Praise for the RATE Group

Some praise for the RATE GroupIt has come to my attention that the RATE Group presented 3 papers at the last American Geophysical Union Meeting. As one who has openly criticized them for shying away from mainstream scientific criticism, this is a refreshing and welcome change. The next step is to have them submit their work to the real scientific literature. At any rate, Kudos to Humphreys, Baumgardner and Snelling for stepping up to the plate. If YEC want to see science change in their favor, then this is definitely the way things must be done.CheersJoe Meert

I am surprized. I will have to see if I can access these papers.--Which AGU meeting(s) were these papers presented at?Cheers,
-Chris Grose[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-08-2004]

I found two papers by them submitted at the 2003 Fall AGU Meeting:--[edit] I can't get the links to work so just go here and search for the authors for abstracts:http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm03/waisfm03adv.htmlCheers,
-Chris Grose[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-08-2004]

Wow! And some were even identified with the Institute for Creation Research. So much for the evil atheist conspiracy silencing the creationists.

Praise indeed. For those scientists writing and lurking here, many have had the opportunity to present their work to other scientists in the field. The fact that creation scientists have shied away from presenting to a knowledgable scientific audience which cast doubt on their credibility of their work. If they want equal footing with old earthers, they have to start acting like them. This is a good first step in actually practicing science, we will see how long they continue to do so.

It'll stop the instant they don't get the scientific acceptance they want, then it'll be an atheist conspiracy again.Mark

Actually the conspiracy is real. Censorship of ID and Creation ideas is real and documented. Go figure...

"Documented" is widely held to mean "substantiated in print." I'm calling your bluff, JP. Where is the documentation?

No bluff to call. Just a little research is all that is required. There are more instances that can be found in books...In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters. Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters. This admission is particularly significant since Science’s official letters policy is that they represent the range of opinions received (e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions). Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.

​

Humphreys’ letter and Ms. Gilbert’s reply are reprinted in the book, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)

​

On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article *Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn’t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn’t even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a slight bias exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.Subject: Re: inquiry about submission
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 10:21:54 ?0500
From: [the editor]
To: "Michael J. Behe"

​

Hi Mike,

​

I'm torn by your request to submit a (thoughtful) response to critics of your non-evolutionary theory for the origin of complexity. On the one hand I am painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the scientific community to non-orthodoxy, and I think it is counterproductive. But on the other hand we have fixed page limits for each month's issue, and there are many more good submissions than we can accept. So, your unorthodox theory would have to displace something that would be extending the current paradigm.Now I am quite sure neither of these examples will satisfy you as it is obvious evolutionists have issues with real evidence...

Where is it?

hey, I never knew I was a creationist myself, as I had a paper submitted to Science which got rejected without entering the peer review process...
Not much later one or two articles which were similar in topic made it into Nature. So I could (a) claim that I have been discriminated against for my particular view of my field of expertise, or (b) accept the fact that submissions by people with a proven track record of publishing interesting articles are more likely to be considered.Science and Nature both have a lot of submissions, if the editors did not select prior to the refereeing process, they would go nowhere (and loose most referees for the sheer workload). So the rejection probably had absolutely nothing to do with him being creationist..best regards,
AlexP.S.: The paper shortly after got accepted into another very nice journal, so who cares..

Good bat-lets see you fly now! man, you got wings. I am not "retarded" either but individually we all are.

I see JP, a problem with a word again. OH WELL.

There are not sides> look there is NOT black"" between my eyes either.
Instead, I can write- animals "see" Galelian regions but plants only USE"" Lorenz transforms no matter the alegbra.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-04-2004]

Learn how to read Cora:Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.