Commentary on the so-called Creation/Evolution/Intelligent Design Debate and Right-Wing nuttery in general - and please ignore the typos (I make lots!)

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Amazing peer-reviewed "Intelligent Design" journal jam-packed with credible science scares evolutionists!

Just kidding.

Creationists often complain that due to the 'anti-creationist' bias in mainstream scientific journals, they can never get a fair shake and their amazing creation-supporting scientific research will not get published.

So, they start up their own journals - many of which are peer reviewed, even*.

Perusing a few samples from the creationist peer-reviewed scientific literature should be plenty of evidence for the explanation as to why such 'research does not make it into legitimate scientific outlets.

Then, along came the Intelligent Design movement. It was invented to make creation 'science' seem more palatable, scientifically and first amendment-wise, by not explicitly referring to God and cloaking itself ina veneer of legitimate sounding science.

The Intelligent Design advocates wanted to avoid all together the oppression of the Darwinian orthodoxy, and so started up their own peer-revierwed journal. It came out regularly when it first started up, filled primarily with pre-exisiting essays and articles or gussied-up versions of the same. This was 'proof' that ID was not just creationism with a new coat of paint, but alegitimate scientific movement and research paradigm.

Then, they ran out of pre-fabricated essays, and the new, original 'research' that they had promised was forthcoming never came.

This is the output of the Intelligent Design movement's scientific research wing.

Nothing worthy of publication - much less filling the electronic opages of a journal - since November, 2005.

And they want to have their 'science' pushed in public schools and universities?

*It appears that to a creation 'scientist', a peer is but another creationist, regardless of their actual areas of expertise


TB said...

Amazing - they equate circle-jerking with peer review. As someone who tries to keep himself up-to-date with literature in my field, I am fully aware that there are bona-fide scientific journals out there which are of questionable quality (Tetrahedron Letters springs to mind). But I'm willing to bet that this would make the Annals of Improbable Research look positively credible by comparison.

Doppelganger said...


bonfly said...

Took the liberty of linking an earlier post of yours re Wally ReMine on Google Groups AvC.

Doppelganger said...