Real Kato Blog: More Pseudo-Science

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

Posted by Ken in: commentary, science

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.

Search This Site