications are Creationists or ID doesn't take away from the fact it is peer-reviewed by the same standards as the journals which are dominated by scientists who accept evolutionary dogma.

"peer review" can only take place if the "peers" are not committed to an a priori belief position. Doing science requires a commitment to methodological naturalism during the performance of scientific work. Since the scientists who work for AiG are not committed to methodological naturalism, it follows that AiG is not doing a scientific peer review. AiG vets papers for their theological and political soundness, it does not "peer review" them.

Here is a paper on the principles of peer review:
<a href="http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/kostoff/Peerweb1index.html" target="_blank">http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/kostoff/Peerweb1index.html</a>

If you glance at the Executive Summary, you will find that the AiG process does not meet many of the principles. AiG

If you type "principles of peer review" in Google, many sites will fall out that will be useful to your understanding of peer review. Additionally, the sociology, history and philosophy of science have produced an extensive body of literature on peer review. <a href="http://www.asu.edu/clas/sociology/faculty/hackett.html" target="_blank">Ed Hackett,</a> an old prof of mine now at Cornell, is one scholar in this field.

Michael

randman

Say what you want to, but Rufus and others, you aren't looking very hard if you beleive all the stuff you just posted. By the way, AIG reposts articles so you wouldn't expect everything on the web-site to be "peer-reviewed."
Why don't one of you prove that the "peer-reviewed" creationist publications do not hold to the same standards as other journals. If you adopt the predisposition angle, then I think that disqualifies the evolutionist journals up-front as well.
And, Rufus, beleive me there are scientists in every related field dealing with evolution who have come out against evolution.

randman

Rufus, if you are sincere, I suggest you go to some of the creationist/ID sites and look.
The first scientist that challenged me to examine the evidence on evolution with an open mind was a professor, a zoologist, at NC State. I have just finshed debating such trivialities ad nauseum for weeks on the Carolina off-topic fan web-site, and prefer not to do all of your work for you, but there are biologists trained in evolutionary theory who subsequently dropped the beleif.
You just need to look around.