21
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 200:
Line 200: + + − +
Young Earth Creationism (view source)
Revision as of 06:37, December 8, 2011
, 06:37, December 8, 2011→Responses to criticisms: Added info on sham peer review and YEC evidence
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''a priori'', not because of the evidence.
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''a priori'', not because of the evidence.
* ''The evidence in favor of evolution means the Earth must be much older than the 6-10 thousand years explained in [[creation science]].''
: It is difficult to conceive of a mechanism by which any kind of biological "dating" mechanism could remain accurate in face of the supposedly changing levels of chemicals and solar radiation that evolutionary geologists insist upon. Even the most dedicated Darwin followers in the ranks of academia have been forced to admit that Carbon-14 dating can be wildly inaccurate for several reasons, such as naturally occurring radioactive elements in the Earth's crust. <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html</ref> This is just one area of the theory of evolution which scientists have had to back away from with much embarassment. Perhaps if scientists could adopt a more open-minded tone towards those they disagree with, they could issue retractions without such fear of retribution.
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]].
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]. Some journals purport to accept material from all scientific perspectives, but engage in a process known as [[sham peer review]]. In normal peer review, papers are checked by two editors, independently, for methodological errors ONLY, not vetted for their content. That is the responsibility of the scientific public. During sham peer review, editors often collaborate to block publication of any literature that challenges established dogma, or their own pet theories. To make the problem worse, due to the incestuous nature of the mainstream journal editor pool, the same editor may serve on as many as a dozen different editorial boards, allowing them to spread their bias across a much larger area than an ethical editor would. Though this is widely acknowledged as a [[liberal deceit|deceitful]] practice, its scope is widely downplayed in the scientific community and is actually almost openly tolerated in some areas of science.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/peerreview/epidemic.php</ref>
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.