Creationists to publish in peer-reviewed journal

eyl · Post by **eyl** » 2008-01-27 12:44pm

For some value of "peer", that is

The organization that last year opened a US$27-million creation museum in Kentucky has started its own 'peer-reviewed' scientific research journal.

On 9 January, Answers in Genesis, a Christian ministry run by evangelical Ken Ham, launched Answers Research Journal (ARJ ), a free, online publication devoted to research on “recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework”. Papers will be peer reviewed by those who “support the positions taken by the journal”, according to editor-in-chief Andrew Snelling, a geologist based in Brisbane, Australia.

“There have been these kinds of publications in the past,” says Keith Miller, a geologist at Kansas State University in Manhattan, who follows creationism. For the most part, he says, the work is ignored by the scientific community. But those without a science background, including some policy-makers, may not be able to judge the difference in value of a paper in ARJ and a genuine science journal.

More

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2008-01-27 12:54pm

So... it's basically a newsletter?

Also, you managed to link to the "make a new post in SLAM" page

eyl · Post by **eyl** » 2008-01-27 01:02pm

Oops

Link

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2008-01-27 01:10pm

A glorified newsletter

Hawkwings · Post by **Hawkwings** » 2008-01-27 02:15pm

What's the process of starting a new, respectable peer-reviewed journal anyways?

Glass Pearl Player · Post by **Glass Pearl Player** » 2008-01-27 02:45pm

If I may fancy a guess:
1) get a few peers
2) start a journal, having said peers decide which articles - if any are submitted - will be published
3) hope that said journal gathers some respect
4) aid said process by carefully picking the peer reviewers
My predictions as far as failure modes are concerned:
a) Nobody except creationists will actually try to submit anything
b) Nobody except creationists will actually consider it respectable

Taking the whole creationist science *takes note to clean keyboard afterwards* to the logical extreme, since everything is based on faith and bible and stuff, and everything is already written in the bible, there's kind like, nothing to research, is there? No research -> no papers -> no journal?
Doesn't that give a third failure mode?
c) the whole stuff devolves - or evolves, depending on point of view - into a bible reading club

wjs7744 · Post by **wjs7744** » 2008-01-27 03:52pm

Glass Pearl Player wrote:If I may fancy a guess:
1) get a few peers
2) start a journal, having said peers decide which articles - if any are submitted - will be published
3) hope that said journal gathers some respect
4) aid said process by carefully picking the peer reviewers

Isn't an important part of that not exactly deciding what will be put in (which the creationist one will do), but poking holes in the articles if there are problems (who wants to bet they will do that one!)?

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2008-01-27 04:06pm

But those without a science background, including some policy-makers, may not be able to judge the difference in value of a paper in ARJ and a genuine science journal.

Which is why this news worries me.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2008-01-27 05:39pm

Glass Pearl Player wrote:Taking the whole creationist science *takes note to clean keyboard afterwards* to the logical extreme, since everything is based on faith and bible and stuff, and everything is already written in the bible, there's kind like, nothing to research, is there? No research -> no papers -> no journal?

You'd actually be surprised. The people at AiG treat the Bible like we here treat Star Wars: it's canon and it must be true; it's therefore grist for the mill of the scientific method. They've inherited this approach from the presuppositional apologetics of the 1970 evangelical-fundamentalist movement (for an introduction, a quick google gives this and this). They've actually done quite a bit of work trying to come up with a self-consistent model of reality that includes a literal interpretation of Genesis. It's kind of sad, really, seeing how much they've invested in it and knowing that an objective examination of the facts brings the entire house of cards tumbling down.

Lockheed · Post by **Lockheed** » 2008-01-27 05:51pm

Well, I think this further demonstrates their ignorance even further if they think having something that is peer-reviewed means credible.

They don't seem to understand that a science journal is peer reviewed by other scientists.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. If anything this is probably just going to be another joke like the creationist "museum" they set up. I

SpacedTeddyBear · Post by **SpacedTeddyBear** » 2008-01-27 06:15pm

Lockheed wrote:Well, I think this further demonstrates their ignorance even further if they think having something that is peer-reviewed means credible.

They don't seem to understand that a science journal is peer reviewed by other scientists.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. If anything this is probably just going to be another joke like the creationist "museum" they set up. I

Don't you know, that all scientists who got their degrees from credited universities are all part of the evolutionist conspiracy? Therefore any peer reviews done by "scientists" will be done by social "science" majors from unaccredited diploma mills.

Singular Intellect · Post by **Singular Intellect** » 2008-01-27 06:38pm

Lockheed wrote:They don't seem to understand that a science journal is peer reviewed by other scientists.

But...it's a creationist journal peer reviewed by other crationists, therefore it's just as valid!!

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-01-27 07:55pm

Hawkwings wrote:What's the process of starting a new, respectable peer-reviewed journal anyways?

1) decide on a topic
2) get some reviewers and editors who's field of expertise is within the topic of your journal.
3) publication fee, not just to support said journal (pay for printing, editing, etc) but also to make sure people dont submit trash
4) have high standards
5) Publish work that is important
6) Be around a while

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2008-01-27 10:16pm

Bubble Boy wrote:
Lockheed wrote:They don't seem to understand that a science journal is peer reviewed by other scientists.
But...it's a creationist journal peer reviewed by other crationists, therefore it's just as valid!!

Peer reviewing the reviewers kind of defeats the whole purpose. These idiots really don't realize this is the exact same bullshit that Hovind's $250,000 offer is. Of course they don't realize the offer is worthless for this exact same reason that their "journal" is (among many others).

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-01-27 10:19pm

I don't see how this is news. They've already been doing this for quite some time. There are plenty of "peer reviewed" creationist journals out there, and ICR's entire shtick is to make it sound like their articles are properly referenced and peer reviewed. The end-notes of a typical ICR article are filled with self-references to other ICR articles.

The only difference between ICR and AIG is that ICR is clever enough to cover its ass for absurdly broken creationist arguments and claims (although in the process, they often end up making fools of themselves, as is the case where they say with a straight face that evolutionary speciation must have taken place after Noah debarked from the ark, and then later deny that evolution is possible).

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2008-01-27 10:29pm

So, let me get this straight. Fake scientists who promote a fake theory are now coming up with a fake peer-reviewed journal.

Some things never change.

Eris · Post by **Eris** » 2008-01-27 11:45pm

The methods of starting a new journal to begin with have already been covered: It's not at all that special, really. Getting a respectable one is much harder, since it's naturally going to have to rely on reputation, and that can something of a nebulous thing.

But wait! There actually is a quantitative way of estimating journal quality. It's called the Journal Impact Factor. It's produced by a branch of the Thomson Institute for Scientific Information, and tracks, roughly, how many times an average article in a publication has been cited by other research over a given period of time, normalised for the size of that publication.

The idea is that the more your research is used elsewhere, the more reliable it is, and if a journal publishes a lot of good research, it's probably a good journal. Looking at our intuitive notions, it does pretty good as an estimate, too. Journals like the New England Journal of Medicine and Cell rank pretty highly.

Guess where this new journal will rank.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-01-28 01:12am

Superman wrote:So, let me get this straight. Fake scientists who promote a fake theory are now coming up with a fake peer-reviewed journal.

Some things never change.

It is indeed peer-reviewed. It's just that the "peers" are other creationists, not the general pool of scientists working in whatever field they're misrepresenting today. It would be like if there were special journals for superstring theory. Not physics, but superstring theory. When you create a journal not for experts in a particular field of science but specifically for proponents of a particular theory, it's not a journal at all; it's a love-in. Mind you, a superstring theory journal would still have a lot more credibility than a creationist one.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2008-01-28 01:15am

Eris wrote:Guess where this new journal will rank.

Their own special category: incest! All the articles in the journal site only other articles in the journal, and are sited only by later articles in the journal.

Anyway, I'm thinking it might be time for a Creationist Sokal Hoax. Who's with me?

TheKwas · Post by **TheKwas** » 2008-01-28 01:40am

I heard from a little bird that there's a contest going on amoung biologists to see who can sneak in the first 'Sokal Hoax'. Hopefully that will make things more interesting for these douchebags.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2008-01-28 02:33am

Mayabird wrote:
Eris wrote:Guess where this new journal will rank.
Their own special category: incest! All the articles in the journal site only other articles in the journal, and are sited only by later articles in the journal.

Anyway, I'm thinking it might be time for a Creationist Sokal Hoax. Who's with me?

It would be interesting to see how much of a check they would perform. I wonder if you could completely make up a generic name for a biologist - like Dr. Henry Wilson of Willard University - submit a Sokal-like paper, then expose them for publishing it?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-01-28 02:35am

As funny as the Sokal escapade was, it has not dented the postmodernist movement at all. You could successfully pull off a similar prank against this journal and it would have absolutely no effect on them.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2008-01-28 02:41am

Darth Wong wrote:As funny as the Sokal escapade was, it has not dented the postmodernist movement at all. You could successfully pull off a similar prank against this journal and it would have absolutely no effect on them.

I think the main point of the Sokal hoax wasn't that it dissuaded the Post-Modernists, but that it helped convince other people who aren't post-modernists that Post-Modernism is bullshit.

You probably could not dent the Creationist movement similarly without a combination of the major evangelical denominations accepting evolution (driving the young-earthers into the hinterlands with no donations to sustain them) and going after any of the leaders for potentially fraudulent behavior.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2008-01-28 02:49am

Well, Pope John Paul II did something or another to accept the theory of evolution. But he's a Catholic, not a REAL CHRISTIAN.

Creationists should just make their own Friendster or MySpace analogue where they give each other cute widdle testimonials and share pictures and Jesus quotes and chain letters while decorating their creationist sites with shitty html crap while professing their faith and expounding their discoveries on Noah's ZooBoat.

That would be so cute.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2008-01-28 06:58am

Someone already gave a short review of one of the articles. I doubt it'll get respected anytime soon

I don't agree with simply dismissing an entire area of research, I think each article should be individually judged on its merits. Therefore, I have just read one of the (three) articles in 'ARJ'. I wasn't expecting much, but I was astonished by its absolute (and I mean 'absolute' in the true sense of the word) lack of content. The article in question speculates on which day of Genesis bacteria and other simple life forms were created (because, of course, there is no mention of bacteria in the Bible). The author's speculation is based upon the Bible's description of the types of organism created on each day: plants and 'seed-bearing' organisms on day 3, sea animals and flying animals on day 5, 'creeping things', land animals and humans on day 6. The author postulates that lower lifeforms were created alongside more complex organisms in functionally-related bundles. For instance, bacteria living in symbiosis with humans were created on the same day as humans, and so on. And that's it. Not a single experimental observation is made, nor referenced, in the entire article. If this article is typical of the field, then there is definitely no science in 'Creation science'. If any professors want to convince their students of this fact, I recommend giving them a copy of this article and letting them make up their own minds. This journal is a farce.