1,019
edits
Changes
→Creationist Scientists - Oxymoron
:::::::Mr. Rayment, rather a lot of scientific article are written daily, most are garbage. We need a system to avoid becoming bogged down, and to weed out those papers which contain follies which are often only apparent to an expert. It is impossible to judge personally on a case by case basis and so the system of authoratative peer review is needed. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Mr. Rayment, rather a lot of scientific article are written daily, most are garbage. We need a system to avoid becoming bogged down, and to weed out those papers which contain follies which are often only apparent to an expert. It is impossible to judge personally on a case by case basis and so the system of authoratative peer review is needed. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::"Journal of Creation" is new to me, so I looked it up, only to find that "[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/38/56/ All our editors adhere to the Creation Ministries International (CMI) Statement of Faith and most papers will be designed to support this.]" And here's [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/43/61/ the statement of faith in question]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:45, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:'''How do we define "scientist" in a neutral way?''' It's not a degree, it's not a licensed profession... I think we have to fall back on self-description. If a creationist calls himself a scientist, he is... whether anyone likes it or not. But there might be a case for ''qualifying'' the description in the ''least obtrusive possible'' way. For example, if a person is described as a "creation scientist," the phrase should be footnoted with a reference to a biographical profile of the person in which they self-describe or are described as a "scientist."
:'''How do we define "scientist" in a neutral way?''' It's not a degree, it's not a licensed profession... I think we have to fall back on self-description. If a creationist calls himself a scientist, he is... whether anyone likes it or not. But there might be a case for ''qualifying'' the description in the ''least obtrusive possible'' way. For example, if a person is described as a "creation scientist," the phrase should be footnoted with a reference to a biographical profile of the person in which they self-describe or are described as a "scientist."