A good many researchers will not disclose their beliefs against evolution because their work would be disqualified for peer review. They don't have to be creationists or ID theorists either. Just challenge the evolution establishment and your research and your job could be in jeopardy.
28 comments
Until Einstein published his theory of special relativity, every other scientist was convinced that light was a wave propagated in an invisible, all-pervading medium called the luminiferous aether. Now they don't.
Scientists don't ignore presented research no matter how seemingly outrageous the claims. If your theories were worth anything at all, they'd be published.
"Most of those ID or creation science organizations have their own peer review process because they can't get reviewed elsewhere."
Hey, Rockstar, they must've found a way to peer review bullshit.
BECAUSE GODDIDIT IS NOT A VALID SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT.
*headdesk*
If an IDer were to publish his findings about rabbits and peacocks in the precambrian layers of rock (independently verified, of course), THEN they would be taken seriously. But you're going to have to try harder than "wow it's so complicated and stuff" to get taken seriously in the world of science.
No, they won't look at them because they are a farce. And if they do look at them, and then shoot them down in big blazing fireballs of the bullshit that they are, creationists cry "persecution, persecution"
Aww, poor little tekncal can't play with the big boys yet!
Wait till your balls drop, then we'll talk.
You know this guy has a point.
I fyou are ageographer, you will be run out of your profession if you say the earth is flat and flies on the back on a Turtle.
And if you're doctor, you had better never let anyone know that you secretly think mental illness is caused by demons living in the skull. Demons that that one must use a power drill to get out.
You see! Science is biased..against the stupid and bat shit crazy! What chance does ID have?
Because they're clearly retarded. Would you ask a blind person to describe a painting? Would you read a book written by a three-year-old (for content)? Neither would a scientist take a paper written by a creationist seriously. Sorry, they've got real, grown-up work to do.
It could be that respectable scientific journals don't want their pages filled with complete garbage. Or, and this is equally plausible, the work of creationists and IDers simply cannot stand up to peer review.
I'm sorry, ID, but to get published in a peer-reviewed journal, you have to be at least a smidge more credible than the Time Cube guy.
And to be honest, I don't see you reaching that benchmark. Ever.
Gee, and here I thought evolution WAS in the babble, what with Isaac breeding healthy strong goats for himself, and weak ones for his father in law, all from the same herd of goats... So, if you say that didn't happen, then you must not believe the babble either.
I'm sorry but you are absolutely right. The first time that I see "Bible" in the footnotes of a scientific paper, I'm tossing it in the garbage. Prove it some way outside religious dogma, then we'll talk.
"Most of those ID or creation science organizations have their own peer review process..."
Yea, it goes something like this:
Because their work is bullshit.
However, if a religious scientist presented a well-researched paper on, say, evolution, it would be peer-reviewed. It might be at odds with her/his personal beliefs (and therefore somewhat unexpected), but if the science was good, it would stand on its own merit.
I would guess that this happens ,ore often the we might expect.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
