Pranking Christian call show

[Statler Waldorf]

They support creationism, and since it's an unproven claim, it's idiotic to perpetuate it. They are supporting creationism, a notion that proves itself to be idiotic.

Now that’s quite the assertion. Science does not deal with proof (it’s based upon induction, not deduction), so all scientific claims are “unproven”, so your assertion that believing in something that is unproven is idiotic is itself…well rather idiotic. Secondly, conveniently labeling anyone who disagrees with you as an idiot proves nothing as well. It’s amazing the scientific support that is available for the creation model in light of their meager budget.

You still haven't shown how they support creation science.

Not sure what you mean here, I already pointed out that they do scientific work for the major creation institutions.

It just sounds like you're butthurt that if you tried to do "creation science" that you would get shot down in the peer review because you happened to have a few presuppositions there not supported by already accepted scientific theories. I for one am glad they have implemented this system in order to keep the SWs out of real science.

I think it’s more likely that you just approve of a system that silences descent and novelty because you know your side cannot win the debate upon the merits of their position alone. Peer-review referees are not supposed to reject something because of presuppositions, they’re supposed to reject work because of poor methodology; you obviously have no idea how the system you have such a childish zeal for even works. It’s a corrupt system though; most secular scientists even realize that. It’s based more on who you are and who you work for than how good of science you’re performing.

I'm curious though. How does the developer of the scientific method being a creationist make any difference in your argument?

It makes a huge difference. It points out the fact that your claim that creationists cannot be scientists is utterly absurd because all of modern science is based upon a method of inquiry that was first formulated by a creationist.

If you could somehow prove that an atheist couldn't have come up with the method, then that would be impressive.

Nice fallacious argument from ignorance, “You cannot prove an atheist couldn’t have first formulated the scientific method, therefore an atheist could have first formulated the scientific method!” We know a creationist (not an atheist) first formulated the method, let’s stay within the realm of facts here.

I'm afraid that's an impossible feat, but maybe the Chosen One SW will come up with a way to mold the evidence to his view!

Nope, all I had to do was point out you were making an irrational argument; easy enough to do.

For one thing, with anonymous submissions, there could be a dishonest fellow or two out there that could potentially steal another's work.

That already happens, that’s why we make the reviewers not legally anonymous. With the way the system is now; all the reviewer has to do is reject the work for publishing and then re-submit his own version of it and nobody would ever know because is involvement as a reviewer is completely anonymous. In my system, we’d know who rejected what work, so if they themselves publish the same work later we can take the appropriate legal recourse.

Intellectual property is something taken very seriously, if I'm not mistaken.

Not in the system as it stands now. I am not saying the submission is completely anonymous, I am saying it is anonymous when it is reviewed by the referees and the editors, once it is approved for publishing then the author and institution can be revealed.

As for preference over one person's affiliations as compared to others', this actually helps to sift through the potential heaps of garbage that might make its way into peer review (not that there's not a ton already).

No, scientific work should be evaluated upon their scientific merit, not based upon which University it came from or who submitted it. No censorship or favoritism.

I don't know if you realized this either, but censorship is not meant to keep people out of some secret club of those who are in-the-know, but rather to protect the individual(s) making the submission. Take National Security in the U.S. as an example: we classify things as Confidential, Secret, and Top-Secret not to keep people from knowing the information, but to protect the source of the information. If someone's work is compromised, then progress in the scientific community would not happen as fast as it currently is.

What on earth are you talking about? When an article is published it is published with everyone’s name on it. The only censorship that occurs is the censorship of ideas and results, if your work shakes the paradigm it is not getting published.
“‘The editorial process has tended to be run as an informal, old-boy network which has excluded minorities, women, younger researchers, and those from lower-prestige institutions. Authors can feel that they’re dealing with hostile gatekeepers whose goal is to keep out manuscripts on picky grounds rather than let in the best work.”- Rick Crandall, Editorial responsibilities in manuscript review

And THAT is what makes them idiotic.

Everyone who disagrees with Min is an idiot, even if they have a PhD in Biology, he still knows more than all of them combined! You’re funny.

Let's have all the evidence you can muster for all life beginning 6,000 years ago in the middle east when your silly-assed god poofed everything into existence. Take your time. We'll wait.

We’d be here for years, and I do not want to waste your golden years there old-timer The day you actually sincerely want to debate the topic rather than this sort of meaningless rhetoric I’d me more than happy to do so, but everyone knows you lack the intellectual fortitude and honesty to sincerely debate anything.

Never met one. Unlikely to ever meet one. However, see below:

You’ve never met a creationist who holds a position as a scientist? I have.

I don't care about creationists, they don't feature on mine or anyone else's daily life that I know of. In the UK you're more likely to come across an albino than a YEC. But you're actually inferring a position I don't hold. I laugh at creation science, not creationists doing science. Big difference.

That’s a poor reflection upon the UK more than anything else. I am just relieved that the US, South Korea, and Australia both emphasize the merits of one’s ideas and the importance of free debate rather than censorship that does nothing but stifle scientific progress.

The reason why creation science is tosh is becuase creationism, specifically YEC, is demonstrably a fairy tale.

Assertion received, demonstration needed.

Other forms are assertion without evidence. You want evidence of fallacious reasoning? That's it.

This itself is an assertion without evidence, which is rather ironic.

Otherwise it's all mental gymnastics, why I see you displaying rather well on this forum this far.

I see nothing wrong with possessing such mental rigor.

No researcher worth her grant will research into creationism becuase it's like pissing money into the wind.

Another assertion without evidence coupled with a faulty analogy.

So, to reiterate, That creationists do 'science' is neither here nor there. If the research is sound it would be fallicious of me to reject it based on their personal beliefs.

Yes it would be, but thus far you’ve hardly demonstrated any restraint from engaging in that which is logically fallacious.

If they do 'creation' science, however, then I can point and laugh, as can everyone else.

Which would be nothing more than a logically fallacious appeal to ridicule; which conveniently proves my point above.

Any my reply; so? Why are you ignoring the countless tomes of research that has been published in PR articles that have lead to countless breakthroughs in the scientific literature?

Because the biggest breakthroughs were never peer-reviewed, did you not read my list? The cornerstones of modern Physics, Astronomy, and biology (i.e. Newtonian Physics, Relativity, DNA, and Darwinism) were never peer-reviewed. I know you’re not going to be able to top that.

You seem to judge a 'breakthrough' as something that equals relativity, or gravity and so on.

You do not consider those to be landmark theories? I do.

This is simply ignorance to the scientific method and the advances that are made on a daily basis about things you've probably never even heard of or considered. 'Change science forever' - that happens on a daily basis, mate. You just don't know anything about it.

I am becoming rather suspicious that you’re merely blowing smoke. Provide some peer-reviewed articles that actually contradicted the accepted paradigm to the degree that the works I mentioned did.

'Conducting research on a generally accepted view' - If what you say were the case, then there wouldn't be won't breakthrough or advances in knowledge at all, would there?

Sure there would be, it’d be more along the lines of baby steps though rather than the leaps and bounds we saw prior to the emphasis on the peer-review system that was adopted in the mid to late 20th Century.

Ones work needs to be reviewed by others that are necessarily competitors to you. Otherwise, familiarity will breed contempt, and poor research.

Agreed, but it is insane to give your competitors the ability to reject your work for publishing with complete legal anonymity, which is what you are defending. Publish your work and allow for it to be praised or criticized in the realm of scientific ideas; that’s what Darwin did and that’s what we need to get back to.

The process of peer-review, whether it be through the board of a journal or through the peer review system of a publisher (who, by the way, do give texts submitted to people who are both in and out of the field that the text is aimed at, which is actually in many cases a much more rigorous peer review system than what is employed in some low to medium impact journals) is integral to the entirety of the scientific schools. There are few exceptions to the rule. I don't know why but you seem you be convinced that 'peer-review' is the system exclusively utilised by journals.

I do not see why you think I am against having peers review your work; I am merely against giving your peers the ability to remain anonymous and reject work for publishing. There are numerous creation peer-reviewed journals, and I support their use.

If you publish something that isn't reviewed by your peers, competitors or otherwise, then what's to say that your methodology or even your findings aren't totally bogus and not worthy of the paper they're written on.

Nothing; and the peer-review system does nothing to ensure that the methodology and data recorded were the actual methodology and data in the research. You’re getting into the realm of scientific ethics and out of the realm of the merits of peer-review.

And besides, the peer review system has little to do with content, more to do with the structure of the methodology and format of the article. At least, it should be, which is where I actually agree with you (as you state above in another post).

Yes, that is the way it should be, but that’s not the way it is today.

I put it to you that your understanding of 'best science' is very narrow and poorly defined.

Narrow? Even though you apparently believe that the only good science is that which is peer-reviewed? That is what seems to be a narrow definition and one which I have proven is ill-founded.

The peer review system is not simply to accept what is already known. If this were true, there would be no advances in scientific enquiry outside of the realms of what you define as 'currently accepted' theories or methodological enterprises. I know a lot of stuff for example that goes on with regards to anti-biotic resistance and research into gram-negative/positive bacterial evolution that you would never have heard of, which is changing the face of science and our understand forever.

You’re not following what I am saying, perhaps I have been unclear, for which I apologize. I am not saying they only publish what we already know; I am saying they only publish research that builds off of the accepted paradigm. If you want to publish a paper concerning further research on bacterial resistance and how it supports common descent, you’ll probably get published. If you want to publish a paper pertaining to the fact that bacterial resistance does not account for the increase in genetic information necessary to sustain the current accepted view on common descent and you’ll get rejected because you’re questioning the accepted paradigm (in this case common descent). Shake the boat and you’re ok, rock the boat and you’re done for.

Just because its not as famous as relativity doesn't mean it isn't excellent ground breaking science. All of it can be found in peer reviwed literatures online.

I never claimed that good science doesn’t get published in peer-reviewed journals, I merely stated the largest groundbreaking theories usually never were, which was an accurate statement.

Your attempt to patronise me as a 'lay person' might hold some ground if it wasnt coming out of your rear end. When was the last time you submitted any original research? To anyone?

This morning I generated data this morning on prescribed burning that will be used in a peer-reviewed and published Environmental Analysis that will be coming out in 2015 for a 60,000 acre project we’ve been proposing ecologic restoration on. Once it finally makes it through the National Environmental Protection Act process the project would have taken six years. What about you?

And in fact, statler, regarding your point above about some recommendations of amendments to the peer review methodology, I actually agree that some of the points you raise are worth considering and worth further examination.

I appreciate the support, and I appreciate the discussion. You’re a stand-up guy.