nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: + + + + + +
Talk:Suppression of alternatives to evolution (view source)
Revision as of 01:33, November 15, 2007
, 01:33, November 15, 2007They have passed peer review.
That same science teacher can choose to teach a class independently or publish books or articles about creationism or intelligent design. There are certainly enough of them around. In fact, the Christian/Religion book section at most major bookstores is typically 3 or 4 times the size of the Science section. Is that suppression? [[User:Mfa1957|Mfa1957]] 10:23, 14 November 2007 (EST)
That same science teacher can choose to teach a class independently or publish books or articles about creationism or intelligent design. There are certainly enough of them around. In fact, the Christian/Religion book section at most major bookstores is typically 3 or 4 times the size of the Science section. Is that suppression? [[User:Mfa1957|Mfa1957]] 10:23, 14 November 2007 (EST)
:What this article will also document is the suppression of attempts to have creation and ID peer-reviewed in secular journals.
:But you are simply wrong that they haven't passed peer review. The ''Journal of Creation'' is one peer-reviewed journal that publishes creation and ID papers, and there have been some peer-reviewed papers even in secular journals.
:The article already mentions that opposition is based on ideology. If it's based on ideology, peer-review is a lost cause.
:You are also incorrect to speak as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this. There are thousands of scientists (i.e., part of the "scientific community") who accept creation and/or ID.
:The article does not claim that there is suppression in the publishing field (nor on the Internet). But that does not mean that suppression doesn't exist in other arenas.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 14 November 2007 (EST)