(August 14, 2013 at 8:32 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Well, Raymond Damadian (pioneer of the MRI) is a YEC. Which is why he isn't a biologist. I've looked it up, and found that if there are any respected scientists who accept the biblical accounts of creation, they'll invariably be in a field where it doesn't matter as much as in biology.
We’re talking about being scientists in general, and I assure you, you can be a scientist and not be a biologist. Secondly, your statement was simply false, Robert Carter has a PhD in Marine Biology, John C. Sanford has a PhD in Plant Genetics and has been published over 70 times in secular peer-reviewed journals, Vladimir Betina has earned doctorates in Microbiology, Biology, and Biochemistry, Kimberly Berrine has doctorates in Microbiology and Immunology, Raymond G. Bohlin has a PhD in Biology, Andrew Bosanquet has PhDs in Microbiology and Biology, David DeWitt has a PhD in Neuroscience with a Bachelor’s in Biochemistry, Carl Fliermans has a PhD in Biology, James A. Huggins has a PhD in Biology, Arthur Jones has a PhD in Biology, Leonid Korochkin has a PhD in Molecular Biology, Gi-Tai Kim has a PhD in Biology, John Kramer has a PhD in Biochemistry, Myung-Sang Kwon has a PhD in Immunology, John G. Leslie has a PhD in Experimental Pathology, Chris D. Osborne has a PhD in Biology, Jung-Goo Roe has a PhD in Biology, Ariel A. Roth has a PhD in Biology, Timothy G. Standish has a PhD in Biology, Sung-Hee Yoon has a PhD in Biology, and Henry Zuill has a PhD in Biology. All of these scientists are Young Earth Creationists as well.
Quote: And, seriously, SW, if you want us to take your story about a fake creationist article getting rejected for bad methodology seriously, you'll have to at least name names. Who were these guys? What journals rejected them? I tried googling the story as you told it and found absolutely nothing.
I’ll see if I can find the article, it was years ago and I believe it was the Journal of Creation (may have still been called “TJ” at the time) that rejected their article. Of course you’re not going to find anything from the actual group that submitted the article, what are they going to say? “We submitted a bogus article to the Journal of Creation and they rejected it because we do not know what we’re doing!” I quite frankly do not care whether you take the story seriously or not, you’ve already proven you’re not an objective thinker on this subject when you asserted there were no Biologists who believe in Young Earth Creation.
(August 15, 2013 at 2:15 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Theologists, you mean? No need, my second supervisor is actually a theologist. But really, I'd take the opinion of people who work in science over those who don't.
Well the term is Theologian, but no that is not what I meant. What about the opinion of creationists who work in science or do they conveniently not count?
Quote: Common sense really. Creation science doesn't exist, because its nonsense.
An appeal to common sense is a logical fallacy; do you have any arguments that are not logically fallacious?
Quote: It's not circular to say that something that isn't a science isn't a science.
Sure, but that’s not what you said. You claimed creation science wasn’t a science because it doesn’t feature in any research department you know of. That’s an absurd standard; something is not deemed scientific or unscientific by whether or not it is featured in a research department that you know of. Creationists do scientific research. What this all boils down to is, you all do not like creationists so therefore you do not believe they are scientists, well forgive me for rejecting that arbitrary standard. You’ve given me no actual justification for the definition of science excluding creationists.
Quote: That's not true.
It absolutely is true, if you’re working on something that is going to shake the foundation of science, there is no way you’re getting it published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example…
Watson’s and Crick’s groundbreaking work on DNA was never peer-reviewed
J. R Mayer’s work on the 1st Law of Thermodynamics in 1842 was rejected by the peer-review system even though it’s now a cornerstone of modern physics
Stephen Hawkings initial proofs and work concerning the existence of singularities were never peer-reviewed.
Fermi’s work on weak interaction theory of beta decay was rejected by the peer-review process
Darwin’s On the Origins of Species, and The Descent of Man were never peer-reviewed
Newton’s Principia Mathematica was never peer-reviewed.
Einstein’s Relativity, The Special and General Theory was never peer-reviewed
Copernicus' De Revolutionibus was never peer-reviewed
Robert H. Michell’s work on signalling reaction by hormones was rejected by the peer-review system.
Hans Krebs's work on the citric acid cycle was rejected by the peer-review system but later won a Nobel Prize.
Harmut Michel’s work that won the 1988 Nobel prize for chemistry was rejected by the peer-review system.
If you want to conduct further research upon an already generally accepted view in science, then peer-review is the place to go, but if you want to engage in truly groundbreaking research that will change science forever (i.e. Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Hawkings, and Copernicus), then peer-review is not the place to go.
“Mention 'peer review' and almost every scientist will regale you with stories about referees submitting nasty comments, sitting on a manuscript forever, or rejecting a paper only to repeat the study and steal the glory."- “Peer Review and Quality: A Dubious Connection?", Science Volume 293.
Quote: Nonsense. All aceademic books worth their weight are reviewed by editors, publishers, and, yes, their peers in peer review. Research in contemporary science literature that's worth the paper it's written on will be be peer reviwed in some shape or form during the course of its inception to publication. This is a fact. Most academic texts for example (including text books for undergraduates) will have chapters published in research journals of varying impact factors for validation (among other things; advertising for one).
You seem to be confounding the act of having a peer review your work and actually submitting your work to the peer-review system. You’re trying to argue that good science needs to be submitted to the peer-review system, I am pointing out that you’re wrong. A great deal of the best science the world has ever known was either never submitted to the peer-review system or was rejected by it.
Quote: Also, did you know that a lot of scientific research today is done in collaborative partnerships with institutions around the world? Many hundreds of millions of pounds can go into research sometimes, and often it will necessitate a collaborative effort form various researchers, sometimes in different field (eg CERN as one example). Internal and external peer review is one the staples of such partnerships as many interested parties means that everyone will wish for the research to be as transparent and as accessible as possible.
You are still confounding the issue; something does not have to be accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal in order to be considered good science. That’s a misconception held by lay persons.
“Unable or unwilling to investigate scientific methodology and determine just what is orthodox and "generally accepted," the Ninth Circuit instead seized upon publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal as the badge of respectability, the sine qua non of admissible "good science." The court thereby converted that editorial tool into something no scientist or journal editor ever meant it to be: a litmus test for scientific truth. This is not the way scientists work in their laboratories and symposia”- Stephen Jay Gould (1993)
Quote: Is it perfect? No, not at all, but it is the best system by a country mile for ensuring sound methodological enterprises and the uniform testing of results.
Something being the best system simply because it is the only current system is not that impressive. We can do better.
