Creationist/Intelligent Design drivel is pseudoscience worthy of as much respect as phrenology. It assumes that "Darwinism" and "Evolution" are the same thing and that nitpicking some little bit of Darwin's work to pieces somehow invalidates modern evolutionary biology. Creationist/I.D. types have only the vaguest idea of what the term "the scientific method" means. They also use "theory" in its lay usage rather than its scientific usage.
Twelve, none of what I have said has been meant to impugn your personal integrity. In fact, I've been very impressed with your restrained and fair commentary. If everyone conducted themselves in a similar manner, it would be a very 'civil' world indeed.
I emailed you and got the following reply:
"This email address is protected by EarthLink spamBlocker. Your email message has been redirected to a "suspect email" folder for email@example.com. In order for your message to be moved to this recipient's Inbox, he or she must add your email address to a list of allowed senders."
Jermarge, I disagree with your analogy and would change it to the following: You could easily see a comparison of the merits of a Honda (creationism) compared to a Harley (evolution) in any "peer reviewed" motorcycle magazine (science journal).
I know science and how it works. If the creationists have any data of scientific value it would be more than welcomed by any leading journal (Science or Nature especially) or any specialized journal.
It would be a breakthrough for them to publish anything in any respectable science source.
Did you ever see an article discussing the merits of a Honda in a Harley Owners Group Magazine?
The goal of fair and balanced reporting is no more acceptable to evolutionists that the idea of releasing true PPI numbers is to the Feral Gubment.
Thanks Sulith. I didn't know the details for this group but I'm very familiar with how the creationist camp operates and your findings are par for the course.
Funny how the creationists claim science is biased (and use that as an excuse for not being able to publish). Hmmmm....
Some facts on the "Institute for Creation Research" from V. J. Stenger's "Has Science Found God." Sulith comments in s:
"In 1963 Morris and others formed the Christian research Society (CRS). Members were required to be Christians and sign a statement of belief accepting the inerrancy of the Bible. Notably, this is incompatible with the unspoken oath of every scientist to pursue the truth whatever it may be, whether one likes the outcome or not. A journal, Creation Research, was established with the intension of allowing creation scientists to claim publication in a "peer- reviewed" scientific publication. Their peers were , of course, other creation scientists.
In 1972 an Institute for Creation research (ICR) was established in San Diego under Morris' leadership.
On the current (as of this writing) Web site of the CRS, I found the following in its statement of belief:
'The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.' [Hows THAT for "Science?"]
The record shows that nothing [NOTHING] on creation science of scholarly merit has been published in the scientific literature by anyone associated with these organizations."
[In layman's language, it's a crock].
Fair enough jermarge. I know very little about geology or paleontology and can't personally respond to the data you present. I would recommend doing as I suggested earlier - talk to a geologist or paleontologist.
If there is any truth to any of it I look forward to seeing the publication in a peer-reviewed science journal in the future (I know there is substantial lag time between discovery and publication, so no rush). It would be very interesting to see such a paper after other scientists in the field have had a chance to review their data.
Finally, that's a nice list of initials at the bottom of your post. I've been following this subject for two decades and from the looks of it, the names have changed but the initials after the names remain the same. There have always been some fundamentalist christians who were scientists and creationists. Hopefully the current group uses acceptable scientific forums to debate.