Praise for the RATE Group

Alex you too should learn how to read:
Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.

I bet they admit to not publishing letters promoting Flat Earth Geology. Man, I hate censorship.

And how is this evidence of censorship ? Have you considered that the ;low quality of creationist "science" might render their typical output unqrthy of publication even n the letters pages of Science ?

hey all I'm saying is that they're also "unlikely" to publish anything that I come up with... life's hard.
So basically what do you expect if you're basing your science on a 3000 year old book. I bet you that if the creationists come up with a good scientific work they would publish it...

I did read that. Ms Gilbert works/worked for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, not Mythology.

JP, Actually, it isn't.What IS censured is inconsistent unsupported ideas that are contradicted. So I guess you are right, there is a conspiracy. A conspiracy of reason.Go figure.Mark

Actually there is Mark24. I presented two cases. Neither case was rejected due to poor scholarship. I can list many other instances of censorship. However real evidence is lost on the evo-ilk...

John Paul,Considering your posting record, it seems the evidence is lost before it gets anywhere near us. Mind presenting it sometime?regards,
Esteban "Perdido" Hambre

quote:

---

I presented two cases. Neither case was rejected due to poor scholarship.

---

No you did not.
You first dug up a quote saying that a particular journal was unlikely to publish a creationist article. And second, you came up with a case of editorial rejection and a claim of somebody else publishing a similar paper afterwards. I told you that as far as high impact journals go, this is normal practise (and I'm not even a biologist), so present your evidence or quit whining....
If somebody (even a creationist) has a significant contribution to make, he will eventually be able to publish it in some journal. If somebody is completely bent on publishing in Nature or Science, all I can wish him is good luck, but chances are that the paper is not going to be published....

Ok, this is going way off topic.If someone wants to carry this on may I suggest the "is it science" forum and prehaps "Censorship in Science and Nature Journals" as a topic title?

I'm really sorry, if you feel that way. There was no intention on my part to induce a topic shift. No more posts from me in that direction: I encourage J.P. to open a new topic and present his evidence there. I'm looking forward to that discussion.On the original topic: Congratulations to the rate group for exposing themselves to mainstream science. This is certainly not an easy thing to do...best regards,
Alex

see post 24

Is it because you dont have a green marble?My guess it is BECAUSE Gould's "stair"step can be deconstructed. I had not thought that the RATE groups' work will bear on form-making in biology but the interesting thing I would like to live to know is if the logic of evolutionary theory is ever going to be shown to be of inferior quality even if this comes about NOT by Creationist influence. I will bet that RATE group work WILL bear for Gould for instance said HE DID NOT THINK like an Einstein but the whole issue of radioactivity and time was for AE but an issue of WHEN matter is considered as an integer while in his/same thought he could consider Imaginary Numbers bearing in the same physical reality. Gould dealt with this all rather conceptually and not materially beyond the staircase which I think is rather ingenious but not likly reality no matter the relative frequency?Why and how can the RATE work bear on this??Well, the amazing thing is that I had not been able to figure out why I was focused on Vavilof,s Medawars' andD'ArcyThompson's diagrams and I am not certain exactly why Lorentz and Poincare rejected (or did not understand (sic!) special relativity but looky here at the stair in this case. YOu have to take the step. Einstein might be mistaken but his thought process that sees GOD in nature's laws IS NOT carried over into Darwininsm?? OR is it?? DID Wright already do this??? Could it be possible that when Wright spoke with Provine on the phone in early 80s and TOLD Provine that he would need to look at the "phenotype" that *this* was a diversion to keep WRIGHT (AND GOULD) at bay? Could creationists be correct that a homogenous universe is nonsensical ideology in general???? IS IT not possible to derive the shifting balance theory OUT OF TENSORS? Is not RNA(differences) but Einstein's clock in a box? Was it not because Bohr was more for biology than Einstein was against it that Russel's exclusion of Cantor's limiting process was not bound by Fisher but by ananlogy to the 2nd law of thermo? Is is possible that D'Arcy Thompson can be used to see how changes in rates of change biologically exist by USING Einstein's use of Gauss??? Is not the thermal current an indication that there is NO rigid rod but there is a genotype?? welll I could continue to ask questions....What impressed me with Einstien's thought process and that of God-fearing creationists' when I understand it is that one does not bring the geometry to bear until after the matching processes had occurred in the mind. The creationists generally match evolution to something else. But Einstein's thought process may be applied to explain not only how Gould rejected D'Arch THompson generalization (from surficial to volumetric forces via transforms) but why Wright is not really being worked on. I will not comment on Madison Wisconsin.Einstein was able to think of place independent of direction which I think IS the thought needed to bring biogeography into its own (Croizat). And Einstein's explanation of Gauss via general relativity explains to me at least how people (including myself) have missed the outworking of D'Arcy Thompson Transforms. I am quite proud that Stuart Kaufmann told me explictly not to stop thniking about this even if he was unceratin just what I was thinking about. The theoretical inovation that I will attempt to leverge to get an answer to these and other more physical and less biological questions will be to apply Thom's catastrophe theory TO distributions of tensors and elimiate the concept of the "phenotype". There will be bats, and birds and montremes but no thermophenes... more later once I see if Einstein mineral integer holds up in this rate thread or else someother weave and bob.I got what JP said.

I agree with some of the previous responses to this. Most creationists are not scientists, and have never delved into scientific literature. Science and Nature are two of the toughest journals to publish in; others include Cell, JACS, PNAS, and PRL.Science and Nature are general topic journals, which forces them to carry only the very most interesting of articles in each issue. They reject articles at about the rate Harvard rejects undergraduate applicants. These are not discussion forums! When they see an article which professes, or attempts to form a foundation for, unorthodox views, they do look very critically at it--although it's still not impossible to get over that barrier. When they see an article that is not only unorthodox but flies in the face of mountains of radiometric dating evidence (as the RATE group will eventually have to put forth in order to fulfill their mission), they'll just reject it flat out. As previous responders have mentioned, these journals are seeking articles that have the highest likelihood of leading to other important results. Anyone can come up with an unorthodox theory. It takes real skill to reduce a complicated problem to pieces that we're already familiar with.I think getting rejected from Science and Nature is more of a publicity stunt for some of these creationists. They need to establish ideas in lower-level journals (as I'm sure many theories accepted nowadays got started). Once they've made it over that hurdle, and established consistent results to unambiguously support their conclusions, they'll have ground to stand on.Science is not a democracy, although it thrives in democratic societies.

The standard of writing actually PReVENTS discussions that can be had. On fourms like this we need only maintain the ability to forumulate truely scientific compositions. The problem is that science itself is becomes divided beyond the specialist notion and literarly standards are being substituted in some content of these papers. I see clearly how Carl Zimmer is simply writing from my high school newpaper in these journals and yet the details and operations I propose here on EVC are still being thought to be NOT SCIENTIFIC at best. I would not like to be editor at one of the MAGS but if the entire current editorial establishment is preventing the kinds of things that JP said -across the board- then it is not an issue of max likely hood to succeed. For instance, Karl Hopkins, was published in Science but instead of HIM having any interest in the acutal affect of IONS on fish conductor representations behaviorially he assumed the brain of a fish contained actually and AND gate! The consumer could think that BECAUSE (not inspite) of the editorial policy that there IS a better likelyhood of thinking of fish with &gates than it is to think of what is lacking in the article but without the expert knoweldge the reader wouldnt have known what was potentially NOR acutally lacking. I did becuase I did some of the research behind and before the typing copy was done!! It is not fair to pit a lack or omission against future benefits. THAT:S NOT parity either.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-31-2004]