Banner Logo
Home
The Real Kato
About Me
Twitter
Facebook
Frozen Lunches
Links
Dooce
Sweat Pants Mom
Secret Agent Josephine
Vindauga
Contact



Archives
Most Recent

2023 February
2007 May
2007 April
2007 March
2007 February
2007 January
2006 December
2006 November
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June


Categories
All Categories 

bloggers 
books 
commentary 
dating 
food 
funnyhaha 
interesting 
life 
movies 
music 
politics 
reviews 
science 
site-business 
sports 
style 
techwatch 
television 
theater 
travel 


Recent Comments
On College Football 2022: Week 6 Recap and Week 7 Pre...
Ken said:
Yeah, we've both had our share of hope and disappointment in this game. Let's just hope for a good b...
On College Football 2022: Week 6 Recap and Week 7 Pre...
Dan* said:
I'm not sure how I feel about this game. On one hand, I feel pretty optimistic that we have the tale...
On College Football 2022: Week 1 Preview
Dan* said:
Glad to see you'll be back writing football again, Ken! Congrats on the easy win today. You didn't ...
On College Football 2021: Week 10 Recap and Week 11 P...
Ken said:
Yeah, sorry one of our teams had to lose. I've come to appreciate Penn State as a classy and sympath...
On College Football 2021: Week 10 Recap and Week 11 P...
Dan* said:
Hey Ken, congratulations on the win yesterday! Some really odd choices by our coaching staff in that...


<< Previous: CSS Irritation | Next: The AACS Key! >>

More Pseudo-Science
Friday, 2007 May 4 - 8:29 am
The Institute for Creation Research has launched a journal for peer-reviewed papers.

Peer review is a widely used technique in the scientific and medical community. Any paper that's published in a peer-reviewed journal is carefully read and analyzed by other experts, to ensure that scientific methods have been used and no questionable conclusions have been reached.

So, in an attempt to make "creation science" seem more science-y, the so-called Institute for Creation Research has launched its own peer-reviewed journal: the "International Journal for Creation Research".

Normally, I'd say "huzzah" to something like this... exposure to scientific criticism is exactly what creationism needs. But there's a catch: none of the papers are allowed to contradict traditional creationist teachings. In the guidelines, it says that papers must "provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatico-historical/normative interpretation of scripture."

So in other words, if your valid scientific research contradicts the Bible, they don't want to hear it.

That's exactly the opposite of science. The whole point of scientific research is not to prove things, but to disprove them. And nothing is taken as absolute fact.

This bothers me because it's another attempt to cloak religion in the guise of science, for the purposes of mixing it into secular society. It's the door to try to get creationism taught in schools, to get the Ten Commandments posted in courts, and so on and so on and so on.

I guess it's time to make the International Journal for Flying Spaghetti Monster Research.
Permalink  1 Comment   Bookmark and Share
Posted by Ken in: commentaryscience

Comments

Comment #1 from Chip (Guest)
2007 May 9 - 5:27 pm : #
"That's exactly the opposite of science. The whole point of scientific research is not to prove things, but to disprove them. And nothing is taken as absolute fact."

I want to re-state your statement... The burden of proof is on the believer to prove their argument. The burden of proof is not on the non-believer.

The best book I have read this year is The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8823399-8335925?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178745389&sr=8-1

As for the "journal", it can't be taken seriously. Even the "peer-review" is not true peer review. It is a journal presented by like minded individuals to support what they already believe to be true. That's not science.

Comments are closed for this post.
Login


Search This Site
Powered by FreeFind