Saturday, March 12, 2005
Do Creationists Publish?
This is one of my favorite topics, because its fun to dogmatic evolutionists squirm. Dogmatic evolutionists really get upset when they are not the only game in town. They want it to be clean and simple. "There are no creationists who publish." Or at least "there are no creationists who publish on creationist topics." Of course, they are talking about being published in the journals controlled by the dogmatic evolutionists. And this is where it gets amusing.
First of all, creationists do publish on origins topics in peer-reviewed journals. However, usually they have to hide the fact that they are creationists, and just stop short of saying outright the creationist implications. A good summary of creationist publishing in secular peer-reviewed journals is at trueorgin.org. I don't want to get bogged down into talking about that.
Recently, an overtly intelligent design-oriented paper was published in a peer reviewed journal. The paper, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories, was published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a publication that is part of the Smithsonian. Now, there is a lot to this story. The best account is the managing editor, Rick Sternberg's account. However, I do think he was leaving out a few details. I'm sure he intentionally did this as his last act as managing editor, but I do believe he believed in the scientific validity of the paper, but was aware of the political problems that arise from criticizing Darwin. However, I don't want to focus on that, either.
What I'd really like to point out is the pickle that dogmatic evolutionists are getting themselves into. In order to say that the paper was bogus, they have to paint Sternberg as a raving creationist. This allows them to continue to say that creationists don't get published, especially on creationist topics. However, doing so means that they must acknowledge that not only are real scientists creationists (although Rick Sternberg actually isn't, by his own account), but that they are well-respected enough to have been given the position of managing editor of a prestigious publication.
So, either intelligent design is an idea worthy of publication, or creationists are of such high respect in the sciences as to having been given a place of honor as the managing editor of a publication of the Smithsonian. Quite a pickle, huh?
Added to that is the fact that at least one article along the same line is being published in another peer-reviewed publication.
I'll have more to say on the science of creation and design at a later time. I just had to take the time to point out the pickle dogmatic evolutionists have created for themselves.
First of all, creationists do publish on origins topics in peer-reviewed journals. However, usually they have to hide the fact that they are creationists, and just stop short of saying outright the creationist implications. A good summary of creationist publishing in secular peer-reviewed journals is at trueorgin.org. I don't want to get bogged down into talking about that.
Recently, an overtly intelligent design-oriented paper was published in a peer reviewed journal. The paper, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories, was published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a publication that is part of the Smithsonian. Now, there is a lot to this story. The best account is the managing editor, Rick Sternberg's account. However, I do think he was leaving out a few details. I'm sure he intentionally did this as his last act as managing editor, but I do believe he believed in the scientific validity of the paper, but was aware of the political problems that arise from criticizing Darwin. However, I don't want to focus on that, either.
What I'd really like to point out is the pickle that dogmatic evolutionists are getting themselves into. In order to say that the paper was bogus, they have to paint Sternberg as a raving creationist. This allows them to continue to say that creationists don't get published, especially on creationist topics. However, doing so means that they must acknowledge that not only are real scientists creationists (although Rick Sternberg actually isn't, by his own account), but that they are well-respected enough to have been given the position of managing editor of a prestigious publication.
So, either intelligent design is an idea worthy of publication, or creationists are of such high respect in the sciences as to having been given a place of honor as the managing editor of a publication of the Smithsonian. Quite a pickle, huh?
Added to that is the fact that at least one article along the same line is being published in another peer-reviewed publication.
I'll have more to say on the science of creation and design at a later time. I just had to take the time to point out the pickle dogmatic evolutionists have created for themselves.
Permanent Link posted by crevo @ 12:21 PM 
