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So I want to ask how does one decide whether a journal is or is not peer reviewed?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

This conversation really has become uninteresting to me, sorry.

Can't say that I blame you.

[The Barbarian]

Lots of publications are peer-reviewed, but not all of them are peer-reviewed scientific publications. In order to be a scientific publication you have to adhere to scientific standards. Creationists can't meet those standards so they start their own publications where things like invoking miracles from the gods and automatically rejecting anything that disagrees with the Bible are allowed.

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.

I wonder what your employer's HR department would make of these prejudicial views, you do know it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion?

There are YE creationists who have knowledge and credentials in paleontology, evolutionary theory, etc. But I don't think you'd like what most of them have to say about the evidence for evolution and common descent.

There are many other YE creationists who have credentials in some kind of science, but don't know much about evolutionary theory and the evidence for it. I suspect you'd like them much better. James Tour, for example, openly admits that he doesn't understand evolution, and then confirms his claim by assuming it's about the origin of life, a rookie mistake.

As I said, there are YE creationists who do understand the theory and the evidence for it, but I don't think you'd like to hear what they have to say about it.

Jose's claim is quite accurate. It's easy to cruise the creationist literature and find ignorance of the sort you see from Tour. The fact that there do exist honest and informed YE creationists does not mean that they are the norm.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Lots of publications are peer-reviewed, but not all of them are peer-reviewed scientific publications. In order to be a scientific publication you have to adhere to scientific standards. Creationists can't meet those standards so they start their own publications where things like invoking miracles from the gods and automatically rejecting anything that disagrees with the Bible are allowed.

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.

I wonder what your employer's HR department would make of these prejudicial views, you do know it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion?

There are YE creationists who have knowledge and credentials in paleontology, evolutionary theory, etc. But I don't think you'd like what most of them have to say about the evidence for evolution and common descent.

There are many other YE creationists who have credentials in some kind of science, but don't know much about evolutionary theory and the evidence for it. I suspect you'd like them much better. James Tour, for example, openly admits that he doesn't understand evolution, and then confirms his claim by assuming it's about the origin of life, a rookie mistake.

As I said, there are YE creationists who do understand the theory and the evidence for it, but I don't think you'd like to hear what they have to say about it.

Jose's claim is quite accurate. It's easy to cruise the creationist literature and find ignorance of the sort you see from Tour. The fact that there do exist honest and informed YE creationists does not mean that they are the norm.

Nobody can understand a mechanism that is not feasible, claiming to understand evolution is like claiming to understand Star Trek or Dr. Who, sounds lofty, makes some kind of "sense" to the uninformed.

[Difflugia]

In the course of your studies in both, you must have come across at least a few of the many, many, many things that creationists get wrong about evolution. What are some that you find the most interesting or entertaining?

I'd have to look, it's been quite a while since I argued against a Christian fundamentalist with respect to evolution (though I have argued against them), so simply can't recall their general position.

I guess you finally remembered one:

Nobody can understand a mechanism that is not feasible, claiming to understand evolution is like claiming to understand Star Trek or Dr. Who, sounds lofty, makes some kind of "sense" to the uninformed.

[Sherlock Holmes]

In the course of your studies in both, you must have come across at least a few of the many, many, many things that creationists get wrong about evolution. What are some that you find the most interesting or entertaining?

I'd have to look, it's been quite a while since I argued against a Christian fundamentalist with respect to evolution (though I have argued against them), so simply can't recall their general position.

I guess you finally remembered one:

Nobody can understand a mechanism that is not feasible, claiming to understand evolution is like claiming to understand Star Trek or Dr. Who, sounds lofty, makes some kind of "sense" to the uninformed.

My remark was motivated by the oft heard retort from evolution advocates, that if one does not accept evolution as feasible for generating life from say bacteria four billion years ago, then that person clearly doesn't understand evolution.

This is often used as a defense of evolution, simply dismiss detractors on the basis that their arguments are irrelevant because they don't understand anyway; if they did they'd never doubt in the first place.

Its insidious, up there with "evolution is a fact", only the ignorant, the stupid, deny evolution, unless one is a member of the privileged, priestly sect, their opinions count for naught. Unless one believes in evolution then one had best remain silent.

Its a modern day Kafka novel.

[/quote]

[Difflugia]

My remark was motivated by the oft heard retort from evolution advocates, that if one does not accept evolution as feasible for generating life from say bacteria four billion years ago, then that person clearly doesn't understand evolution.

More often than not, someone claiming the former also demonstrates the latter. You know, things like "the fossil record falsifies evolution."

This is often used as a defense of evolution, simply dismiss detractors on the basis that their arguments are irrelevant because they don't understand anyway; if they did they'd never doubt in the first place.

Perhaps it is. That's not the pattern we've been seeing here, though. The relevant science has actually been explained repeatedly and to detail.

Its insidious, up there with "evolution is a fact", only the ignorant, the stupid, deny evolution, unless one is a member of the privileged, priestly sect, their opinions count for naught. Unless one believes in evolution then one had best remain silent.

Its a modern day Kafka novel.

That's an interesting observation and comparison and I think it's apt for a different reason. A lot of people think that being a good lawyer is all about specious arguments, posturing, and lying. The truth is, though, that the law has a language and logic that many people just don't understand. When they find themselves on the wrong end of a courtroom, they're genuinely baffled at the proceedings and gods help them if they think they've "got it figured out" and try to represent themselves. Have you ever watched a tax protester or sovereign citizen try to defend themselves in court? It's eerily similar to watching a creationist try to argue with a scientist. They think they understand what's going on and are doing well, but lose anyway. The human response to cognitive dissonance being what it is, the result too often reinforces the assumption of conspiracy. Anyone patient enough to attempt an explanation does so in a foreign language that the subject continues to insist is gibberish.

Similarly, I've always thought that "The Emperor's New Clothes" carries a dark undertone. The canonical story involves a conspiracy of fear that the fearless child exposes, but what if there's no conspiracy? If everyone else really could see the clothes, how would someone in the child's position tell the difference? If you're one that can see the clothes and you know that another can't, how do you craft a convincing argument, especially if you don't know why they can't see the clothes?

[Sherlock Holmes]

My remark was motivated by the oft heard retort from evolution advocates, that if one does not accept evolution as feasible for generating life from say bacteria four billion years ago, then that person clearly doesn't understand evolution.

More often than not, someone claiming the former also demonstrates the latter. You know, things like "the fossil record falsifies evolution."

This is often used as a defense of evolution, simply dismiss detractors on the basis that their arguments are irrelevant because they don't understand anyway; if they did they'd never doubt in the first place.

Perhaps it is. That's not the pattern we've been seeing here, though. The relevant science has actually been explained repeatedly and to detail.

Its insidious, up there with "evolution is a fact", only the ignorant, the stupid, deny evolution, unless one is a member of the privileged, priestly sect, their opinions count for naught. Unless one believes in evolution then one had best remain silent.

Its a modern day Kafka novel.

That's an interesting observation and comparison and I think it's apt for a different reason. A lot of people think that being a good lawyer is all about specious arguments, posturing, and lying. The truth is, though, that the law has a language and logic that many people just don't understand. When they find themselves on the wrong end of a courtroom, they're genuinely baffled at the proceedings and gods help them if they think they've "got it figured out" and try to represent themselves. Have you ever watched a tax protester or sovereign citizen try to defend themselves in court? It's eerily similar to watching a creationist try to argue with a scientist. They think they understand what's going on and are doing well, but lose anyway. The human response to cognitive dissonance being what it is, the result too often reinforces the assumption of conspiracy. Anyone patient enough to attempt an explanation does so in a foreign language that the subject continues to insist is gibberish.

Similarly, I've always thought that "The Emperor's New Clothes" carries a dark undertone. The canonical story involves a conspiracy of fear that the fearless child exposes, but what if there's no conspiracy? If everyone else really could see the clothes, how would someone in the child's position tell the difference? If you're one that can see the clothes and you know that another can't, how do you craft a convincing argument, especially if you don't know why they can't see the clothes?

See? we need only read your words to see how very deeply this is ingrained, you wrote "similar to watching a creationist try to argue with a scientist" you unashamedly affirm that a person cannot be a creationist and a scientist, that one must be one or the other, you did a great job of proving my point. You didn't even allow the possibility of simply arguing, you had to express it as "try to argue"! It's frightening that you might actually truly believe that too. I really expected a little better than this from you, based on what I've seen of your posts recently, but my expectations have now been dashed.

[Difflugia]

See? we need only read your words to see how very deeply this is ingrained, you wrote "similar to watching a creationist try to argue with a scientist" you unashamedly affirm that a person cannot be a creationist and a scientist, that one must be one or the other, you did a great job of proving my point.

Heh. I've watched creationists argue with scientists. I stand by what I wrote.

It's frightening that you might actually truly believe that too.

Of course it is. The fear is real whether the emperor really has clothes on or not.

I really expected a little better than this from you, based on what I've seen of your posts recently, but my expectations have now been dashed.

[Sherlock Holmes]

See? we need only read your words to see how very deeply this is ingrained, you wrote "similar to watching a creationist try to argue with a scientist" you unashamedly affirm that a person cannot be a creationist and a scientist, that one must be one or the other, you did a great job of proving my point.

Heh. I've watched creationists argue with scientists. I stand by what I wrote.

Was it a scientist who was also a creationist or was it a non-scientists creationist? How you can stand by what you wrote is quite baffling, it suggests that - for you - facts are not relevant when it comes advocating the evolution doctrine.

Lets just ask a simple question - can a person be both a scientist and a creationist? are you able to answer this question?

If you want to argue that a scientist cannot be a creationist then you'll be in trouble as there's no definition I've ever seen of "scientist" that includes such a stipulation, perhaps you can show me one? As I said elsewhere too, espousing such a view in a professional science oriented employment setting could amount to religious discrimination, a federal crime nonetheless.

[Jose Fly]

Nobody can understand a mechanism that is not feasible, claiming to understand evolution is like claiming to understand Star Trek or Dr. Who, sounds lofty, makes some kind of "sense" to the uninformed.

Good grief, are you actually serious? Apparently you still refuse to acknowledge that the process of evolution, and the mechanisms that drive it, are directly observed reality....things we see occur with our own eyes every single day.

I've seen creationists engage in denialism before, but this is a whole different level. You may as well claim that no one can "understand erosion".

EDIT: Then you say this....

Its insidious, up there with "evolution is a fact", only the ignorant, the stupid, deny evolution, unless one is a member of the privileged, priestly sect, their opinions count for naught. Unless one believes in evolution then one had best remain silent.

Wow.....just.....wow.