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So I want to ask how does one decide whether a journal is or is not peer reviewed?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?

[Jose Fly]

You say "religion is not science"

Do you dispute that?

yet seem to forget this fact when you also say "Creationists can't meet those standards" that is you conflating a person's religious beliefs with their ability to perform their job, seriously you should setup a meeting with your company's HR department and ask them, print out this thread and ask them their opinion, I'd love to be a Fly on the wall...

So the reading comprehension issues on display here include an inability to read and understand statements in the context in which they were written. That comment was made in the context of a discussion about creationist journals and whether they are peer-reviewed scientific journals. I'm sorry to see that's beyond your abilities to grasp.

To be clear, creationists can indeed be scientists. Some of my colleagues are some form of creationist or other and they are fine biologists. I also mentioned (in this thread no less) some creationists who actually have published articles in scientific journals.

Now that we've cleared this up, can you stay on topic, or is this just your way of trying to derail the original debate? Your next reply will tell.

[brunumb]

This is pure prejudice, the accusation that a person who's a creationist cannot also be a scientist, this is a form of religious discrimination, evaluating the efficacy of scientific arguments on the basis of the religious view of the authors.

You keep relying on this false accusation to make your case. No one is claiming that a creationist cannot also be a scientist. The real issue is that creationism is not science.

[brunumb]

Now that we've cleared this up, can you stay on topic, or is this just your way of trying to derail the original debate? Your next reply will tell.

As far as I am concerned, reading comprehension is not the issue at all. If you visit the flat earth thread you will find the same tactic of shifting goal posts or changing the focus of the topic.

The earlier comments concerning work place practices and breaching laws reminded me of a particularly nasty and virulent creationist back on the now defunct Amazon forums. A poster used her real name there which allowed the creationist to track down her place of work and actually contact her employer. The big pond that creationists once swam in is shrinking fast and, like fish in a shrinking pond, they begin thrashing and flailing desperately.

[Sherlock Holmes]

You say "religion is not science"

Do you dispute that?

yet seem to forget this fact when you also say "Creationists can't meet those standards" that is you conflating a person's religious beliefs with their ability to perform their job, seriously you should setup a meeting with your company's HR department and ask them, print out this thread and ask them their opinion, I'd love to be a Fly on the wall...

So the reading comprehension issues on display here include an inability to read and understand statements in the context in which they were written. That comment was made in the context of a discussion about creationist journals and whether they are peer-reviewed scientific journals. I'm sorry to see that's beyond your abilities to grasp.

To be clear, creationists can indeed be scientists. Some of my colleagues are some form of creationist or other and they are fine biologists. I also mentioned (in this thread no less) some creationists who actually have published articles in scientific journals.

Now that we've cleared this up, can you stay on topic, or is this just your way of trying to derail the original debate? Your next reply will tell.

You have not cleared anything up only tried to obfuscate.

So - to be clear - are you now of the opinion that creationists can meet those standards? your chance to be clear, can they or can't they?

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is pure prejudice, the accusation that a person who's a creationist cannot also be a scientist, this is a form of religious discrimination, evaluating the efficacy of scientific arguments on the basis of the religious view of the authors.

You keep relying on this false accusation to make your case. No one is claiming that a creationist cannot also be a scientist. The real issue is that creationism is not science.

Jose did say that, he said "In order to be a scientific publication you have to adhere to scientific standards. Creationists can't meet those standards" which is demonstrably false.

The author of the paper (this is the paper that nobody has read or critiqued yet feel confident it is not valid) in the creationist journal, Georgia Purdom (PhD molecular genetics) has written for numerous journals, including Journal of Neuroscience and Journal of Leukocyte Biology.

That people here - claiming to be "scientifically literate" can dismiss an argument without even reading it, tells us how poor their actual grasp of science is, the prejudice is palpable and I hope we are not teaching this attitude in our schools.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Now that we've cleared this up, can you stay on topic, or is this just your way of trying to derail the original debate? Your next reply will tell.

As far as I am concerned, reading comprehension is not the issue at all. If you visit the flat earth thread you will find the same tactic of shifting goal posts or changing the focus of the topic.

The earlier comments concerning work place practices and breaching laws reminded me of a particularly nasty and virulent creationist back on the now defunct Amazon forums. A poster used her real name there which allowed the creationist to track down her place of work and actually contact her employer. The big pond that creationists once swam in is shrinking fast and, like fish in a shrinking pond, they begin thrashing and flailing desperately.

Perhaps you'll have time to visit the "Flat Earth" thread (which is a misnomer as you know, the thread's actual tile is "Does the Bible Declare the Earth is Flat?" but facts never are welcome here are they) you'll be able to do what I've asked you to do three times now.

[Jose Fly]

As far as I am concerned, reading comprehension is not the issue at all. If you visit the flat earth thread you will find the same tactic of shifting goal posts or changing the focus of the topic.

True. Denialism requires a pretty consistent set of behaviors regardless of what's being denied.

The earlier comments concerning work place practices and breaching laws reminded me of a particularly nasty and virulent creationist back on the now defunct Amazon forums. A poster used her real name there which allowed the creationist to track down her place of work and actually contact her employer. The big pond that creationists once swam in is shrinking fast and, like fish in a shrinking pond, they begin thrashing and flailing desperately.

Unfortunately that's not surprising. That's why I don't give out any personal info in these debates. In my experiences, many fundamentalists are very messed up people.

[Jose Fly]

You have not cleared anything up only tried to obfuscate.

So - to be clear - are you now of the opinion that creationists can meet those standards? your chance to be clear, can they or can't they?

Let's be absolutely clear so even you can grasp it......anyone can meet the standards of scientific journals. Anyone.

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

Also, do you dispute that religion is not science?

[Sherlock Holmes]

You have not cleared anything up only tried to obfuscate.

So - to be clear - are you now of the opinion that creationists can meet those standards? your chance to be clear, can they or can't they?

Let's be absolutely clear so even you can grasp it......anyone can meet the standards of scientific journals. Anyone.

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

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

Which is true of all of us not just creationists.

Also, do you dispute that religion is not science?

I've certainly never confused the two, but a question for you, would you agree with the late Ernest Rutherford that “All science is either physics or stamp collecting.”?

[Jose Fly]

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.

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).