nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 45:
Line 45: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Suppression of alternatives to evolution (view source)
Revision as of 02:43, November 16, 2007
, 02:43, November 16, 2007reviewers, JoC, funding
:::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.
:::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)
:::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)
:::: The reason I didn't mention Hutton in the article is because I thought it best to keep it to just alternatives to evolution, rather than alternatives to evolution, abiogenesis, long ages, the Big Bang, etc.
:::: I think I've seen it pointed out how ID is testable, but at the moment I can't recall the details sufficiently to find that. I could find for you examples of creationism making testable predictions, however.
:::: I seem to recall hearing (but can't vouch for it) that a few (very few?) of the reviewers for the Journal of Creation are evolutionists. There are ''some'' who will give a fair review of a viewpoint that they don't agree with.
:::: You are probably correct that the Journal of Creation doesn't have ''much'' experimental science in it, which I'd put down to the afore-mentioned lack of funding. But it would be incorrect to say that it has none, although in a journal covering the entire gamut of science (and beyond), you're not likely of course find very much on any specific narrow topic, and perhaps almost nothing in your specific field. I can't recall off the top of my head any papers on experiments on reproduction. Whilst I read it, a lot of it is over my head and doesn't get stored well in my memory. What web-site did you look it up on? The publisher's web-site, www.CreationOnTheWeb.com, now has, I believe, ''every'' past issue on-line, not just "examples".
:::: The publishers have perhaps a dozen scientists on staff (covering various fields), but can also call on others not on staff for reviewing papers. And don't most journals use reviewers that are not on staff?
:::: Even without stating motivations, it is often apparent what purpose the research has, but there is a bigger problem. A person might get away with getting funding for research that happens to support creation—''once''! But once it is known that he is a creationist or that his research supports creation, it will be a lot harder the next time. Keep an eye on the article for when I add about Robert Gentry.
:::: You say that just because research is anti-evolution does not mean it will not get funding. How do you know? Your example appears to have nothing to do with creation. I'm not saying that research that is contrary to what's normally accepted will not get funding (although there is some evidence of that), but specifically that research supporting creation or ID will not get funding, as these particular views speak of a Creator, and that then becomes a worldview issue, not (just) a scientific one. Neither am I saying, by the way, that creation/ID research will ''never'' get funding, just that it is ''very'' unlikely to so there will be very little of it.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:43, 15 November 2007 (EST)