Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 23 January 2008 | Nature 451, 382-383 (2008) | doi:10.1038/451382b
News
Creationists launch 'science' journal
Research within a biblical framework to be peer reviewed.
The organization that last year opened a US$27-million creation museum in Kentucky has started its own 'peer-reviewed' scientific research journal.
On 9 January, Answers in Genesis, a Christian ministry run by evangelical Ken Ham, launched Answers Research Journal (ARJ), a free, online publication devoted to research on “recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework”.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
This is both funny and sad.... The term "creation science" is simply a linguistic and logical nonsense. It is impossible to prove any "creation" (and is not even required as it is the matter of faith not the evidence of it) while the term "science" implies the necessary possibility of the falsification of scientific theories. This is just another poor attempt to give a bit more "scientific tincture" to the unprovable whatever to give it more "credibility".
"Recent court rulings make it all but impossible for intelligent design, a belief that a higher being shaped evolution, to be taught in US public schools." How bizarre that in the classrooms of the most free country in the world there is neither freedom of religion nor freedom of expression. Free discussion should not be outlawed, especially in the classroom.
It’s really sad that religious fundamentalism is spreading its poisonous tentacles fast in science and vitiating the minds of young school children (just like the “jehadis� in some countries in religious schools/madrasas).
It is really sad that religious fundamentalism is spreading its poisonous tentacles fast in science and vitiating the minds of young school children (just like the jehadis in some countries in religious schools/madrasas).
To Van Eysinga: I think you are missing the point. This is not about freedom of religion or freedom of speech. There is nothing that preclude people to practice their religion or preach what their believes. The point Szolcsanyi made is that by definition science is the pursue of knowledge by testing hypothesis. Religion seeks truth by different means. Thus, "creation science" is an oxymoron.
As it seems both neither creation nor evolution can be proven false by the scientific method (let us pause and recall how the scientific method actually works), it would be wise to consider they may not be mutually exclusive. Perhaps this journal is not the farce some might envision it to be.
Regarding the above unthoughtful comment: You cannot disprove the mystical pixie dust, nor ethereal unicorns , nor any other created fictions. The point is what you can prove. In this vein, evolution stands upon a mountain of evidence while creationism is burrowed in its own illogical fallacies which directly oppose the facts of evolution. You cannot teach theories which do not rely on evidence in a science classroom simply because there is an infinite number of them. I'm willing to come up with a few.
I hope ARJ will take off. Many scientists and physicists that accept a 'recent creation' find themselves banned from publishing their work among their peers once they express a view in favor of creationism. The new term, Intelligent Design that mistakenly gets applied to creation scientists doesn’t help much either. Hopefully they will feel secure enough to use this venue to refine their findings and positions. I personally would like to see more data around creation, natural selection and the resulting data loss peer reviewed.
Will politicians, with or without religion or a god, act any different if they take "creationism" seriously? They will still lead us into wars and proseltise over challenges like how to ameliorate global warming. I've been a professional scientist for 40 years and understand little and "believe" even less of what I read in Nature et al. So let the "creationists" publish what they want on the basis of "reader beware". They are in good company with other god-believers", like suicide bombers who are promised their place in heaven...by fellow men.
I'm Irish, and I really don't understand the evolution / creation divide in schools in America. Evolution belongs in science classes. Creation belongs in religion classes. Simple! What's the big deal?
I think it important to note that the ARJ sets a unique prior restraint for its acceptance of "research". Thus, it begins its career with, in my opinion, a very dishonest approach to doing science. I find it quite fascinating the way these Jesuit-like moralizers will leap over all manner of accepted morality "in-defense-of-the-faith". To tell scientists that you are developing a new journal for them to submit new research, but with the caveat that they must agree that the earth is about 6,000 years old, is at best not science from the jump, at worst it's a mask for something far more sinister -- confusion of non-scientists. I think it to be the latter. R. Hudson
Carter - Evolution can be disproved. The reason science considers it one of the best proven ideas is that it sits atop a mountain of interlocking evidence - morphological, paleontological, genetic, observational, experimental - and any one of those areas could easily disprove it. The standard example given is a fossil of a rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian. Find one of those, and evolution is in serious trouble. Or you could find an animal with an organ utterly unlike any other in any other species - a monkey, say, with a biological radio transmitter/receiver in its jaw. Or you could find DNA in one organism that was radically (or even significantly) different from other organisms that appeared on other evidence to be closely related. Or... if you read up on evolution, you'll find hundreds of places where the story could break down with one piece of seriously anomalous data. (The slightly anomalous stuff happens all the time - and that's how science works) So, where is that anomaly? intelligent Design has a concept called specified complexity, which says that some structures are so complicated that there's no possible evolutionary mechanism that could produce them. That would indeed be troublesome for evolution - and I think the monkey skull radio would count. But there's no monkey skull radio, just a few bits of baroque biology that evolutionary biologists have no trouble finding possible, indeed plausible, pathways for. Evolution is exquisitely falsifiable. That it hasn't been, all these years after Darwin, is exquisitely significant. Now, let's look at creationism in the same light. I don't know which particular sort of creationism you would favour, because there are many hundreds, if not thousands, of accounts in religious books. They all have one thing in common: from the Egyptian god Atum ejaculating the universe into existence to the Hebrew god creating the universe in six days through fiat, there's no evidence for them at all. Scientifically, you can't even choose between them, let alone demonstrate how one or more matches the observations and theories of modern science. Answers in Genesis consists almost entirely of special cases where this or that observation might just be wrong if you assume that or this. There's no effort to form this into any sort of coherent world view (outside that which confirms their reading of the Bible), let alone a scrap of stand-alone evidence of their own discovery. It's utterly unteachable as science. As religion - fine, why not? Believe what you like. But you don't get anywhere by pretending something is science when it isn't.
There are many kinds of diversity in biological species, in cultures, in religions and so on. There should be diversity in discovering the truth. Of course, science has been popular. For example, in treating diseases, modern medicine is popular, but many kinds of traditional medicine such as traditional Chinese medicne are alternative. At this point,Answers Research Journal might be a good thing.
In my opinion, creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Creationism tries to explain how life came into existence i.e. through the action of an Intelligent Being. Evolution provides a plausible account of how life came to acquire the diversity that we observe in present-day Earth. It should be noted that creationism and evolutionary theory refer to temporally distinct periods and do not directly contradict or undermine each other. On a sidenote, I think that the creationist viewpoint is also flawed in some areas. First, the improbability of all life arising from a concatenation of molecules does not necessitate the existence of an Intelligent Being. The existence of such a Being is only postulated by humans and believed to be truth when there is no logical reason that compels us to that end and such an explanation makes life easier to comprehend and deal with. Second, it is equally possible that life and variation is governed by hitherto unknown cosmic forces/laws and not a human-like God per se.
I don't agree with simply dismissing an entire area of research, I think each article should be individually judged on its merits. Therefore, I have just read one of the (three) articles in 'ARJ'. I wasn't expecting much, but I was astonished by its absolute (and I mean 'absolute' in the true sense of the word) lack of content. The article in question speculates on which day of Genesis bacteria and other simple life forms were created (because, of course, there is no mention of bacteria in the Bible). The author's speculation is based upon the Bible's description of the types of organism created on each day: plants and 'seed-bearing' organisms on day 3, sea animals and flying animals on day 5, 'creeping things', land animals and humans on day 6. The author postulates that lower lifeforms were created alongside more complex organisms in functionally-related bundles. For instance, bacteria living in symbiosis with humans were created on the same day as humans, and so on. And that's it. Not a single experimental observation is made, nor referenced, in the entire article. If this article is typical of the field, then there is definitely no science in 'Creation science'. If any professors want to convince their students of this fact, I recommend giving them a copy of this article and letting them make up their own minds. This journal is a farce.
Instead of being disappointed, scientist should consider the coming together and increase in number of creationists as an opportunity. For example, geneticists require fairly larger sample sizes to identify gene(s) and genetic variations influencing mental abilities. They can very well carry out a population based genetic association study in an attempt to identify genetic variation responsible for susceptibility to creationism (considering it involves multiple genes) as opposed to evolutionism. Since identification of candidate genes will be an almost impossible task, a genome-wide association (GWA)study should be preferred. GWA are costly affairs. But it should not be aproblem because if evolutionists are really serious they will be more than willing to contribute towards financing a project that will investigate creationism following "methods in science". Of course, before doing all that, it will be important to first examine prevalence, family aggregation etc. If GWA fails to identify gene(s), well and good. But if it does then possible gene therapy can be thought of. Naturally, ethical issues will have to be taken care of. Similarly, brain imaging studies can be undertaken to see, if any, which brain region is responsible for creationist thinking. A very high resolution imaging may be however required here. Again a costly affair. But people with scientific thinking should be excited to shell out their money for a noble cause. Further, a biochemist can look for identifying biomarker(s) of creationsism. May be looking at cerebrospinal fluid will be ideal. But for non-invasive one, analyses of urine will be most attractive. For molecular biologists, miRNA studies will be so cutting-edge ..... Brightest aspect will be that both positive and negative results can be published in either of the two "Science" journal. What is the problem! Scientists will benefit from publication and get promotion. Luckier ones may even find editorial board membership of ARJ. Note: If gene(s) are not identified, environment may be playing a role. Now identifying environmental factors involved will be a real challenge. Theoretical biologists, epidemiologists, statisticians, nutriosists, ecologists, people engaged in cultural diveristy studies etc. may keep themselves busy in the interim, by breaking their head on identifying potential environmental and life-style candidate(s).
World = matter + soul. Science is on matter, and religions are on soul so that they can be in peace with each other.The creation in the religion believing in GOD might just be a creation of matter-specifc soul so that IT has the specific soul concepts of plants and seed-bearing life on Day Three, the specific soul concepts of Sea animals and flying animals on Day Five, the specific soul concepts of creeping things, land animals, and humans, and so on.
Let me challenge two common fallacies (both raised above). It is perfectly evident to all readers of Nature that the biological world is one of as yet unfathomed complexity and interdependent intricacy. 1 'Evolution can be disproved.' What's the test? Prof Cohen famously said in the Mensa debate on evolution in London in 1995, he'd didn't know of a data set that might even theoretically falsify evolution. It is as plastic and tenuous a theory as psychoanalysis - a pseudoscience, masking a diehard commitment to materialism, however increasingly statistically ridiculous it seems. 2 'Evolution stands upon a mountain of evidence'. What about the primal myths of abiogenesis? - it seems more speculative and contrived now than at any time since Miller and Urey's work. No wonder NASA is soberly calling on aliens to help! What about the increasingly vast gulf that lies between ape and chimpanzee DNA - can it really be bridged by millions of years of natural selection? What about the Kow swamp mtDNA findings - erectus like skeletal morphology, virtually entirely modern sequences? What about the colossal mess of Neanderthal/sapiens co-burials and cohabitations? What of the Selenka expedition's telling discoveries about Dubois' strata? Why has evolutionary anthropology been so intensely territorial over data, and so fraught with fraud? Something is deeply amiss with evolutionary science as a corpus as it stands, and the lack of critical alarm is all the more telling. I welcome the journal, although I shall read it with as much scepticism as I read these hallowed pages!
For Michelle's benefit just a snippet from Alan Gillen's abstract on saprophyte transformation - readers may wish to judge for themselves the value of her comments on the journal, (which I in no way represent). 'In the initial stages, we seek to develop and elucidate a research model using S. marcescens. UV irradiation can transform prodigiosin-producing organisms into nonproducing white mutants. In our experiments to maximize random mutations correlated with loss of prodigiosin, radiation time influenced mortality and the number of white mutants that grew. The degeneracy of prodigiosin production in our experiments have some similarity (i.e., some UV white mutants have greater motility and have lost some metabolic capabilities) to that in clinical strains (933 and WF), suggesting a possible link to pathogenicity. The initiation rate and degree of pathogenicity in the UV white mutants is unknown, but those that develop numerous flagella are more likely to become pathogenic via transduction or another undetermined mechanism. ...Germ genesis in S. marcescens (from saprophyte to pathogen) appears to be a good model of bacteria that first lost metabolic pathways, then acquired foreign genes (phages), and finally had its DNA “stirred.� A once harmless saprophyte has now become an opportunistic pathogen.'
I would love to know where Charles Soper got that abstract from. It wasn't from the article I was reading. I'm not entirely sure what he is trying to tell me by quoting randomly from an entirely different article to the one I was discussing. Perhaps he is trying to tell me that the author, Alan Gillen, does in fact carry out scientific research, and that I should not judge him based on the 'Answers' article. Fair enough, but like I said, I judge articles on their individual merit, and the one I read had none. Read it for yourselves.
Anyone who has any lingering belief that ARJ is truly a scientific journal should simply read the instructions for authors. Among other criteria for judging a paper are these: 3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework? 4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative? In other words, if a researcher submitted utterly compelling evidence for an ancient earth/universe, this would be rejected. Notably, there is no requirement that evidence for a young earth/universe be balanced by considering old earth/universe alternative explanations. The claim may be made that the journal offers a forum for objective scientific studies which are "suppressed" by peer-review in tradtional journals. The instructions to authors make it clear that the journal would refuse to publish any evidence which supported an alternative to evolutionary theory if the evidence was also inconsistent with Christian creation mythology. This is not the behaviour of a scientific journal, it is the behaviour of an instrument of propaganda promoting a very specific religious belief system. It is clear that papers from any of the many scientists who are committed Christians, but who have no problem reconciling this with belief in evolution and an old universe, would be rejected out of hand. Opposition to representation of this journal as being scientific is not religious censorship; it is a defence of the very meaning of science.
Scientific "within a biblical framework"? The bible is an interesting historical collection of books, and a Sacred Book for many, but it is not at all scientific. One could fill hundreds of pages listing biblical contradictions and plain mistakes.
Concern has been expressed about the phrase “support the positions taken by the journal�. However, Peter Bowler reminds us that the journal Nature was founded by T. H. Huxley and colleagues for the purpose of, in part, promoting a campaign to support Darwinism: “By exploiting their position in this network, Huxley and his friends ensured that Darwinism had come to stay (Ruse, 1979a). They controlled the scientific journals - the journal Nature was founded in part to promote the campaign - and manipulated academic appointments. Hull (1978) has stressed how important these rhetorical and political skills were in creating a scientific revolution. (Peter J. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, pg. 185 (University of California Press, 3rd ed., 2003).) What we need is an informed debate about the issues, not the tired expression of polarised views.
A challenge to creationist /intelligent design adherents: Reject evolution and have a go at any basic biological or molecular research science, medicine, epidemiology, antibiotic resistance, human genetics, agriculture.. outside of an evolutionary framework... Reject all the knowledge and insights into the biological world that have been gained through the evolutionary paradigm. If evolution is false then throw it away, and throw away all the technologies that go with it. Go and live in the middle ages if thats what you think your god wants.
I've got to wonder, first, whether Answers Research Journal will allow rebuttals from non-creationists (the journal apparently is to be peer reviewed by those who “support the positions taken by the journal�), and second, whether non-creationists will even bother. If rebuttals aren't allowed then we don't have a scientific journal.
Natural scientists should be fair to creationists and recognize that creationism has a counterpart in science, namely in some fields of social sciences, in which social scientists read, interpret and apply the "classics" to explain the "mind" and the "society", the same way creationists read and use the bible to explain the soul and the universe.
re: Homero Yes, and a couple of thousand years of using the bible to explain the soul and the universe has been enormously fruitful for those of a religious leaning... but thats not the issue, the problem lies in using/abusing the bible to explain the fossil record, and the formation of the outer planets, and the origin of species. and maybe you can -BUT IT'S NOT SCIENCE, its codswallop -anti-science, and it should'nt be in a science class, and it shouldnt be printed in a journal with the word Science on the front. To tolerate this corruption of reason is to turn a blind eye to a deliberate and organised campaign to erase the progress of centuries... a religious resurgence that aims to return us to pre-enlightenment ignorance, superstition, fear of god and servility to mother church.
Re: "it shouldnt [sic] be printed in a journal with the word Science on the front." Where exactly is the word "science" in the title "Answers Research Journal (ARJ )?" The only place that "science" appears in a title related to this is in the title of this short article in Nature.
Re: Jan. Ah, bad turn of phrase if you choose to take it literally. Try taking it figuratively. But you do get the thrust of what i'm saying? albeit in the broader context of the discussion of creationism masquerading as science. Anyways - i do get your point jan -i see the words 'God','Genesis','Bible' splashed about on their web-page, but the word science is apparently not to be found -so why the fuss. However no-one with an eye in their head could mistake the format of a scientific jounal. And if you do read on one discovers their call for papers in which ARJ describes itself as a "technical journal" and "a professional peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework"
First I would like to thank nature for this opportunity of round table commentaries. Each of science and religion seve us-homosapians- differently and not competitively. The former helps us to search for ameliorating our life since conception till dissociation, while the latter is about our better existance even after dissociation, only for the one who thinks he would still exist. Scientific manuscripts target specific conclusions based of certain repeatable observations helped by measurable statistics. Any observation missmatching the criateria of repeatability and computability is unaccredited for scientifc litterature. From the other hand and as any other Book, the Bible-a collection of many manuscripts written by 40 writers - has also a psecific message. It is "I LOVE YOU AND WANT YOU A BETTER EXISTENCE". The "I" refers to the owner of the message that was carried by the writers and also considered by some people to be the Designer. The "you" refers to me and any other individual who can read the message, even if he doesn't. While "love" refers to a different behaviour from the one we used to express towards our beloved ones. It is about a choice to give knowing not to receive, doing the good unconditionally of what to expect. To target this message, the writers, each by his style, mentioned some of their "daily-life issues" like, sun, earth, sky, flowers, birds,…things that could be and actually are deeply digged-into by science. Treating the Bible as a book of science, marginating its message, is missleading as if you try to seed your garden after having read the parable of the sower narrated by Jesus.(book of Matthew chapter 13, verses 1to 23) You would throw your seeds away haphazardly everywhere. From the other hand ,it is also irrelevant and intentionally missleading to announce that evolution (species macroevolution)is one of the most securely established scientific facts (as the blood circulation and the presence of DNA) based of finding a fossilized skeleton of an extinct animal showing fins similar to limbs, or observing 5% more DNA in human than apes. (Science, evolution and creationism. National academy of science. http://www.nap.edu) It is from our pride-us humans-to accept our limitations. It is not a matter of stopping to find explanation to things calling for the supernatural, it is rather believing in what is measurable(science), not-yet measurable(future discoveries) and what is beyond our measurments: the word "spirit" is never accredited into a scientifc context. Attempting a win win situation, some "religious" researchers agreed that the Designer shaped the way of evolution. I wonder if these scientists care about the love of their Designer towards them on personal basis. Thank you for reading that far.
Yeah, great point -that using the bible as a science manual is doing a disservice to religion as well as science. thats another reason i just cant understand why there is so much support for it. Of course if creationism was really a science they'd be busily figuring out experimental approaches for refuting the existence of a 'god-creator'. Thats how science is done lads. right -its late, im off to burn a heretic.
1. Science and religion are not exclusive, both search for answers and explanations. 2. Young earth creationists are a small (and I believe misguided) segment of believers in God. I (former atheist) believe in God and accept the record of nature at face value. 3. There are tremendous gaps in natural explanations of the universe as we know it. That's partly why so much effort is spent looking for alternatives to the big bang, search for aliens, origins of life etc etc. 4. Few would argue that evolution takes place (micro), but macro is very much unproven (Stephen J Gould Punctuated Equilibrium). 5. If a naturalist and creationist were uneducated jungle dwellers and saw an airplane fly over, the creationist would attribute it to God. The naturalist (defying the 2nd law and causality) would say it just happened. Both would be wrong, but the creationist would be less wrong. One could even say the creationist was right, depending on the definition of god.
Scientists approach the truth by doubting; we are only convinced after rigorous testing. Creationists: if you believe something, you actually don't need to test it or prove it. Essentially, this journal is both bad science (by beginning with an unassailable belief) and bad faith (by requiring proof).
Firstly - you can't teach "Intelligent Design" in schools because it's an unsubstantiated lie. When a semblance of proof exists to back it up - *then* and only *then* should it be allowed to be taught in schools. Schools are to educate not indoctrinate (which they do enough of already). Stick to theology classes. Secondly - this is pretty much it for this civilization. When we have to support baseless nonsense and call it science we've pretty much moved to the castle in the sky the psychopaths all live in.
As I look at the sad state of the world today and the materialism and godless depravity of those who reject God and his word, I am concerned. To save our souls and our world we must return to the basic truths revealed in scripture. Any deviation or interpretation from the truth as written is a slippery slope down to apostasy and chaos. We must be on God's side and return to fundamental truth. To this end I dedicate my intellect, integrity, and scientific objectivity on the alter of this Holy cause. Look for my coming article on why there are no star systems more than about 6000 years old. I will be suppostulating the same time dilation doctrine that explains Methusala's old age.
Gregory, I agree absolutely with you, however I wonder- and i struggle in that myself- how can you prove the Holy, powerful and loving God to a person who doesn't feel any need to? How could you offer water to someone who is not thursty? Don't we need an intervention from the Designer here, something that we -as limited humans- have no capability to do?
It is funny that creationists launch their own Science Journal. It is a wired combination. May be it is a method used by non-existing God worshipers to hijack and silence scientific discussion and research. May be to blind Science again. I can’t imagine a decent scientist publishing in this kind of Journal.
First a small answer to Gregory. "the sad state of the world" is still better today than when we went butchering the Evil Moors during the crusades, and when you were burned on the stake for the sake of a character in an old book. As of why religious positions now want to mimick as science ? I think it is fairly obvious: penis envy! Science - especially in the Western world - has become another word for "authority", or "truth". We all know that this is a bit a pity, because that's not what science is about, but nevertheless, what religious promotors want dearly, and what science seems to have, is "authority" and "truth". So they want so dearly be associated to this advantageous social position that they think that they need the label of "scientific". problem is, they want the social image only, not the content. Not the method. Not the hard work, and not the risk which goes with the true scientific method. In fact, it would be funny to submit an article to that journal, arguing that the world isn't in fact any older than 10 picoseconds, and that Darth Vador simply used his dark side of the force to pop the world into its current existence, and make us believe that the earth was actually 6000 years old, including many scattered-around copies of a book which seems to say so...
Let's flood it with a lot of evidence for (what they call) an "old earth". At least they would have to read it and respond to it; if not, it will be clear to everyone that this "science" journal is a joke.
CG Jung's archetype might be as a scientific basis of creationism. The archetypes might be soul genes. They might be created by God when the world began. Here, the world might be universe, the earth or a human. From one world to another world, both evolutionism of matter and creationism of soul hold since world might consist of matter and its soul.
This so-called 'journal' fails at the most basic level: It only wants research that supports a specific conclusion. This is not science! This is not the way research is conducted! This does not measure up to 'peer reviewed research'! There simply is no scientific data supporting creationism. The lawyers and policy wonks at the (inappropriately named) Discovery Institute don't have single shred of evidence or a testable hypothesis. All they have are talking points to try to make creationism look like science which by no stretch of the measure it is.
Questioning commonly accepted theories provides opportunities to strengthen them if valid and weaken them if not. If science is a true search for truth, bring on the questions. Bring on the skeptics. It will only force us to uncover more truth. Assuming any theories are above question even if the questions come from sources we dismiss, ensures that our quest for truth will be hindered. I am uncomfortable with those on either side of the issue who are afraid to be questioned.
How depressing for me as an undergrad student aspiring to contribute research. To be discriminated against simply due to my belief in creation.... I suppose that the churches of evolution actually exist in research labs and university science departments. You are the priest, where do I fit in? Will I be allowed to publish research if you know I am female, african american, or Christian? Somehow I expected more of professional thinkers. Guess it's time to crush my rose colored glasses underfoot. If you shut your ears and eyes to a truth does it cease to exist? If that truth doesn't fit with the accepted norm (currently evolution) will you as respected scientist ignore it? It smells a bit hypocritical.
It’s unfortunate to see that this whole thing has now been escalated further with the beginnings of this journal. It would also be better if those such as Richard Dawkin’s would refrain from exploiting the same issue to simply make money as a self appointed defender and spokesmen for science. None of this serves the world in any productive way. It only serves to fan the flames to encourage the continuance of the worse aspects of the human species, being prejudice and hatred.
I am sponsoring a contest to see who can get the first crank paper published in the new journal. For rules, go to: http://hjhop.blogspot.com/2008/01/happy-fatwah-on-answers-in-genesis.html Or, if you want to encourage this type of behavior, you can be a prize giver, and I will act as a middleman between the winner and you. HJ
What irony! The article reports that Miller "says that scientists must be careful when responding to the launch of ARJ . Taking too strong a stand against the journal will fuel creationists' accusations of scientific 'bias' against religion, he argues." Too late! The article itself shows the bias. And the comments here stoop to such lows, I won't be surprised if some are not removed for bringing such shame to a prestigious organization. One of the few points appearing to have substance is the criticism that the ARJ has bias. Well, so does NATURE, but they're not open and up-front with it. Maybe if people would do more than get their information second hand, or read just one or two articles, we might find some points to agree on. The ARJ doesn't "use the Bible as a science textbook." It merely uses the Bible to create a different framework for the speculation that goes beyond scientific verification. Nobody is trying to bring down science in general or return us to the past. There's nothing in evolutionism that's really needed for any practical science. One writer presented the challenge of seeing what happens when everything brought about by evolutionism is rejected, but the writer is probably including all sorts of things which were done within the evolutionary paradigm and terminology, but could just as easily be done without the idea that all life evolved from ... whatever. Here's a challenge for those who might want to try a bit of an open-minded experiment but don't want to be caught reading ARJ (or any of the other creation-friendly peer-reviewed science journals that are still in existence): Just keep reading Nature, but in every biological article, see how often evolution comes up. When it does, see if it has revealed something (else) that was important, or if the data is being interpreted according to evolutionary assumptions, etc. Of course, you may not catch a lot of things that could also be done within a creation framework, if you don't actually know what that means. You may not realize that it allows for much genetic variation within a population over generations, e.g., bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Once you know how much science would be unchanged if done by creationists (after all, the founders of science were all creationists and there are probably thousands of scientists who are creationists now) you might not be so scared of it. It's ridiculous (and spiteful, venoumous, etc.) to drag up everything from the Crusades to the Taliban. One might also look at the evolutionary and other "scientific" support and justification the Nazis produced for their horrors and genocide, likewise the genocide committed by countries that have practiced the sort of supression or control of religion that some of these commentators seem to long for.
As a scientist, I have the following attitude/comment, in simple words (hopefully not to "offensive" for this site): There are some groups of pseudo-scientists, like "6000years"-creationists and german public-health psychiatrists, which "I would not even look at with my rear end", as we say in Germany. Now here is the latest development in the evolution of matter, to fuel this discussion: 5years ago I reported, that there are material proofs for an unknown somehow intelligent force that influences material events, as seen on websites and later even on ArteTV. ("The Chicken Switch", probably also reported by some Sheldrake). 2006 I designed an easy, probably successful experiment to transport observable information into the past (see before-before-experiments or Zeilinger blog or volkscomputer). Later I found those before-before-experiments, and what the nobelists call "nonlocal nontemporal causality". You understand what this most probably means? --- Evolution works only because it uses information from the future! This blows Your mind, doesn´t it? Please help me to discuss this designing process with the german top-Darwinist, who lives in my town, but won´t help me. He´s too... I don´t know, not stupid, but maybe too professor-like, and wrongly conservative and paid publicly and I send him copy of this text but he won´t answer... Best regards Thomas Goßmann
Hats off to Anne Ramsey; well said young lady! Evolution is supported by nothing more than faith. Farmers have been using natural selection to breed better cattle or dogs for millenia-natural selection and mutation for that matter almost always decrease genetic material in the offspring (at best they are neutral)-they never add any genetic material which is what must happen for evolution to happen. In addition, no transitional organisms have ever been found in the fossil record (after 150 years of digging) and the fact that frogs, the Coelcanth fish and hundreds of other organisms found living today show no sign of any evolution despite the fact that their fossils are dated @ 80 million years old. Either Radiometric dating is false or evolution is false (or both!)-these types of facts at the very least cast a great deal of doubt upon evolution. Good research is being done by these scientists and they do not deserve such disrespectful comments like I have seen from some on this site. Some examples- the measurement of helium diffusing (leaking) out of zircon crystals as a test of the validity of radiometric dating; another was finding measurable levels of 14C in deep earth material such as a diamonds-14C has a half life of 5,700 years (how is the diamond millions of years old) and is a very short-lived radioisotope so it is very unlikely that it could still remain in the diamonds given their hard lattice structure. In fact 14C is found in essentially all fossil organic material throughout the geologic column. The forgoing facts are just a few of the kinds of research and facts these scientists work with; to read some of the comments I have seen on this site gives one the impression of many close minded individuals. It has been written that Evolution will go down in history as the flat earth theory of our time-I am beginning to believe that this is true. What are all of you afraid of?
Mr Allison clearly has a misunderstanding of carbon dating - it can be measured thousands to millions of years later if it was present in an extremely high concentration to begin with. Just under 6000 years is how long it takes for half of the originally present carbon to dissapte, then 6000 yrs later the conentration the remaining carbon has halfed again and so on allowing estimates of origin to be back calculated. And they are just that estimates, sceintists generally accpet that their hypothesis may not be absolute. If definite imperical evidence is presented to me then i will reject evolution. Although if the world did not evolve naturally then im curious to know why god would want me to have genetical material over 90% identical to that found in fruit flies (Drosophila) As a scentist what I am afraid of is the narrow mindedness of creationists and religious fanatics, most of which are unwilling to accept the posibilty when presented with evidence that their god neither created the world nor exists. On the other hand as a scientist i am willing to accept that my hypothesis or beliefs may be wrong when presented with evidence that proves them so.
Ms. Jenkinson: Indeed I do understand carbon dating. Since 14C is a short-lived radioisotope, it cannot survive for millions of years. In fact, if every atom making up the earth was 14C, even after just 1 million years there would be absolutely no atoms of 14C left, because they would have all decayed away, based on today's measured half-life. That's why radiocarbon dating isn't used to date rocks at millions of years. My point is that the presence of measurable levels of 14C in diamonds and given their hard lattice structure, it is inconceivable that the diamonds are multiple millions of years old and in fact it is stunning evidence that they are only thousands of years old. Diamonds are the hardest known natural substance and resist physical abrasion. Also, the chemical bonding of the carbon in diamonds makes them highly resistant to chemical corrosion and weathering. Diamonds also repel and exclude water from adhering to their surfaces, which would eliminate any possibility of the carbon in the diamonds becoming contaminated. The laboratory did repeat analyses and discounted any possibility that this 14C was due to contamination, in situ to the diamonds or added in the laboratory. This information was reported on by Dr. Andrew Snelling @ http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/radiocarbon-in-diamonds (in case you desire to examine it further). As for empirical evidence-none of these facts I have reported disproves evolution-or for that matter none of them proves the existence of God. However they very strongly support the historicity of the Bible (6,000 year old earth, Global Flood plate tectonics) and lean very heavily against evolution. As to being similar genetically to fruit flies (and to Bananas for that matter!), this merely points to a common designer (God). My wife thinks I am bananas half the time anyway!! I have never experienced the "narrow mindedness" of creationists and "religious fanatics" that you apparently have; in fact I have found them to be some of the kindest people I have come into contact with; God knows they seem to catch a lot of heat from "The Academy" but keep on faithfully doing their research-which is one of the points of this discussion-do they do real research? And as you can see from what I have reported, of course they do. Since I have seen no reasonable scientific rebuttals to the several fundamental evidences I reported last night and tonight, I would say they they are doing quite well in their research. As to your "unwilling to accept the possibility when presented with evidence that their god neither created the world nor exists", I would like to see the evidence you speak of-it is this supposed evidence that "does not exist". Respectfully Gregory Allison (posted on his behalf by the web editor)
After having read the launched “Science, Evolution and Creationism� by the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.nap.edu), let me quote a bunch of its statements about the impossibility of a ‘non-evolution anything’. “Because of this immense body of evidence, scientists treat the occurrence of evolution as one of the most securely established of scientific facts. Biologists also are confident in their understanding of how evolution occurs.� “The atomic structure of matter, the genetic basis of heredity, the circulation of blood, gravitation and planetary motion, and the process of biological evolution by natural selection are just a few examples of a very large number of scientific explanations that have been overwhelmingly substantiated.� “Scientists are actually disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether evolution occurred.� “Evolution has been and continues to be one of the most productive theories known to modern science.� “There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution.� “Scientific knowledge itself is the result of the critical thinking applied by generations of scientists to questions about the natural world. Scientific knowledge must be subjected to continued reexamination and skepticism for human knowledge to continue to advance.� (This latter statement, doesn’t it contradicts the previous ones?) I just was wondering how the authors dare to compare the science behind evolution to the one behind the atomic structure of matter and the circulation of blood. What evidence did they observe to assure the occurrence of species macroevolution as securely as development of bacterial antibiotics resistance or viral (composed of a piece of DNA or RNA) mutation. (Staying some extra minutes in the sun, I guess a virus can “transform� into another one) Did evolution ask (and obviously did it answer) how from a single unicellular ancestor emerged worms, reptiles, hedgehogs, elephants, apes and me!!?? If it did not, aren’t these confirming strong statements a kind of intentional scientific misleading that abrogate any further scientific research?
why is it that people who so strongly BELIEVE in a creator at times seem so desperately in need of EVIDENCE to support their FAITH?
Here's a fun idea. Take your favorite journal article supporting Evolution (esp one that capitalizes the word). For every time the article uses the word "evolution" (esp in capitals), substitute the word God. I do this a lot to Science and Nature articles. You'll notice something. A LOT of biologists who adamantly refuse to believe in any sort of "god" badly anthropomorphize a process. Would you rather believe a vague, anthropomorphized process carries the secret to understanding Life, or get to know the Inventor and use the process as He intended? A lot of religious scientists (including those submitting to the journal listed above) choose the latter.
Recalling the "Sokal hoax" from several years ago, in which Sokal submitted a hoax manuscript to a postmodernist journal and managed to get it published, it would be quite a bit of fun to see Answers Research Journal hoaxed in the same way. But on the other hand, all "papers" published by ARJ would be hoaxes anyway, perpetrated by creationists upon themselves and, unfortunately, the unwary.
there are two distinct cases that should be noted: the actual phenomenon and expression of that phenomenon. sometimes expression of a phenomenon may not be strong enough to show the actual nature of phenomenon. its like bad presentation about good topic. ARJ may include full of nonsense article, yet they will not be enough to conclude that creation is nonsense. moreover, there are tons of creations subtypes and depending on their contents evolution and creation may or may not be in peace. evolution and ID crash especially in complex systems in nature. in last century science advanced vastly and its now well known that systems in nature are really complex and there are many systems to be elucidated that we do not have any idea. and keep in mind that evolution was first formulated when there existed blending theory of inheritance. since then it was modified much and if science keeps develop in this manner, evolution will probably include terms from metaphysics to survive.
Aside from all of the scientific arguments, let's remind ourselves of some basic philosophy. Belief in a God who creates is no less logical than belief in raw matter which through random chance becomes all we see. If you think creation is nonsense, that is because you have a priori determined that there is no God. There is no logical basis for your determination, it is merely your presupposition. So to look at articles by those who believe in creation and term then nonsense is, well, nonsense. They hold a different set of a assumptions than you do, but since you happen to be in the scientific majority, you feel free to scoff at them. Don't forget, the very things you jeer at the creation scientists are almost identical to the things some of them jeer back at you. The difference is who holds the balance of power. Neither belief in evolution nor belief in creation is science, if by science you mean something which must be observed. Let's face it - origin of life research is a washup, and molecular biology has shown that even if you can conjure up life, the life that we see now is life that resists change very well, which causes huge problems for the mutational model of evolution. So why do people believe in evolution (the big, grand-scale evolution required to account for all we see, not the transient shifts in gene frequency that are usually cited like they actually mean something)? Certainly not because they have observed it. They have a priori decided that there is no god, and therefore they are forced to find a materialistic explanation for all that they see. Those who a priori decide that there is a God see ample evidence of His handiwork, and many clear examples that evolution is totally inadequate to explain the universe we see around us. So please, don't sneer at accomplished scientists whose only crime is that they happen to hold a different set of presuppositions than you do. It only shows that your position is based more on faith than on facts - which is exactly what you accuse the creationists of. As a creationist (gasp), I believe that God created the world, and I even believe He created it in six solar days. I find that accepting this simple fact gives me a much better ability than the evolutions have to accept what we see in molecular biology. Look at what Bruce Alberts and many others have written, and you find them trying on the one hand to extol the amazing processes going on all the time in our cells, and on the other hand trying to downplay just how much what they are finding damages evolution. Believing in a creator is far more intellectually satisfying than believing in random chance! It fits what we see - evolution cannot account for what we see. It answer the basic questions - it has no satisfying metaphysics, no satisfying answer for morality, and no answer at all for epistemology. Evolution is a worldview that provides no ground to stand on. The choice to believe it is just that, a choice, and has no relation to the actual witness of the world around us.
I must admit getting a kick out of the posters who imply that you cannot have a scientific theory of creation. After all there is one: Big Bang theory. The real issue is ARJ only supporting theories of *divine* creation in accord with the Book of Genesis. I also must admit that ARJ does technically qualify as a peer reviewed journal. The trouble is that the peers are creationists!
To Greg Allison: You may understand Carbon dating, but there are other forms of isotope dating that are used to find out the ages of rocks that are millions of years old. I myself am using Strontium isotope dating to find out the ages of fossils that are from approximately 25 million years ago. There is a strontium isotope decay curve, and the values I get for the amount of strontium within my samples will be checked against this and an age will be recorded. All perfectly logical and reproducible. Therefore your arguement for a 6000 year earth has no validity. You are also incorrect in your assumption that natural selection and mutation reduce the amount of genetic material. There can be deletional mutations, but there are also duplications of genes and genetic material (try looking up allopolyploidy or gene duplication!). The reason things like Coelocanths, Frogs and Crocodiles have not changed very much over millions of years is not because evolution doesn't occur, it just means that they are well adapted to whatever environment has come their way and changes in their physical form has not been necessary for their lineage's survival. There are also many examples of transitional organisms being found in the fossil record. Animals that are halfway between fish and frogs, or dinosaurs and birds, to name just two examples! Being genetically similar to other organisms does not support a creator more than evolution. Evolution basically shows that we are all descended from a common ancestor, therefore we should expect to be reasonably similar to other forms of life on earth. If alien life were found and we were genetically similar to them, you might have a point (even then it would not be strong, as maybe life develops in a similar way on other planets), but as none has been found yet your arguement does not hold. I am afraid to break it to you, but your so-called "evidence" is nothing of the sort. At the very least, it does not support your theories as concretely as you seem to think. You have a very superficial and biased view point. Perhaps you should look into things more carefully rather than just relying on what the internet tells you... not everything on the internet is true, now is it? If any people who believe in Creationism can come up with a repeatable experiment that proves even the existence of a God, let alone that this "being" created the world, then you will be able to convince scientists that your BELIEF is correct. If you cannot do this (or even come close to this, as is the present state of things), then there is nothing to support your claims, and as reasonable human beings you should realise that you are wrong.
How does anyone feel about this reconciliation of wanting to believe in a created universe and creator with the observed universe around us at all scales? The interaction of all things depends on cause and effect, there can be a 'creator' if the conceptual definition of creator in this case extends to the sum of all events at all times and all places, take this concept at a given instant in time and space as describing 'cause' with regard to all events of the next instant, and as describing 'effect' with regard to all events of the preceding instant. The universe is awesome and will ever elude the complete understanding of the whole by any of its participants. To any creationists reading: regard scientific enquiry as a form of deepest worship of the continuing creation of the universe, the explanation of a given phenomenon only adds to the awesome nature of the whole. to any scientists reading: educate, explain, be patient and suitably humble remember that you are a part of the universe. To both: know that you are capable of love -
How does anyone feel about this reconciliation of wanting to believe in a created universe and creator with the observed universe around us at all scales? The interaction of all things depends on cause and effect, there can be a 'creator' if the conceptual definition of creator in this case extends to the sum of all events at all times and all places, take this concept at a given instant in time and space as describing 'cause' with regard to all events of the next instant, and as describing 'effect' with regard to all events of the preceding instant. The universe is awesome and will ever elude the complete understanding of the whole by any of its participants. To any creationists reading: regard scientific enquiry as a form of deepest worship of the continuing creation of the universe, the explanation of a given phenomenon only adds to the awesome nature of the whole. to any scientists reading: educate, explain, be patient and suitably humble remember that you are a part of the universe. To both: know that you are capable of love -
I quite agree with Michelle Pierce: the article on "Microbes and the Days of Creation" is content free. If this is an example of what creationists think is "Cutting-edge creation research", as the journal's masthead states, there's no there there! The article is a wonderful example of why "creation science" should not be taught in science classes: there's no science in it, apparently. Can anyone cite a single piece of experimental data that supports the bronze-age myths creationists care to believe?
I can not believe the amount of individuals actually advocating "ID" taught in schools appearing in these comments. Its quite sickening. If you want to have open ideas in the class room, then why not teach the possibility that we're in one big computer matrix? or any others of the sort.The possibilities are endless.