nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW
461
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 33:
Line 33: + + + + + +
Talk:Suppression of alternatives to evolution (view source)
Revision as of 20:41, November 15, 2007
, 20:41, November 15, 2007no edit summary
:: I don't know a lot about the Discovery Institute, but the Journal of Creation and the Creation Research Society Quarterly are two peer-reviewed journals that cater for creationists (and publish ID-type papers also), so in that sense your suggestion is already happening. The Journal of Creation (which I read, so I'm most familiar with) covers the whole gamut of creationism, including theology, geology, and biology, and it certainly includes original scientific research. Yet where is the "change of view in the scientific community"? On the contrary, what I find so often is that evolutionists reject these peer-review publications as invalid, simply because they are creationist! And keep in mind that funding for creationist and ID research is virtually non-existent, so you shouldn't expect to see too much of it.
:: I don't know a lot about the Discovery Institute, but the Journal of Creation and the Creation Research Society Quarterly are two peer-reviewed journals that cater for creationists (and publish ID-type papers also), so in that sense your suggestion is already happening. The Journal of Creation (which I read, so I'm most familiar with) covers the whole gamut of creationism, including theology, geology, and biology, and it certainly includes original scientific research. Yet where is the "change of view in the scientific community"? On the contrary, what I find so often is that evolutionists reject these peer-review publications as invalid, simply because they are creationist! And keep in mind that funding for creationist and ID research is virtually non-existent, so you shouldn't expect to see too much of it.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 15 November 2007 (EST)
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 15 November 2007 (EST)
:::I agree about the comment of Hutton destroying the belief of scientists with young earth creation. I also agree that Darwin also caused a larger community of decent from biblical teachings by his theory, I just felt the need to point that Hutton should be mentioned alongside Darwin for this.
:::Yes, there is a small group of scientists, and yes they should not be dismissed. I agree, if we were dismissed by providing a different look on scientific topics science would not advance. I fully support sound scientific research no matter the topic, just as long as it is sound. Every year an IG award is given for those off the wall sound scientific research projects, even though their topics have little to do with advancing human life they at least provide us with some understanding.
:::I understand that ID proponents claim that their idea is testable, but I have not heard of how it is testable. There have been many claims that it is not, that is true, but no one has explained how it is testable. Whereas evolution over all may not be feasibly testable because of the amount of time it takes the mechanisms of evolution have been tested and shown valid. Mutation occurs, natural selection occurs ect. Much of this is not disputed by IDists thus the separation of Macro and Micro evolution. I will read up on the Falsifiability of evolution article, thank you for the link I was not aware that it was here. I am not free to edit on the site that often so I am still learning what articles have been made.
:::Oh I would not dispute that there are biologists that could offer a peer review outside of evolutionary developmental biologists just that evo-devo biologists often have more knowledge about developmental biology than general biologists. As a biochemist I would not be a good choice for peer reviewing a paper about viral antibodies even though I have much knowledge on the subject but a virologist and immunologist would constitute a better choice for peer review. There are evolutionary biologists who doubt evolution by the way.
:::I looked up the Journal of Creation and I am interested in reading some of their articles. I was however disappointed in the examples found on the website of the content. The content looked more like what I would find in a theoretical journal, discussing theory more than outlining experimentation. Since, I am assuming, you read the journal often have you run across any articles that define methods of experimentation to allow for reproducing? If so I may subscribe, researchers who close their eyes to other avenues of information are often left behind. In other words if there is research that may show something I would not mind learning about it. As for the change of view for the scientific community, it might be that unless the journal has a considerable scientific staff to cover all of those topics listed it may not be considered a valid scientific peer reviewed journal. Basically for every biological article there needs to be a committee composed of biology PhDs that would have to review it. This is one of the reasons why scientific journals are often so specific in content, because to fund review staffs for that diverse of topics would make the journal to costly.
:::Awh, I do have to point out something about the funding of research. When grant writing you do not have to state motivations, just define the research objectives. So the funding is there, at least as long as the person writing the grant proposal is outlining solid research objectives. The claim that money is not given on the basis of the research being ID or creationist related is a bit hard to swallow since the only way for the grant reviewer to identify the research as ID or Creationist related is only if it is stated in the research objectives. Just because the research is anti evolution does not mean it will not get funding. A friend of mine at JHU received a grant for research in to bound extracellular proteins, his goal is to show that the one protein he is looking at found on certain cells was not expressed by the cell it was bound to. He got funding for the work even though I personally think is a bit reaching.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 15:41, 15 November 2007 (EST)