Answers Research Journal (new creation research journal)

A new scientific journal has been launched that claims to be You will find it at the link below Answers Research Journal: Cutting-edge Creation Research Will this finally publish all the original research that Creationists and IDists claim is being undertaken?Can it truly claim to be a peer-reviewed journal - where do we find a creation physicist?Your paper will be published if it supports Creation and the Flood, or at least doesn't contradict it. You also hav to provide a biography so that your details can be posted on the Creation Scientist part of the site. So, no Roman Catholic authors then.I suppose my question is can this "journal" satisfy the demands from th scientific community that Creationism and ID can't be consider science until they publish scientific research?In my opinion it won't and for the very simple reason that papers will only be published if they conform to already stated conclusions - a problem which has beset all previous attempts.Edited by Trixie, : Little r in the topic title had to grow up into a big REdited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed topic title from "Answers Research Journal - New Kid on the Block" to "Answers Research Journal (new creation research journal)".

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

It's not science, it's religion taking on the trappings of science to try to fool people.Here is the AIG Statement of Faith, which one must follow to be associated with that organization.See any science in there anywhere?It's the exact opposite of science! Science looks for answers, AIG and related organizations seek only to support their particular view of revelation in spite of the massive amount of evidence to the contrary.

No science just fundie religion.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

I think a person should take note of the fact that while trying to do real science that supports their world view they are still unable to get their work published in existing and respected journals like everyone else does. Why is it that when some pseudo science gets ignored by the scientific community the non scientists just create a respectable sounding journal?AiG can now join the ranks of all the other worthless journals that sound important while doing nothing of substance: Homeopathy Journal
Acupuncture Journal
Paranormal JournalI think the creation of this journal is a clear indicator of what one can expect from the research that will be published. The general public will be awed by the fact that creation science is now a 'serious scientific field' simply because it has a journal. It is just another step in their attempt to gain credibility to the general public while tearing down what science actually does.

I don't see why it should be any better than their old Technical Journal which was also supposedly peer-reviewed. Which meant that the articles were reviewed for theological "correctness" and not much else.I suspect that this launch has more to do with the nasty split between the U.S. and Australian branches than anything else.

This is worth a readhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/...structions-to-authors.pdfI'm interested in any defence that can be proposed for this because I can't think of any.I wonder if they would publish a paper full of easily identified scientific errors as long as it supported a young earth or a global flood.

They have been doing that for years, why would they stop now.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

Isn't that in fact a requirement?

It's pretty telling that the editor in chief is one Andrew Snelling. The same Andrew Snelling that is lampooned here: Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?Apparently Dr. Snelling has a legit Phd from a reputable university, but posts two types of articles: 1) Creo-babble and 2)legit uranium deposit research. It's absolutely clear that he conducts real research seperate from his creo-babble ways so that he can hang his hat on publishing in actual peer reviewed journals and collect his shill-money from ICR and the like.When the editor in chief goes to these great lengths of deception, how can this possibly satisfy the demands of the scientific community for peer reviewed research?As an aside, for those of you higher up in the academic community, is there any mechanism by which one can have his phd rescinded? Surely this kind of behaviour would violate most, if not any, ethical requirements.

quote:

---

As an aside, for those of you higher up in the academic community, is there any mechanism by which one can have his phd rescinded? Surely this kind of behaviour would violate most, if not any, ethical requirements.

---

Unless it can be shown that he falsified data or otherwise cheated or committed fraud of some kind specifically in the work he did for his PhD thesis, I don't think so.He doubt, however, that any legitimate university would hire him if he tried to get into academia.

quote:

---

As an aside, for those of you higher up in the academic community, is there any mechanism by which one can have his phd rescinded? Surely this kind of behaviour would violate most, if not any, ethical requirements.

---

As long as his proper work conforms to normal standards and he keeps his quack stuff outside of the confines of his university, it's nothing at all to do with the university - nobody will care.

I thought as much. But I think if I were the department head I would be fuming as to how he has applied the degree he earned under my care.

You'd be surprised how bent a lot of mainstream social sciences research work is (not sure about your actual sciences because we don;t mix with those types....).

God belongs in science because he established it. but science at war with itself is not productive..i would hope it isn't just trying to prove or not prove a global flood. that scientist will follow true science under Gods direction for his will.dunno what this journal is going to try to do. but examination of T=0 by people seeking the truth will inevitably find the laws of God.i wonder if the science i have offered in theory would be proven? would it then be creation science? or science?there is only one science. and only one God. and God in science does not make it a new science. it would mean God is recognized in science. and because God is true, science would have better direction based on the truth of existence.if this journal is going to propose a whole new science by adding God into science..it's disturbing.but by the introduction topic, it would appear that the journal will only do what i have done.examples:gravity
EvC Forum: The Tesla Challengecosmology
EvC Forum: Before Big Bang God or Singularityevolution
EvC Forum: Biblical Creationism Requires Evolutionquantum mechanics
EvC Forum: Most significant current ID based research activityglobal warming , this post and after arguments.
EvC Forum: Global Cooling?if this type of science is in the journal, is it science, or creation science?to me science is science. Edited by tesla, : No reason given.Edited by tesla, : last paragraphEdited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides