Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Sincerest Form of Flattery—Creationists Call for Peer-Reviewed Papers
The International Journal for Creation Research is making an inaugural Call for Papers. The announcement reads:
IJCR is a professional peer-reviewed journal of interdisciplinary scientific research that presents evidence for recent creation within a biblical framework.
Addressing the need to disseminate the vast field of research conducted by experts in geology, genetics, astronomy, and other disciplines of science, IJCR provides scientists and students hard data based on cutting-edge research that demonstrates the young earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of the species, and other evidences that correlate to the biblical accounts.
Under its technical review process, the IJCR outlines its paper review process:
Upon the reception of a Paper the Editor-in-Chief will follow the procedures below:
1. Receive and acknowledge the Author of His/Her Paper’s receipt.
2. Review the Paper for possible inclusion into the IJCR review process.
The following criteria are to be used in judging the papers:
(a) Is the Paper’s topic important to the development of the creation model?
(b) Does the Paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the creation model?
(c) Is this Paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
(d) If (c) above is not satisfied, does this Paper offer a very constructively-positive
criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
(e) If the Paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed
within the origins debate?
(f) Does this Paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatico-historical/
normative interpretation of Scripture? (if necessary refer to Walsh, R.E., Biblical
Hermeneutics and Creation, Proceedings First International Conference on
Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1986, Vol. 1,
pp. 121–127).Remark:
The Editor-in-Chief should not be afraid to reject a Paper if it does not properly
satisfy the above criteria nor is in the best interests of ICR as judged by its Biblical
stand and goals as outlined in its Tenets. The Editors play a very important initial
role in preserving a high level of quality in the IJCR, as well as protecting ICR from
unnecessary controversy and review of clearly inappropriate papers.
Frankly, I prefer my bible thumping creationists to just ignore science instead of trying to mimick it. As Georgia Purdom, an assistant professor of biology at Mount Vernon Nazarene University in Mount Vernon, OH said at the Creation Mega-Conference in 2005, "God said it, that settles it."
Hat tip to frequent H&R commenter biologist.
|4.30.07 @ 12:16PM|#
Mimic science? Where?
All those rules, and never once do they mention things like
evidence, re-testing, comparison to existing literature and defense
of differences, and so on. The only standard is whether it measures
up to some unquestionable authority.
How is that a mimic in any sense? It doesn't even bother
crossdressing as science.
ktc2|4.30.07 @ 12:20PM|#
ROFLMAO.
These thumpers are so pathetic.
Sadly they are well funded by the deluded masses to spread their
mythology as fact.
Will we never be free of this poison?
ed|4.30.07 @ 12:20PM|#
cutting-edge research that demonstrates the young earth
model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of the
species...
and the flat earth.
|4.30.07 @ 12:24PM|#
Peer review? Creationist Peer Review? What is that?
"We showed your story to a high school dropout from Kansas and a
guy with a shiny suit, a pompadour, and a cable access show, and
they both thought it was terrific."
|4.30.07 @ 12:27PM|#
Seems like all the rules are in place to weed out science. They are trying to copy the whole idea of intellectual journals with a review process. I just wonder, with all their fakery, how do they pretend to be Christians?
stuartl|4.30.07 @ 12:27PM|#
This is so cute! Young earthers pretending to be scientists. Reminds me of watching my kids play house when they were 3 years old.
Zach|4.30.07 @ 12:28PM|#
theres a reason religion and science don't get along. This will go nowhere.
|4.30.07 @ 12:29PM|#
Do any real scientific journals require that submissions fit within, or provide a "possible alternative" within, a particular framework?
thoreau|4.30.07 @ 12:30PM|#
You know, although peer review can be an annoying process (I'm
in the middle of it right now), it's actually not a terribly high
bar, because you can eventually find some journal that
will accept your work. (I have a paper that most people think is
pretty good, but it wasn't good enough for a particular journal, so
we're revising and sending elsewhere.)
The rather low bar set by peer review is actually one of the
reasons why we scientists tend to insist that results pass it:
Because if you can't even make it past the bare threshold of peer
review, then clearly you've got a problem. (If you do make it past
peer review you might still have a problem, but now it's before a
wider audience, in the hopes that somebody out there will detect
the problem.)
The fact that creationists had to invent their own peer reviewed
journal is yet another sign that they are completely devoid of
substance.
|4.30.07 @ 12:33PM|#
No guys, it's all scientifical and stuff. They're even gonna
have bibliographies and junk.
Falwell, Jerry: Evolution and the Homosexual Agenda
Brimstone Press
Robertson, Pat: Fossils - Jesus's Big Joke 700 Club
Press
Donahue, Bill: Intelligent Design and Feng Shui - a Holistic
Approach to Decorating the Universe Torquemada Press
|4.30.07 @ 12:35PM|#
The rather low bar set by peer review is actually one of the
reasons why we scientists tend to insist that results pass it:
Because if you can't even make it past the bare threshold of peer
review, then clearly you've got a problem.
Sort of like the bar exam. ;-)
|4.30.07 @ 12:49PM|#
I would love to read anything that passed their criteria, and then watch Dawkins get a hold of it.
thoreau|4.30.07 @ 1:03PM|#
I wait with bated breath for the creationist cure for
cancer!
Prayer. And if it doesn't work it's the patient's fault for being a
sinner. Or else it's God's will.
|4.30.07 @ 1:03PM|#
"bated breath?"
ummm.......ewwww
but seriously, the cure is achieved through prayer and faith. If
not here, then in Heaven.
It's why we're so giddy.
Ask me about my healing
|4.30.07 @ 1:24PM|#
There is of course one sollution Ron, don't read it. I don't really understand the big deal here. Its a free country, you can start review you want. If you think a particular review is crap, you just don't read it or pay attention to it. I don't really get why Ron deems this worth discussing.
biologist|4.30.07 @ 1:44PM|#
actually, mediageek, the phrase is "bated breath"
bate:
transitive verb
1 : to reduce the force or intensity of : RESTRAIN
2 : to take away : DEDUCT
3 archaic : to lower especially in amount or estimation
4 archaic : BLUNT
John, one of the strikes against teaching creation science and
intelligent design in public schools has been the finding by the
courts that these "disciplines" and their adherents haven't
produced any peer-reviewed publications.
Now, they will have produced "peer-reviewed" publications,
overcoming a hurdle and wedging a foot in the schoolroom door, to
mix metaphors.
jp, as far as I know, the only required framework is empiricism
(and not even that in theoretical areas, such as string
theory).
Ungruntled|4.30.07 @ 1:45PM|#
The thing that always has bothered me about these I.D. poeple is
their lack of faith. Really, if you believe that God made the
Earth, just believe it; that's what faith is about. You can't prove
it reguardless; you are never going to find "Made by God 6000B.C."
written on the underside of a rock somewhere. Why? Because God is
smarter than you.
If you have enough faith to belive that God made the world just
stretch your faith a little bit further and belive that God knows
what he's doing and has actually thought the whole thing through
right down to the physics, chemistry, biology, and geology
involved. Once again, remember, God is smarter than you.
At this point you may be reaching for the Bible so you can flip to
Genesis and start quoting things about what God said the creation
of the Earth entailed. Genesis is a simple explaination of the
World's creation that anyone can understand. God was talking to
people who herded goats for a living. If God had been talking to
scientists Genesis would be a much diffrent book with way to much
math for the ordinary person to understand.
So, in conclusion, if you are an intellegent design type of person
you may want to show some faith in God and just accept that God
made the world and that you will not be able to prove it. God, like
a ninja, will only be seen when He wants to be seen. If you still
want to be a scientist type and find that you are haveing trouble
reconciling science and your faith try frameing your questions like
"Why did God make it look like dinosaurs lived millions years ago?"
or "Why did God make it look like evolution is a plausable
theory?". This way you will be able to apperciate God's design and
do legitemate scientific work at the same time.
|4.30.07 @ 1:45PM|#
It's not really "peer reviewable" if there's nothing to review
and test.
This is just a creationist circle-jerk.
|4.30.07 @ 1:56PM|#
"John, one of the strikes against teaching creation science and
intelligent design in public schools has been the finding by the
courts that these "disciplines" and their adherents haven't
produced any peer-reviewed publications.
Now, they will have produced "peer-reviewed" publications,
overcoming a hurdle and wedging a foot in the schoolroom door, to
mix metaphors."
True but I worry that this principle can get carried to far the
other way. Don't let bad facts create bad precident. You don't like
creationism and think it is crap, therefore they should not be
allowed to create peer reviews for it. That may be good for this
case but what is to stop science from using this method to enforce
group think. I am quite sure there are lots of people who think as
little of anyone who denies catastrophic man made global warming as
they do of creationism and God knows a lot of careers depend on the
validity of man-made global warming. If Ron Bailey can stop the
creationists, why can't environmentalist stop any research or paper
that doesn't absolutely affirm global warming dogma? It seems to me
that we are playing with fire here by making it easier to enforce
group think among the sciences over a small group of cranks that
really are not much of a threat to anything.
|4.30.07 @ 1:59PM|#
"Why did God make it look like dinosaurs lived millions years
ago?"
I had one Christian tell me that Satan planted the dinosaur bones
to fool us.
biologist|4.30.07 @ 2:11PM|#
You don't like creationism and think it is crap, therefore
they should not be allowed to create peer reviews for
it.
No, I didn't say that, nor did Ron Bailey. Don't put words (or
anything else) in my mouth. Instead, we should be informed about
how the group organizes their peer-reviews and recognize that it is
qualitatively different than standard scientific practice. When I
conduct an experiment, I don't know the result before I start: they
do.
If I had evidence, I could publish a peer-reviewed paper in a
standard scientific journal that the Earth is only 6,000 years old,
but considering all the accumulated evidence contrary to that
claim, my evidence had better be damn good.
ed|4.30.07 @ 2:20PM|#
Satan planted the dinosaur bones to fool us
Nuh-uh. He did it to test us. Just like he and God got
together over drinks and decided to test Job. Couple o' sadist
punks if you ask me.
ktc2|4.30.07 @ 2:22PM|#
Just a bunch of pathetic adherents to a dying myth making
desperate efforts to appear relevant and scientific.
Nothing to see here. Point at the whackos, laugh loudly and move
on.
|4.30.07 @ 2:32PM|#
Rattlesnake Jake
"I had one Christian tell me that Satan planted the dinosaur bones
to fool us."
The notion that Satan can create anything - Manicheanism - was
declared to be heresy at the Council of Nicea. As the Council of
Nicea antedates all the schisms which split the Christian church,
any Christian who espouses the notion that Satan can create
anything - even a fake dinosaur bone - is committing heresy.
Cardinl. Fang|4.30.07 @ 2:35PM|#
Two counts of Heresy:
Heresy by thought
Heresy by word
Here-- Three. Three counts...
ellipsis|4.30.07 @ 2:38PM|#
(d) If (c) above is not satisfied, does this Paper offer a very constructively-positive
criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
Hmm, most creationists don't even believe in a young universe
anymore. They gave that one up a long time ago.
Also, I can't verify it yet, but it looks like they're registered
as a non-profit ministry. Which would seem to further erode their
attempt at legitimacy.
|4.30.07 @ 3:15PM|#
"actually, mediageek, the phrase is "bated breath"
bate:
transitive verb
1 : to reduce the force or intensity of : RESTRAIN
2 : to take away : DEDUCT
3 archaic : to lower especially in amount or estimation
4 archaic : BLUNT"
That's how I originally meant it.
But I think I'm getting a tad blue in the face. Perhaps by
abatement of breath in anticipation of the creationists curing
cancer is a smidge premature?
ellipsis|4.30.07 @ 3:17PM|#
According to search tools at irs.gov, they're a
501(c)(3)charitable organization. And they make it very easy and
convenient to make donations on their web page.
I couldn't find any real science-based peer journals that operated
as a non-profit using google. If they're doing all this just to get
creationism in schools, I don't think it's going to work. But if
they're trying to fleece a few benefactors and build an echo
chamber, game on.
David Ross|4.30.07 @ 3:18PM|#
The irony of cracks about a "creationist cure for cancer" is
that, until VERY recently, there wasn't much of an "evolutionist
cure" either. We knew that cancer cells had evolved ways of
becoming parasitic upon their host but there was no way of telling
how. I hardly need remind everyone that Darwin's mid 19th century
illustration of natural selection does not predict the process of
DNA etc. Before the 1950s, what could an evolutionist do about
cancer that a mediaeval monk couldn't do?
On the other hand Darwin's theory does do well at predicting that
bacteria will evolve to defeat primitive antibiotics. So we can
speak of an "evolutionist cure" for infection, or at least an
evolutionist process for understanding why the last batch of
penicillin didn't work.
|4.30.07 @ 3:22PM|#
"The irony of cracks about a "creationist cure for cancer"
is that, until VERY recently, there wasn't much of an "evolutionist
cure" either."
Yes, and they've made great strides in cancer treatment recently
due to use of experimentation and the scientific theory.
Snarky comments about curing cancer aside, perhaps you'd care to
cite just one improvement that the creationist/intelligent design
crowd has made?
Show me one cure. Show me one treatment.
Show me medical advancement to be made based strictly on the use of
creationist/intelligent design ideology.
|4.30.07 @ 3:37PM|#
"cite just one improvement that the creationist/intelligent
design crowd has made?"
Cheerleading as a sport?
David Ross|4.30.07 @ 3:38PM|#
mediageek: Oh that's easy. Christian creationists discovered
patient care.
During the early Byzantine era, Christian creationists discovered
that making their patients feel loved was helping to cure their
ailments. This at a time when the finest scientological minds of
the day were teaching the four-humours theory of disease. So while
the enlightened Hellenistic scientists were literally bloodletting
their patients down the toilet, those ignint Xian fundies were
making their patients comfortable and helping their bodies heal
themselves.
Christian creationists invented the hospital system.
Religion bashing is fun and all, but I'd sooner be treated by a
Catholic than by mediageek.
|4.30.07 @ 3:40PM|#
If we are lucky, perhaps these nutjobs will get together and
review each other's work and realize, "Hey, this makes no sense at
all!"
Someone should go Sokal on these freaks and their little
"journal."
|4.30.07 @ 3:47PM|#
"I'd sooner be treated by a Catholic than by mediageek."
Depends if we're talking about a Catholic MD/Nurse, or the Pope.
["Take two Pater Nosters and call me in the morning."]
thoreau|4.30.07 @ 3:55PM|#
Someone should go Sokal on these freaks and their little
"journal."
Ooohhh.....
|4.30.07 @ 3:58PM|#
David-
Much like the screeching atheists who continue to point to the
Crusades as evidence that Christianity will doom us all, you seem
to lack a certain level of...ah...temporal prioritization.
|4.30.07 @ 3:58PM|#
"Religion bashing is fun and all, but I'd sooner be treated
by a Catholic than by mediageek."
Me too! Unless it's 'batin'.
|4.30.07 @ 3:59PM|#
Let folks debate this stuff. Given that none of us observed the
beginning of the universe, and that we can't reproduce or test any
of the origin theories in a lab or verify them, don't we all have
to be a bit humble about this stuff and admit that all we can
really do is spin theories that seem to match up with the current
set of observable facts and remain flexible enough to change our
theories as the sum amount of our observed data changes?
So, we've got either:
In the beginning, God created universe, this has made a lot of
people very angry and is generally considered a bad move...
or
In the beginning there was some sort of matter that had a big bang,
and through a series of natural laws, combined with an enormous
amount of fortuitous luck, billions of years, some lightning
strikes, a meteor collision, and what not produced irrational
hairless apes who spend what little lives they have scurrying about
and posting about meaningless things on message boards in the hopes
that other irrational hairless apes whom they've never met find
them amusing...
Or some combination of the two, plus a few even more bizarre
notions about aliens and microbe infested meteors.
lunchstealer|4.30.07 @ 4:13PM|#
Why did the phrase "Cargo Cult" pop into my mind as soon as I first heard about this?
|4.30.07 @ 4:15PM|#
"Let folks debate this stuff. Given that none of us observed
the beginning of the universe, and that we can't reproduce or test
any of the origin theories in a lab or verify them, don't we all
have to be a bit humble about this stuff and admit that all we can
really do is spin theories that seem to match up with the current
set of observable facts and remain flexible enough to change our
theories as the sum amount of our observed data
changes?"
I feel the same way about my cell phone. There's a magical gnome
who lives inside of it. He listens to what I say, writes it down in
a little notebook, and then uses fairy dust to fly from my cell
phone, up to the moon, and then back down to the phone of whoever
I'm calling.
|4.30.07 @ 4:28PM|#
With the exception that we can observe (and test) said
hypothesis regarding cell phones and how they operate in multiple
labs.
That being said, I think I need to drop kick the little bastard
gnome who works for Verizon as he continually drops my signal when
I'm calling from home.
|4.30.07 @ 4:32PM|#
Except I don't have access to a lab, and even if I did, I have
neither the knowledge or experience to test it myself.
And yeah, when you find that gnome, after you get a couple licks
in, let me at 'im!
Untermensch|4.30.07 @ 4:36PM|#
Do any real scientific journals require that submissions fit within, or provide a "possible alternative" within, a particular framework?
Actually it's very common to have such limitations. It's called
"specialization." So, although the idea of young-earth peer review
is rather, umm, strange, this requirement is not part of
that strangeness. Just one example of such specialization is the
Dawkinsian (sp?) (and now defunct) Journal of Memetics.
Presumably it wouldn't accept papers on information transmission
that have nothing to do with memetics. In this regard there is
nothing unusual about the young earthers' requirements...
It's not really "peer reviewable" if there's nothing to review and test.
With one fell stroke you have swept out probably the majority of
non-scientific journals (and many scientific journals as well,
unfortunately). Peer review happens in almost any discipline and
can include review of things such as citation of relevant sources,
awareness of relevant scholarship, and consideration of original
contribution. Even in science peer review often does not involve
the replication of results because that requirement is not
feasible.
I'm not writing any of this to defend Young Earth creationism,
something I disagree with strongly. However, if you're going to
bash them, these aren't the grounds to do it because they end up
showing your ignorance of academe.
|4.30.07 @ 4:39PM|#
True, but then that kind of points out the limitations of human
knowledge too.
Most of our knowledge about subjects is based on the faith we have
in our scientists (who interpret the universe for us), kind of like
we used to have faith in our priests.
Oh well. Guess there's nothing to be done save build a house, name
it Outside of the Asylum and become even more eccentric.
|4.30.07 @ 5:27PM|#
The Norse Science Fellowship, Inc. will accept papers for peer
review:
The following criteria are to be used in judging the papers:
(a) Is the Paper's topic important to the development of the Norse
model?
(b) Does the Paper's topic provide an original contribution to the
Norse model?
(c) Is this Paper formulated within a Yggdrasil-universe
framework?
(d) If (c) above is not satisfied, does this Paper offer a very
constructively-positive
criticism and provide a possible Yggdrasil-universe
alternative?
(e) If the Paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic
rarely discussed
within the Norse debate?
(f) Does this Paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the
grammatico-historical/
normative interpretation of Sagas? (if necessary refer to Odinson,
Thor, Norse
Hermeneutics and Creation, Proceedings First International
Conference on
Yggdrasil-Creationism, Norse Science Fellowship, Inc., Bifrost, MN,
1986, Vol. 1,
pp. 121-127).
|4.30.07 @ 5:28PM|#
On the other hand Darwin's theory does do well at predicting
that bacteria will evolve to defeat primitive antibiotics. So we
can speak of an "evolutionist cure" for infection, or at least an
evolutionist process for understanding why the last batch of
penicillin didn't work.
Sounds more to me like we're talking about an evolutionist cure for
antibiotics.
edna|4.30.07 @ 5:47PM|#
trivial side note; you know you're dealing with the ignorant when you see the phrase "origin of [i]the[/i] species."
|4.30.07 @ 6:05PM|#
"Most of our knowledge about subjects is based on the faith
we have in our scientists (who interpret the universe for us), kind
of like we used to have faith in our priests."
Given the track record of science and industry, I'm willing to cut
them some slack.
Look, I don't post this stuff to be all down on God. Some people
obviously derive a serious quality-of-life improvement from being a
member of one form of religion or another. I'm not going to
begrudge them of that.
Where I have a serious issue is when a person's adherence to an
ideology keeps them blind to many of the accomplishments made by
guys in lab coats and guys with those giant buckets that pour
molten steal into molds.
How does it honestly move one's faith forward if your belief in
God, etc. is so fundamentally shaken up simply because of something
revealed through the use of the scientific method?
And how can you adhere to such a belief when your attempt to
replace it with something faith-friendly is never going to result
in testable experimentation and ultimately products that better
mankind?
I just don't get it.
Urkobold®|4.30.07 @ 6:14PM|#
edna IS BUSTED!!!
CLAIMS TO HAVE NO [USE OF?] PINKIES AS EXCUSE FOR NO CAPS, BUT
CLEARLY USED SOMETHING TO CREATE ITALICS TAG.
PUNISHMENT:
READ THE ENTIRE P.A.T.R.I.O.T. ACT.
DO NOT CRY
DO NOT FALL ASLEEP
DO NOT CALL YOUR SENATOR
EVERY TIME SOMEONE ELSE MENTIONS P.A.T.R.I.O.T. ACT, YOU MUST ASK
"HAVE YOU READ THE ENTIRE P.A.T.R.I.O.T. ACT?" THEN BRAG "I
HAVE."
Julio|4.30.07 @ 6:46PM|#
At the end of the day, you need a busload of faith to answer the question of the universe's origin, no matter how you answer it.
edna|4.30.07 @ 7:03PM|#
URKO, THERE IS STILL THE CAPS LOCK KEY....
ALL CAPS HURTS THE EYE. THANKS, I'LL STICK WITH the whole e.e.
cummings thing until they can clone me new pinkies.
VM|4.30.07 @ 7:06PM|#
oh great Urkobold!
you have Edna mistaken with Lionel Twain...
Edna was the one they strapped to the roof of the car
Mr. Gallo - thanks for that contribution. (grin) Unfortunately, for
this citizen, my busload are controlled by the CTA, so that means
that it's somewhere broken down on the side of the road :)
Urkobold®|4.30.07 @ 7:12PM|#
Julio,
LOU REED CALLED. HE SAYS YOU CAN KEEP HIS SONG. YOU'VE SOILED
IT.
biologist|4.30.07 @ 7:36PM|#
mediageek:
apologies for the unnecessary attempted correction
"Let folks debate this stuff. Given that none of us observed
the beginning of the universe, and that we can't reproduce or test
any of the origin theories in a lab or verify them, don't we all
have to be a bit humble about this stuff and admit that all we can
really do is spin theories that seem to match up with the current
set of observable facts and remain flexible enough to change our
theories as the sum amount of our observed data
changes?"
well, that's how the scientific method works. your point?
in contrast, young-earth creation groups already know the answer:
the Earth is young, because the Bible tells them so, therefore
let's go out and find the evidence to support it, no matter how
much counter-evidence has already been accumulated. perhaps they
could take your advice and "be a bit humble about this stuff and
admit that all we can really do is spin theories that seem to match
up with the current set of observable facts and remain flexible
enough to change our theories as the sum amount of our observed
data changes?"
but that would conflict with what they already "know"
|4.30.07 @ 7:58PM|#
Biologist-
My point being that to most people, it doesn't matter HOW the
technology they use works, only that it does.
There's no need for the average layman to really understand how
things work, whether it's a car, cell phone, or genetic
engineering.
The fact that most people don't understand how this stuff works, or
don't care to learn, is likely to give rise to things like
creationism and cell phone gnomes.
|4.30.07 @ 9:29PM|#
People should submit papers under the names of various
creator-gods.
"Excedrin won't help this headache: On the population of worlds via
the forehead"
"Eschatological Ephemerides: Scheduling of Apocalyptical Events",
by Odin
"Don't cry over spilled milk: A new method of host galaxy
fabrication"
"Design Critique: Jehovah's Mark VII Prostate - This too won't
pass"
TJ|4.30.07 @ 11:13PM|#
"...cell phone gnomes"
Yup. As Arthur C. Clarke said:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic."
|5.1.07 @ 2:15AM|#
My point being that to most people, it doesn't matter HOW
the technology they use works, only that it does.
This is why most people have a grasp of science and technology
similar to this.
stuartl|5.1.07 @ 8:49AM|#
Given that none of us observed the beginning of the
universe, and that we can't reproduce or test any of the origin
theories in a lab or verify them...
Where did this silly meme come from? You want to observe the early
universe? Look at the pictures from WMAP. A good view is this
one.
Can't test?
Strange that the angular distribution of the Cosmic Microwave
Background matches inflationary theory predictions:
This
acoustic polarization was measured by the Degree Angular Scale
Interferometer
(an instrument operated at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station in
Antarctica) and later by WMAP; the value was in beautiful agreement
with predictions.
As I said earlier, three year olds playing house are very cute.
Maybe when these guys grow up they can be scientists too.
Chucklehead|5.1.07 @ 9:01AM|#
Silly stuartl... don't you know that the so-called background radiation is the echo of God's voice proclaiming "Let There Be Light!"
|5.1.07 @ 1:09PM|#
Rather amusing that you left off the rest of my sentence in your
quote, which was that all we can do is look at the observable
evidence available to us now and formulate theories that best fit
it, yet remain humble and flexible enough to change our theories in
response to new evidence.
As someone else has said, this is pretty much a loose expression of
scientific methodology in principle. In practice, I think our human
failings make us more arrogant in our knowledge than we have a
right to be, given just how limited (by our current technology) our
views of the universe are.
None of this is to diminish the great achievements and advances of
science, nor the great minds that brought them to our attention
(whose number include many believers in something divine).
If anything such a humble expression of the limitations of our
knowledge should encourage the next generation of scientists to
work harder and push our collective understanding forward.
thoreau|5.1.07 @ 3:23PM|#
all we can do is look at the observable evidence available
to us now and formulate theories that best fit it, yet remain
humble and flexible enough to change our theories in response to
new evidence.
Yep. That's what we're doing. And so far, the best available
evidence is pretty damn consistent with an old earth, an old
universe, and a progression of species from single-celled life
forms to what you see today.
If we get new evidence we'll be happy to draw new
conclusions.
Now, if the Creationists were actually willing to change any of
their conclusions in response to new evidence, then we'd have
something to talk about with them.
stuartl|5.1.07 @ 4:12PM|#
CFisher -- you miss my point, we can and have observed the
beginning of the universe. What do you think the CMB is? It is
light. We observe it by using a detector. It is collected and put
in the pictures that I linked to above. I'll say it again -- we are
observing the beginnings of the universe.
The same applies to testing, we test the theories, refute or verify
them, find interesting stuff, etc.
Sure the theories are being revised and refined, that makes it a
live science. But this "it can't be observed or tested" meme is
just plain wrong.
|5.1.07 @ 8:06PM|#
Stuarti is right -- the cosmic microwave background is the flash
from the creation of the universe. We ARE seeing the creation of
the universe when we observe that light with our radio eyes. And
when scientists get their gravity wave detectors working with
sufficient sensitivity, they'll have another set of eyes with which
to see the Big Bang.
Dicke, Peebles and Wilkinson predicted it,
Penzias and Wilson saw it,
that settles it. :-)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245