What is peer review?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Often when debating atheism or questioning the evolution doctrine, the supporters of evolution will reject arguments against it made by scientists because they insist that only "peer reviewed" publications are to be trusted (else it must be pseudo science).

So I want to ask how does one decide whether a journal is or is not peer reviewed? what definition do people use to help them make this decision?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Good, you've seen the error of your ways, that's exactly what compliance training expects from us too.

FYI, it's this sort of thing that lead folks to wonder if you're trolling.

The question isn't whether they can, it's whether they do.

Which is true of all of us not just creationists.

And as I pointed out, there are creationists who do publish legitimate papers in scientific journals, but when it comes to creationist material they publish in religious journals. And to be clear, that's appropriate, which is likely why they don't try and submit their creationist material to science journals.

You seem to believe that a belief the universe was created is at odds with the scientific study of that creation, for a creationist it is not for a materialist it is - so the distinction is not one of science but of philosophy. Therefore it is quite wrong to believe that a materialist science publication is somehow more legitimate a source of knowledge than a creationist science publication.

Materialism is a belief as much as creationism is, science can no more "prove" materialism than it can "prove" creationism.

The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism is not a "religious" publication either, any more than the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is an "atheist" publication.

So of course I would not seek to publish a creationist science paper in a materialist science journal nor vice versa despite the fact they might both be scientific papers and employ peer review processes as a means of maintaining quality and integrity.

Also, do you dispute that religion is not science?

I've certainly never confused the two.

Yeah you have. Earlier you claimed that AiG is a scientific organization, even though they are an overtly religious organization (as they even describe themselves).

I must correct you, I never ever said "AiG is a scientific organization", you drew attention to their about page and said it was "anti scientific" because it has this text:

No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information (Numbers 23:19; 2 Samuel 22:31; Psalm 18:30; Isaiah 46:9–10, 55:9; Romans 3:4; 2 Timothy 3:16).

to which I responded with:

OK I read that and although it is not a set of terms that I'd agree to myself I can't honestly describe it as anti-scientific. As they say on that same page, evidence and claims of evidence are always a matter of interpretation. If I present anything to you regarding biology then you would interpret it within an evolutionary context, you value, place epistemological importance on that context, it frames how you will perceive the data. This is clearly seen in this forum when whatever is presented to the atheist they insist that it is consistent with evolution, even if something seems to be at odds it will be declared that nevertheless it really is but we need more time, more data, conformity with evolution is an expectation for you.

To which I'll now add that as they clearly say, appearances, perceptions and claims of evidence that contradict (their understanding of) scripture are deemed invalid. They are simply stating that when there is a conflict as to how to interpret data they will always resolve it by accepting God's word rather than a person's interpretation of that data.

Again you really seem to believe there is only one way to interpret observational data and that way is your way and your way is the right way - this is folly, there are other ways to see the world that are equally consistent with the data.

See what I said above, materialist science and creationist science are both science but based on different beliefs about reality, different ways of interpreting meaning and so on.

You materialists need to step back and look afresh, there is more than one way to perceive reality.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #21]

... materialist science and creationist science are both science but based on different beliefs about reality, different ways of interpreting meaning and so on.

Which makes materialist science "real" science and "creationist science" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) irrelevant pseudoscience. Real science does not allow for random interprations of evidence based on interpretations from holy books, or invokation of the supernatural. But you obviously can't see the difference.

"Creationist science" has contributed absolutely zero to our understanding of nature and belongs under the umbrella of religious activity and ideas. Fortunately, that is where it squarely sits now and it will likely stay there forever. Creationists certainly can do and have done good science, but their legitimate results have never supported creationism or shown it to be of any scientific use.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #21]

... materialist science and creationist science are both science but based on different beliefs about reality, different ways of interpreting meaning and so on.

Which makes materialist science "real" science and "creationist science" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) irrelevant pseudoscience. Real science does not allow for random interprations of evidence based on interpretations from holy books, or invokation of the supernatural. But you obviously can't see the difference.

But "real" to whom? you? me? God is as real in my worldview as empiricism might be in your worldview; are you now arguing that God definitely does not exist? because if you admit God might exist then you cannot categorically say your view of science is "real" can you?

"Creationist science" has contributed absolutely zero to our understanding of nature and belongs under the umbrella of religious activity and ideas. Fortunately, that is where it squarely sits now and it will likely stay there forever. Creationists certainly can do and have done good science, but their legitimate results have never supported creationism or shown it to be of any scientific use.

In your opinion, I have no idea how one could prove the claim "creationist science has contributed absolutely zero to our understanding of nature" establishing that life was created by an intelligence isn't something I'd describe as being "zero understanding" for example.

Like others here you are struggling to portray science and scientific inquiry as being decoupled from underlying assumptions but it isn't, one can investigate the universe under the belief it is Godless with only mindless laws and material or under the belief it is the work of God, one takes one's choice and does one's best but as to which is "real" that's not answerable by science that's the domain of philosophy.

[JoeyKnothead]

The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism is not a "religious" publication either, any more than the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is an "atheist" publication.

The mission of the ICC is to promote the development and dissemination of positive contributions to a young earth creationist model of origins and models of earth history that recognize the reality of the global Flood described in Genesis.

[Jose Fly]

You seem to believe that a belief the universe was created is at odds with the scientific study of that creation

Nope, never said that at all.

"Creationism isn't science" is not the same as "Creationists can't be scientists". For whatever reason, that seems to be beyond your ability to comprehend.

for a creationist it is not for a materialist it is - so the distinction is not one of science but of philosophy. Therefore it is quite wrong to believe that a materialist science publication is somehow more legitimate a source of knowledge than a creationist science publication.

I didn't say anything about whether any publication is a "legitimate source of knowledge".

The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism is not a "religious" publication either, any more than the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is an "atheist" publication.

This is just plain ridiculous.

Here is how the ICC describes itself:

"About the ICC
The mission of the ICC is to promote the development and dissemination of positive contributions to a young earth creationist model of origins and models of earth history that recognize the reality of the global Flood described in Genesis."

That is expressly religious.

Here is how the PNAS describes itself:

About PNAS
PNAS is one of the world's most-cited and comprehensive multidisciplinary scientific journals, publishing more than 3,500 research papers annually.

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the official journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), is an authoritative source of high-impact, original research that broadly spans the biological, physical, and social sciences. The journal is global in scope and submission is open to all researchers worldwide.

That is expressly scientific.

Again, religion is not science. If you cannot grasp that either, I cannot help you.

Also, do you dispute that religion is not science?

I've certainly never confused the two.

Yeah you have. Earlier you claimed that AiG is a scientific organization, even though they are an overtly religious organization (as they even describe themselves).

I must correct you, I never ever said "AiG is a scientific organization", you drew attention to their about page and said it was "anti scientific" because it has this text:

No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information (Numbers 23:19; 2 Samuel 22:31; Psalm 18:30; Isaiah 46:9–10, 55:9; Romans 3:4; 2 Timothy 3:16).

to which I responded with:

OK I read that and although it is not a set of terms that I'd agree to myself I can't honestly describe it as anti-scientific. As they say on that same page, evidence and claims of evidence are always a matter of interpretation. If I present anything to you regarding biology then you would interpret it within an evolutionary context, you value, place epistemological importance on that context, it frames how you will perceive the data. This is clearly seen in this forum when whatever is presented to the atheist they insist that it is consistent with evolution, even if something seems to be at odds it will be declared that nevertheless it really is but we need more time, more data, conformity with evolution is an expectation for you.

To which I'll now add that as they clearly say, appearances, perceptions and claims of evidence that contradict (their understanding of) scripture are deemed invalid. They are simply stating that when there is a conflict as to how to interpret data they will always resolve it by accepting God's word rather than a person's interpretation of that data.

So we agree that AiG is not a scientific organization and their journals are not scientific publications.

Again you really seem to believe there is only one way to interpret observational data and that way is your way and your way is the right way - this is folly, there are other ways to see the world that are equally consistent with the data.

Nope, never said that at all.

See what I said above, materialist science and creationist science are both science but based on different beliefs about reality, different ways of interpreting meaning and so on.

So now you think AiG is a scientific organization? Make up your mind.

You materialists need to step back and look afresh, there is more than one way to perceive reality.

When it comes to science, you are among the last people in the world I would ever take advice from. Anyone who goes around acting as if they're an expert in evolutionary biology while simultaneously not even having a high school level understanding of basic biology isn't the slightest bit credible.

[Diagoras]

They <Answers In Genesis> are simply stating that when there is a conflict as to how to interpret data they will always resolve it by accepting God's word rather than a person's interpretation of that data.

The example of Kurt Wise backs this up very well, I feel.

Makes one wonder why AiG even bothers to gather data, if they already know that the 'answer' is going to be God. This is textbook 'closed mind thinking' and is categorically non-science.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism is not a "religious" publication either, any more than the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is an "atheist" publication.

The mission of the ICC is to promote the development and dissemination of positive contributions to a young earth creationist model of origins and models of earth history that recognize the reality of the global Flood described in Genesis.

Exactly, no mention of religion in that summary.

[Jose Fly]

Makes one wonder why AiG even bothers to gather data,

To give the illusion that their religious beliefs are scientifically valid. They crave the credibility of science because the days when simply declaring "It's in the Bible" carried weight are long gone.

[Sherlock Holmes]

They <Answers In Genesis> are simply stating that when there is a conflict as to how to interpret data they will always resolve it by accepting God's word rather than a person's interpretation of that data.

The example of Kurt Wise backs this up very well, I feel.

Makes one wonder why AiG even bothers to gather data, if they already know that the 'answer' is going to be God. This is textbook 'closed mind thinking' and is categorically non-science.

Well its a matter of opinion I think, assuming the universe was created by an intelligence or assuming it wasn't are choices - one can do science with either assumption, as I said a million times now all of these creationists had no issues doing science.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Makes one wonder why AiG even bothers to gather data,

To give the illusion that their religious beliefs are scientifically valid. They crave the credibility of science because the days when simply declaring "It's in the Bible" carried weight are long gone.

Yes, perhaps and it reminds me actually of the AAAS last century promulgating the illusion that their bigoted eugenics beliefs were scientifically valid.