Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bane · 06-13-2002, 08:32 PM

According to our wonderful creationist friend on theforce.net. Have a look at the large article at the bottom of this page:

<a href="http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=6682132&page=14" target="_blank">Theforce.net</a>

Excerpt from the article:

Quote:

In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had "a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters." Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, "It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters." This admission is particularly significant since Science's official letters policy is that they represent "the range of opinions received." e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.

Humphrey's letter and Ms. Gilbert's reply are reprinted in the book, Creation's Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)

This guy just copy and pastes from this site:

<a href="http://godandscience.org/" target="_blank">GodandScience</a>

I imagine the EAC is involved in this.

lpetrich · 06-13-2002, 08:38 PM

Why don't those guys try submitting papers?

Or do they know that their papers will get rejected?

Bane · 06-13-2002, 08:44 PM

By letter he obviously doesn't mean research paper, right?

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Bane ]</p>

Quetzal · 06-13-2002, 11:49 PM

Bane: This is the same tactic Behe uses when he whines about the Vast Evilutionist Conspiracy keeping him from "publishing". He tried to get a letter-to-the-editor/editorial published (I forget which magazine) saying that ID was valid science. They refused - after all, journals have a right to ignore OpEds if they want. The creationists keep implying that this means they are prohibited from publishing scientific articles (vice OpEds) in peer-reviewed journals. AFAIK, Behe, for instance, had no problem publishing science articles, only his letter.

IOW, they don't get into peer-reviewed journals because their science is lacking. They don't get letters to the editor published because of editorial policy (or some equivalent) at the journals - but these aren't scientific articles anyway.

Stephen T-B · 06-14-2002, 01:34 AM

Editor's of scientific journals are entitled to reject submissions by Creationists because Creationists are religious dogmatists seeking to justify a proposition which has nothing to do with science.

Duvenoy · 06-14-2002, 02:58 AM

What research? Taking someone else's findings and trying to make them agree with a single, religous text ain't research. Nor is blantant twisting of evidence, nor is outright lies.

The editors of Nature et.al. has no time for this. I might reccomned Fantasy Magazine.

doov

S2Focus · 06-14-2002, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:
<strong>Why don't those guys try submitting papers?

Or do they know that their papers will get rejected?</strong>

Why indeed?

You'd think that if "creation-scientists" were serious about proving that there was a conspiracy to suppress creation-science "research", they'd be submitting papers right and left, and then they'd be publishing those rejected papers on the web along with the reviewers' comments for all to see.

MrDarwin · 06-14-2002, 07:16 AM

The creationism lobby is so well-funded, one has to wonder why they don't just set up their own journals to publish creationist articles. And in fact there are a couple of creationist journals, and they are quite amateurish publications--surprising given the scientific credentials they keep claiming creationists to have. They can't get any of these guys onto an editorial board??? So far, I haven't seen any articles that would merit publication in any of the legitimate journals. (As others have already pointed out, most creationist "research" consists of rehashing somebody else's research and results.)

hezekiah jones · 06-14-2002, 07:26 AM

These folks have been making the same charges for years. During McLean v. Arkansas the creationists finally admitted under cross that they hadn't submitted for publication a damn thing. Apparently the "intelligent design" folk don't submit squat either. Even Dembski himself has admitted he couldn't be bothered with the process. They just don't want to play by the rules.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-13-2002, 08:38 PM	#2
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Why don't those guys try submitting papers? Or do they know that their papers will get rejected?

06-13-2002, 08:44 PM	#3
Bane Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 180	By letter he obviously doesn't mean research paper, right? [ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Bane ]</p>

06-13-2002, 11:49 PM	#4
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	Bane: This is the same tactic Behe uses when he whines about the Vast Evilutionist Conspiracy keeping him from "publishing". He tried to get a letter-to-the-editor/editorial published (I forget which magazine) saying that ID was valid science. They refused - after all, journals have a right to ignore OpEds if they want. The creationists keep implying that this means they are prohibited from publishing scientific articles (vice OpEds) in peer-reviewed journals. AFAIK, Behe, for instance, had no problem publishing science articles, only his letter. IOW, they don't get into peer-reviewed journals because their science is lacking. They don't get letters to the editor published because of editorial policy (or some equivalent) at the journals - but these aren't scientific articles anyway.

06-14-2002, 01:34 AM	#5
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	Editor's of scientific journals are entitled to reject submissions by Creationists because Creationists are religious dogmatists seeking to justify a proposition which has nothing to do with science.

06-14-2002, 02:58 AM	#6
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	What research? Taking someone else's findings and trying to make them agree with a single, religous text ain't research. Nor is blantant twisting of evidence, nor is outright lies. The editors of Nature et.al. has no time for this. I might reccomned Fantasy Magazine. doov

06-14-2002, 07:16 AM	#8
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	The creationism lobby is so well-funded, one has to wonder why they don't just set up their own journals to publish creationist articles. And in fact there are a couple of creationist journals, and they are quite amateurish publications--surprising given the scientific credentials they keep claiming creationists to have. They can't get any of these guys onto an editorial board??? So far, I haven't seen any articles that would merit publication in any of the legitimate journals. (As others have already pointed out, most creationist "research" consists of rehashing somebody else's research and results.)

06-14-2002, 07:26 AM	#9
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	These folks have been making the same charges for years. During McLean v. Arkansas the creationists finally admitted under cross that they hadn't submitted for publication a damn thing. Apparently the "intelligent design" folk don't submit squat either. Even Dembski himself has admitted he couldn't be bothered with the process. They just don't want to play by the rules.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.