Jump to content

Creationists launch “peer reviewed� journal


Recommended Posts

  • Admin

By Massimo Pigliucci, Ph.D.

 

I’m not making this up, I swear. “Answers in Genesis,” the same nonsensical outlet that has given us Ken Ham’s “Creation Museum,” recently launched a “peer reviewed” “technical” journal, called, of course, “Answers Research Journal.” The idea, we learn from the “About” section of the journal’s web page, is to provide an outlet for “interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.” See, apparently “there has been a pressing need for such a journal,” because “people want to know they can trust what is published on the Internet,” and they “can give you absolute assurance that the papers we will be publishing in Answers Research Journal are of the highest scientific and theological standard.” Of course, a high theological standard is a bit of an oxymoron, but let’s not quibble on the details.

 

The editor of this prestigious new arrival on the scientific scene is Andrew A. Snelling, who is so unknown and apparently insecure enough that he puts “B.Sc. (Hons)” after his name, before “Ph.D.” (in geology, from the University of Sidney). The esteemed (by some) Dr. Snelling has published an astounding 24 technical papers in 30 years of research, an average that would not get him tenure at the local community college. Accordingly, in 1998 Snelling had to content himself with joining the “faculty” of the Institute for Creation Research in California. Nevertheless, in the same year he won a whopping three (!!) prizes at the Fourth International Conference on Creationism for three technical papers he submitted (my hunch is that they were only three papers submitted, but I could be wrong, there may have been four). We are not told who else is on the editorial board of ARJ, perhaps the distinguished scientists who agreed to oversee the peer review process were afraid of losing tenure at their institutions. Damn secularist fascists in charge of American universities!

 

I simply couldn’t wait to start reading about all these new exciting scientific discoveries informed by a Christian perspective, and I wasn’t disappointed. The current volume of ARJ features the proceedings of the Microbe Forum, where we learn that “for many years the roles of microbes as part of God’s wonderful design have been neglected. Perhaps it is because many people associate microbes as the cause of death, disease, and suffering.” I think these many people have a point: what the hell was god thinking? Well, abstracts presented at the Forum begin to tell us, as titles include such gems as a “Creationist Model of Bacterial Mutations,” “Creation Microbiology and the Origin of Disease,” the highly technical-sounding “Viral/Bacterial Attenuation and Its Link to Innate Oncolytic Potential: Implications of the Perfect Original Creation in the Beginning,” and my favorite: “Pathogenicity Tools and Mycotoxins: In the Beginning or after the Fall?”

 

But the rest of the current issue of ARJ is not to be neglected either. For instance, in “Microbes and the Days of Creation,” by Alan Gillen (unknown academic affiliation), we learn that “ongoing research, based on the creation paradigm, appears to provide some answers to puzzling questions” such as “where do microbes fit into the creation account? ... Were they created along with the rest of the plants and animals in the first week of creation, or were they created later, after the Fall?” In a show of pure scientific balance, the author admits that “the answers to these questions are not explicit in Scripture, so the answers cannot be dogmatic.” Gillen ends up postulating that “microbes were created as ‘biological systems’ with plants, animals, and humans on multiple days [of creation week]” because as we well know “God made His creation fully mature, and complex forms fully formed.” Amen.

 

No need to go any further with this nonsense, as good as it is for a chuckle or two. The real question is: why? Why do creationists feel compelled to have a “science” museum, a peer reviewed journal, or, in the case of the Discovery Institute Intelligent Design think tank, a recently established (but very secretive) research laboratory? Could it be science envy? Indeed, even more broadly, why do creationists feel compelled to argue their case at all? Isn’t faith enough? When I was living in the south of the US it often happened that someone would engage me in an impromptu debate, where they were sure that I would see the light of (their) overwhelming reason and convert on the spot. When, instead, I managed to put them on the defensive, they would play with evident pride the faith trump card: “I believe in spite of evidence.” OK, fair enough (if more than a bit moronic), but then why did you just try to argue with me? Arguing, teaching, and doing research means that one accepts the rule of rational, evidence-based discourse. And yet creationists want to have it both ways, and promptly retreat behind the all-encompassing shield of faith when things get rough.

 

I suspect that creationists, deep down, have internalized the much-despised secular ethos that one has to have reasons for one’s positions, and they feel that they really don’t have rationality on their side. They seek respectability through fake museums and peer review journals because they know that the Middle Ages are over, and just shouting one’s faith in god isn’t gonna cut it anymore (modern society disqualifying stoning and burning at stakes doesn’t help either). Indeed, the very progression that we have seen during the 20th century, from the Scopes to the Dover trials, from young earth creationism pretending to keep evolution teaching out of public schools entirely to so-called “intelligent design” (which accepts a lot of science, including natural selection) begging for a bit of classroom time, is a path of constant retreat, away from silly biblical literalism, inching ever closer to modern science. The most advanced of the creationist ilk, the ID supporters, have intellectually advanced all the way into the early 19th century (after Paley, before Darwin), while young earth creationists are still trying to come to terms with the Enlightenment. Perhaps if we wait another century or two they’ll enter early 20th century science and make peace with Darwin. Now, that would be a miracle to behold.

 

More articles by Massimo Pigiucci can be read at Rationally Speaking, a blog devoted to rational discourse on science, philosophy, social and political issues. Massimo also maintains a science site and a philosophy site, and has written several books.

 

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/02...r-reviewed.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, whoever, thanks for posting this. I'm going to need these sources for my paper on fundamentalists and science. Wasn't sure where I was going to get information on late 20th century-to-the-present science but this looks great. Thanks a lot!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin
Dave, whoever, thanks for posting this. I'm going to need these sources for my paper on fundamentalists and science. Wasn't sure where I was going to get information on late 20th century-to-the-present science but this looks great. Thanks a lot!

 

 

You're welcome, Ruby.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did a quick read of the article on "Microbes and the Days of Creation." The author contends that each species of microbe was created individually on three separate days of creation (the 3rd, the 5th, and the 6th, depending on the type of microbe). He manages to speculate that the microbes were created on the appropriate day to support the type of life that was being created that day. I guess he forgot about addressing microbes that were neither symbiotic nor pathogenic. At least this was an advance (sort of, I guess) in his previous thinking that god created "plant-like" microbes on the third day and "animal-like" microbes on the 5th and 6th days! He further contends that 5 - 10% of all microbes turned evil and became pathogenic after the fall.

 

He seemed to have somewhat more trouble with viruses, concluding that some of the were created during creation week while others (the bad viruses) were degenerate parts of cells after the curse. He made mention of viruses that tune the immune systems of pregnant women during pregnancy, yet he seems to forget that he implied earlier that this function would not have made sense as part of creation since there were no pathogens during part of the initial creation.

 

His arguments employed nothing that even remotely resembled either "science" or "research," but instead featured his own personal "reflection" on these matters. (Oops, I guess that must have accidentally slipped through the "peer review process.") And as always, that "reflection" begins with a premise, held inviolate, that the xian god created the world according to the genesis myth, and then simply "reflects" to defend that premise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! Peer reviewed = all the fundies sitting around and saying 'yeah, the doctrine is correct,' and they won't say anything about the 'science' since there is none.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"With peers like this, who needs enemas?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.