Will Creationism slowly fade away into oblivion?

[painted wolf]

Numerous well educated Christians oppose the so-called Scientific concensus, I've met far more Christians who have similar objections as I do than those who don't. I wouldn't for a second believe that a grand shift away from this phenomenon is going to happen anytime soon. If anything, Creation science will nicely fill the gap of what you speak of, take that as you will. You can call it "Dishonest pseudo-science" or whatnot but that's not going to change their minds anymore so than the Neodarwininst arguments will change theirs, or that their arguments will change yours. The ratio of Christians and Muslims who drop their beliefs is much smaller than those who retain them.

On the flipside however...


The only reason why Europe accepts it as a majority is because Christianity was already mostly dead by the time of the secular revolution.

It's pretty obvious that this tendency to not believe in Creationism is rooted in a mostly anti-religious environment, and as soon as this anti-religious environment goes out the window, so will all its secularist implications.

So without further ado, I would place my bets firmly on the idea that the Creationist worldview will easily push the non-Creationist view into the zone of Obscurancy within 2 generations, tops. I fully expect TOE-ism (Neo Darwinism) to be a tiny minority view by then.

See here for proof of just how fast Atheistic views are collapsing and traditional Christianity are rapidly growing in some of the Atheist strongholds worldwide. It's not just the US where Creationist belief is growing and TOE-ism is on the sharp decline.

Question Evolution!: What does the historical record say about how fast secularism can collapse in countries?

Who said anything about atheism?

Are you confusing science and atheism?
Do I have to remind you that most of the biologists I know personally are theists and fully accept evolution. Including myself...

wa:do

 

[Shermana]

Who said anything about atheism?

Are you confusing science and atheism?
Do I have to remind you that most of the biologists I know personally are theists and fully accept evolution. Including myself...

wa:do

The issue is Creationism.

Theistic Evolution is Creationism.

Is it not?

Perhaps you all mean a different word?

Besides, the same issues involve apply to the so-called "Science" and "Evidence", the popularity of YEC studies will be just as prominent no matter how much it is called "Pseudo-science" and what not. If anything, what we will see is an ever greater increase of traditional "Fundamentalist"-style YEC among religious people and a great drop in the OEC-TOE view.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It's pretty obvious that this tendency to not believe in Creationism is rooted in a mostly anti-religious environment, and as soon as this anti-religious environment goes out the window, so will all its secularist implications.

This is far from true. Most of Christianity accepts evolution, a good bit of Islam does, and it's the norm in eastern religions. Accepting evolution is far from "anti-religion". It has nothing to do with religion. Seeing as how a good bit of the religious world accepts evolution, your claim would seem to be lacking in evidence. All evolution does is speak on the natural diversity of life, this says nothing on religion or it's validity. This is the main problem those who reject it have: they don't understand this simple fact.

 

[Shermana]

This is far from true. Most of Christianity accepts evolution, a good bit of Islam does, and it's the norm in eastern religions. Accepting evolution is far from "anti-religion". It has nothing to do with religion. Seeing as how a good bit of the religious world accepts evolution, your claim would seem to be lacking in evidence. All evolution does is speak on the natural diversity of life, this says nothing on religion or it's validity. This is the main problem those who reject it have: they don't understand this simple fact.

Again, the word "Creationism" here includes "Theistic Evolution", so perhaps the OP meant to say something different.

Now as for "Evolution only speaking on the natural diversity of life", that's a bit of a possibly false statement depending on your interpretation of its implications. The TOE, which is what most people mean when they say "Evolution" is talking about a Neodarwinistic process of natural selection and random mutation achieving the diversity of life which does not need a creator though is not necessarily at odds with the position of one, it is however quite often held in a light that a Creator is not needed, and often coupled with arguments against a Creation process even if guided. If anything Lamarck's theories were attacked because of the guided hand he proposed. (And Lamarck turns out to be mostly right with the study of Epigenetics).

So if by "evolution" you include "Micro-evolution", then that's another story, very few if any Creationists disagree with that. What they often disagree with is the speculations and interpretations of evidence of which the THEORY of "Evolution" entails, and Theistic evolutionists will often reject the idea that this process can happen on its own accord without the hand of the Unmoved Mover. Again, as I often say, the word "Evolution", like "Species" is a slippery semantic slope.

What I would place my bets on however, is the population of those who hold to the YEC view, who are suspicious of the interpretations of the "evidence" and speculations and think a bit more critically about the holes and gaps in the story and are willing to give the Creationist-science counterarguments and interpretations a fair look are going to outbreed those who don't even among the religious. I don't see the OEC view holding much weight. The idea that YEC-style beliefs are going to fade out is more than wishful thinking, it's simply not scientific, the numbers say otherwise. Liberal Religious people and Secularists aren't breeding as much as the "Fundies", and the "Fundies" have a far higher retention rate, it boils down to that.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Again, the word "Creationism" here includes "Theistic Evolution", so perhaps the OP meant to say something different.

Now as for "Evolution speaking on the natural diversity of life", that's a bit of a false statement. The TOE, which is what most people mean when they say "Evolution" is talking about a Neodarwinistic process of natural selection and random mutation achieving the diversity of life which does not need a creator though is not necessarily at odds with the position of one, it is however quite often held in a light that a Creator is not needed, and often coupled with arguments against a Creation process even if guided. If anything Lamarck's theories were attacked because of the guided hand he proposed. (And Lamarck turns out to be mostly right with the study of Epigenetics).

So if by "evolution" you include "Micro-evolution", then that's another story, very few if any Creationists disagree with that. What they disagree with is the speculations and interpretations of evidence of which the THEORY of "Evolution" entails. Again, as I often say, the word "Evolution", like "Species" is a slippery semantic slope.

In modern conservative Christian parlance, creationism is solely YEC, and does not include theistic evolution. Creationists count theistic evolution as evolution and not creationism, and also consider it heresy.

There's no real difference between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution". They are the same thing. These are terms created by YEC's, but do not exist in scientific language.

Regardless of how YEC's see the evidence in favor of evolution, it's there nonetheless. The evidence points to evolution. This is not a denial of either god or religion on the part of biologists, that's just where the evidence leads. If it leads a YEC to think that it's in opposition to their faith, that's not the problem or the fault of science, that lies solely with the believer. If they don't want to accept the evidence for evolution, then that's fine, however, they should't attempt to sway others from accepting it, simply because it goes against their religious beliefs.

The terms "darwinism" and "neodarwinism" are derogatory terms given to those who accept evolution by YEC's. Darwin laid the foundation for the science of evolution, however, it's progressed quite a bit since then.

But for all the debate between creationism and evolution, one thing is true, and this, if understood, would end the debate: evolution has absolutely nothing to do with god, religion, or attempting to kill off either. It's simply about science, that's it. If creationists, conservative Abrahamics, and particularly fundamentalists Christians would understand this, then there would be no debate, at least not at the level it's at now.

 

[Shermana]

In modern conservative Christian parlance, creationism is solely YEC, and does not include theistic evolution. Creationists count theistic evolution as evolution and not creationism, and also consider it heresy.

Well then this needs to be established that "Creationism" does not include "Theistic Evolution", and this is therefore a rant not against belief in Intelligent Design and Creation but in YEC non-Macro-evolution views. Now before I respond to the rest of this, your response is getting off topic and making blatant assertions as if matter of fact that the YEC view is wrong, which I'm not here to debate on this thread. But for the sake of argument, I will explain the YEC mindset so you can see why all your pipe dreams of a world without Creationists is not as easy as you're hoping for.

There's no real difference between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution". They are the same thing. These are terms created by YEC's, but do not exist in scientific language.

As I have to bring up time and time again, this is where the assertions of the speculation behind the claims comes in, and such statements show a lack of keeping up with the scientific establishment.

Micro and Macro evolution are well established concepts in the Secular scientific field. I'd rather not have to go into this debate as I've done hundreds of times discussing the exact implications between what counts as true "Speciation" and what is merely Micro-evolution that is dressed up as Macro due to a slippery connotation of Macro, so we can debate the specifics on another thread, but no, they are NOT the same thing. To say they are the same thing is a common fallacy of those who are not up to speed. There are entire books on the concept. The concept that there is no difference is basically an attempt to end the argument and assert that the TOE is automatically true, but such a sloppy, lazy claim merely reveals an utter lack of familiarity with the actual arguments of the YEC and the facts themselves.

Macroevolution: Pattern and Process: Professor Steven M. Stanley: 9780801857355: Amazon.com: Books

Macroevolution: Diversity, Disparity, Contingency: Essays in Honor of Stephen Jay Gould (Laws of Life Symposia): Elisabeth S. Vrba, Niles Eldredge: 9781891276491: Amazon.com: Books

The idea that there is no difference is extreme wishful thinking, and a quick look at the actual literature available dispels this widely perpetuated myth. And this myth seems to be perpetuated by those who are not actually read up on this material but rather have an ideological dog in the fight against YECers because they don't like their ideology ,rather than their arguments themselves.

This goes back to the Neodarwinists wanting to shut down the arguments of the Creationists with such simplistic assertions but they are simply not grounded in fact or reality. So as long as Creationists keep seeing that those who are opposed to their views are not really doing so from an angle of addressing the contentions but mostly just out of spite for what they believe, it just adds to their resolve. They can see that those opposed are so desparate to smear them with appeals to authority that they don't even know what the authorities are even saying!

Regardless of how YEC's see the evidence in favor of evolution, it's there nonetheless.

If by "evolution" you mean TOE/"Macro-evolution", this is another example of asserting a claim as matter of fact as if all their arguments have been suddenly refuted somehow. This is the kind of attitude which drives them. For those who have debated the issue hundreds of times, we know that it's simply NOT there nonetheless, we have actually looked at the specifics and examples. Such hand waving and brushing off is basically an attempt to end the argument without having the argument.

The evidence points to evolution.

And that's your interpretation. But to say it's objective and matter of fact as if all the Creationist arguments have been somehow dispelled as if there is no argument, that just further proves the point that those opposed to the YEC view are simply not able or willing to address the objections, or are aware of what they are, as if the YEC view is simply "too stupid" to even bother discussing. Much of the evidence in favor of YEC is indeed hand waved away with one appeal to numerical authority after another or ad hominem attacks or some logical fallacy that attempts to avoid the discussion of the specifics.

This is not a denial of either god or religion on the part of biologists, that's just where the evidence leads.

The evidence does not lead to such, the evidence leads to those with a confirmation bias to ignore the gaps and holes and problems in their theory, which this is not the thread to go into. But if you're going to make such assertions and dismissals of the Creationist view as such, that's an example of part of the problem why the OEC/TOE view will not last long, the Creationists are catching on to the dismissive tactics of their opponents and their confirmation biases which are often coupled with a very poor understanding of not only their own case, but the arguments of the Creationists. If all the other side can do is say "You're wrong, we're right, the evidence is on our side and we will not consider your arguments", the YEC view will only be emboldened all the more.

If it leads a YEC to think that it's in opposition to their faith, that's not the problem or the fault of science, that lies solely with the believer.

Ironically, this applies to the "believers" in TOE and OEC. If the arguments of the Creationist science leads the TOE/OECer to simply dismiss them and handwave them as if their arguments don't matter because it goes against the opinions of the scientific establishment's interpretation of the evidence, that's not the problem or fault of science, but with the believer.

Perhaps you're familiar with how Plate Tectonics was once ridiculed by the grand majority of scientists as pseudo-science. But now its commonly accepted. The idea that just because an idea is held in disregard by the majority today that it's ALWAYS going to be held as such is just a symptom of total confirmation bias. It can't be ignored that Creationists do indeed have some very good scientists among them whose counter-arguments are very valid. What happens is it boils down to an appeal to authority and numbers once the actual specifics are gotten into.

If they don't want to accept the evidence for evolution, then that's fine, however, they should't attempt to sway others from accepting it, simply because it goes against their religious beliefs.

If Evolutionists don't want to accept the evidence of YEC, then that's fine. But if they want to just hand wave and brush it aside, they shouldn't try to ridicule Creationists without actually addressing their counter arguments. If anything, Creationists are more concerned with discouraging people from believing in blindly following the standard "interpretation" of the evidence without getting into the actual details.

The terms "darwinism" and "neodarwinism" are derogatory terms given to those who accept evolution by YEC's. Darwin laid the foundation for the science of evolution, however, it's progressed quite a bit since then.

It has progressed quite a bit, but all that's really been proven is Micro-evolution and Epigenetics.

But for all the debate between creationism and evolution, one thing is true, and this, if understood, would end the debate: evolution has absolutely nothing to do with god, religion, or attempting to kill off either. It's simply about science, that's it.

If it was solely about science, the only thing Evolutionists would accept would be Micro-evolution, they'd understand what exactly has been observed in terms of "Speciation", and they'd actually address the arguments of the Creationists in their full context. The ideological weight and angle of attack against Creationist arguments and the ensuing interpretation of the actual data which is the point of the contention speaks a whole different story. The arguments of TOE are speculative interpretations of the actual data which arise from a Confirmation Bias against the Creationist Theology in many respects, otherwise, such dramatic leaps would not be so established when the evidence for them is so weak in reality. Only recently has "Theistic Evolution" included the "Theism" part, mostly as an attempt to defend the "Theism" part from the pioneers of the Theory.

If creationists, conservative Abrahamics, and particularly fundamentalists Christians would understand this, then there would be no debate, at least not at the level it's at now.

Another problem is that Evolutionists try to pigeon hole Creationists as if they don't understand this concept or any of the concepts. They do. They often very much understand the opposition arguments. They're aware that there are Theistic evolutionists too and that the TOE and Neo-darwinism doesn't necessarily reject a Designer. However, with all the attacks on ID and a Creator and Creationism as a concept, the Evolutionists have indeed put themselves in the sphere of the Atheists regardless, so unless the attacks on ID simmer down, this connection will indeed be there, and that's not even discussing the lack of addressing the YEC solid arguments or even respecting them enough to.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The issue is Creationism.

Theistic Evolution is Creationism.

Is it not?

Nope.

Creationism is a movement based on the rejection of evolution on the grounds of theistic creation. Just because you believe in God DOES NOT make you a "creationist".

Besides, the same issues involve apply to the so-called "Science" and "Evidence", the popularity of YEC studies will be just as prominent no matter how much it is called "Pseudo-science" and what not.

Y'know, just because you put certain words and phrases in inverted commas doesn't make them less valid. YEC is a pseudo-science. Evolution is science. Evolution has evidence. Sarcasm doesn't change reality.

If anything, what we will see is an ever greater increase of traditional "Fundamentalist"-style YEC among religious people and a great drop in the OEC-TOE view.

Sure, if education fails against superstition, ignorance and psuedo-science.

 

[McBell]

The issue is Creationism.

Yes, which has nothing to do with evolution.

Theistic Evolution is Creationism.

Is it not?

Kinda.
Sometimes.
Not all theistic Creationists believe that god put every species currently on the planet on the planet the way they currently are.
Some do.

Perhaps you all mean a different word?

Not that I know of.
Seems to me there needs to be a few more phrases invented to help better clarify where under the umbrella words Creationist and Theistic Creationist creationists fit.

Besides, the same issues involve apply to the so-called "Science" and "Evidence",

What issues are those?
The ones that both science and evidence share with creationism.

the popularity of YEC studies will be just as prominent no matter how much it is called "Pseudo-science" and what not.

Unfortunately I agree.
Not because there is any objective empirical evidence for creation (because there isn't) but because there are so many people who refuse to learn what evolution actually is in favour of their favorite interpretations of religious texts.

If anything, what we will see is an ever greater increase of traditional "Fundamentalist"-style YEC among religious people and a great drop in the OEC-TOE view.

Every thing I see and read points to the exact opposite.
Can you provide a source?

 

[Shermana]

Nope.

Creationism is a movement based on the rejection of evolution on the grounds of theistic creation. Just because you believe in God DOES NOT make you a "creationist".


Y'know, just because you put certain words and phrases in inverted commas doesn't make them less valid. YEC is a pseudo-science. Evolution is science. Evolution has evidence. Sarcasm doesn't change reality.


Sure, if education fails against superstition, ignorance and psuedo-science.

Exactly my point. The entire argument is to write off YEC as "pseudo-science' as if their arguments have all been disproven or are unworthy of discussion, and that it's all based solely on "superstitition" and "ignorance".

It all boils down to what exactly this "evidence" is and how its interpreted. YECers say that this "Evidence" isn't exactly as evidential for the claims of Macro-evolution as the Macro-evolutionists dogmatically insist on and state as if their speculations are matter of fact, more doggedly than even the most devout religious believer would call their interpretations facts!

They can see from a mile away the desparation of the other side to use whatever attack they can on the actual arguments and issues they have, and this only emboldens them to realize that there's something fishy about the other side's views when they're so doggedly determined to set themselves against their interpretations of the evidence. If Creationists are ruled by ideology, then Evolutionists are equally if not more so. And this is a perfect reason why the Creationists will not be losing their ranks anytime soon. They can smell the fear of those who are so desparate to write off their ideas as if their points don't exist or have been somehow disproven.

 

[Shermana]

Academics fight rise of creationism at universities | World news | The Guardian

Britain has a steep uphill fight but it's definitely noticeably growing.

Creationism On The Rise in Turkey

Turkey is a definite indicator of trends in the Secularized Islamic world.

We see among Christians in America that far more believe in YEC than OEC, and they are likely the ones who do far more breeding than the "Liberal" Christians.

Gallup Poll: 46% of Americans Are Creationists

I think this one's a kicker, 41% of Democrats!

41% of Democrats are young-Earth creationists

And South Korea, which is arguably more Atheist than the North, is seeing a remarkable shift towards YEC. That should be a telling sign. The growth in Brazil towards YEC-leaning religions while the traditional Catholic church there is in disarray says something about Latin America's trends.

Question Evolution!: In Brazil and South Korea where young earth creationism is growing there are plenty of gifts under the tree! In the UK and in many Eurozone countries the evolutionist grinch has stole Christmas! Don't spend Christmas in North Kor

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Exactly my point. The entire argument is to write off YEC as "pseudo-science' as if their arguments have all been disproven or are unworthy of discussion, and that it's all based solely on "superstitition" and "ignorance".

Then circumventing that is easy: present some science. Do some tests, show some predictive and explanatory power, submit a paper for peer review. A paper which demonstrates the predictive power of a theory based on a young earth would be revolutionary.

And please do not claim that any paper claiming that there is a young earth would automatically be rejected - that's nonsense. Any paper which is credible gets through the scientific method - that's exactly what the scientific method is set up for.

It all boils down to what exactly this "evidence" is and how its interpreted.

No, it isn't. Evidence can't just be interpreted any way you want, you have to demonstrate how your interpretation of the evidence is accurate. It's never enough to say "this indicates this", and this is something the YEC movement utterly fails to comprehend.

YECers say that this "Evidence" isn't exactly as evidential for the claims of Macro-evolution as the Macro-evolutionists dogmatically insist on and state as if their speculations are matter of fact, more doggedly than even the most devout religious believer would call their interpretations facts!

Then it is up to those people to demonstrate that that is the case. The scientific method is set up to weed out bias, inaccuracies and speculations from the actual facts. If the YECers have a reasonable objection, then they should bring it up and demonstrate it. To date, they have not.

They can see from a mile away the desparation of the other side to use whatever attack they can on the actual arguments and issues they have, and this only emboldens them to realize that there's something fishy about the other side's views when they're so doggedly determined to set themselves against their interpretations of the evidence. If Creationists are ruled by ideology, then Evolutionists are equally if not more so. And this is a perfect reason why the Creationists will not be losing their ranks anytime soon. They can smell the fear of those who are so desparate to write off their ideas as if their points don't exist or have been somehow disproven.

I see a lot of words, but absolutely zero proof of any of these claims. Emotive language doesn't change the facts, and the facts are firmly on the side of evolution until you can demonstrate that they are not.

Seriously, this kind of bizarre, blinkered vision is ridiculous.

 

[Shermana]

Then circumventing that is easy: present some science. Do some tests, show some predictive and explanatory power, submit a paper for peer review. A paper which demonstrates the predictive power of a theory based on a young earth would be revolutionary.

And please do not claim that any paper claiming that there is a young earth would automatically be rejected - that's nonsense. Any paper which is credible gets through the scientific method - that's exactly what the scientific method is set up for.


No, it isn't. Evidence can't just be interpreted any way you want, you have to demonstrate how your interpretation of the evidence is accurate. It's never enough to say "this indicates this", and this is something the YEC movement utterly fails to comprehend.


Then it is up to those people to demonstrate that that is the case. The scientific method is set up to weed out bias, inaccuracies and speculations from the actual facts. If the YECers have a reasonable objection, then they should bring it up and demonstrate it. To date, they have not.


I see a lot of words, but absolutely zero proof of any of these claims. Emotive language doesn't change the facts, and the facts are firmly on the side of evolution until you can demonstrate that they are not.

Seriously, this kind of bizarre, blinkered vision is ridiculous.

Read this article, it sums up the sentiments of the YEC movement. There is indeed an undeniable bias among the Peer Review community, especially when it comes to things that go against the general speculative trend. There HAVE been papers written by many academics, and the stories of what happens to them and the actual issues that are found with them is good for discussion in a different thread, but for a more on topic issue, see my previous post about how greatly the numbers of Creationists are growing. They will continue to grow as long as this blatant bias is permeated as well as denied.

Creationism, Science and Peer Review

It gets to the point where Creationists have to publish their own journals, and this problem is not limited to Creationists. Many others, non-Creationist-affiliated, have said similarly about the Peer-review system and have started different journals. Especially those who are frustrated with the increasing corporate infiltration of the research process.

Now I'm sure I can imagine what you may say about it, but do not for a second think that there haven't been attempts to get quality articles published on a variety of subjects. In fact, one of the reasons why Plate Tectonics was so ridiculed at first was because it was widely viewed to have YEC and Global Flood implications. Only AFTER it was established that it didn't did it seem to gain traction among the scientific community.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Read this article, it sums up the sentiments of the YEC movement. There is indeed an undeniable bias among the Peer Review community, especially when it comes to things that go against the general speculative trend. There HAVE been papers written by many academics, and the stories of what happens to them and the actual issues that are found with them is good for discussion in a different thread, but for a more on topic issue, see my previous post about how greatly the numbers of Creationists are growing. They will continue to grow as long as this blatant bias is permeated as well as denied.

Creationism, Science and Peer Review

Now I'm sure I can imagine what you may say about it, but do not for a second think that there haven't been attempts to get quality articles published on a variety of subjects. In fact, one of the reasons why Plate Tectonics was so ridiculed at first was because it was widely viewed to have YEC and Global Flood implications. Only AFTER it was established that it didn't did it seem to gain traction among the scientific community.

Seen it, read it, refuted it.

Can you present a scientific paper on YEC?

 

[Shermana]

Seen it, read it, refuted it.

Can you present a scientific paper on YEC?

It would be a grand homework project to put all the collected data and research into one gigantic scientific paper.

Can you present your refutation for the time being?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It would be a grand homework project to put all the collected data and research into one gigantic scientific paper.

I'm not asking for all of it. I'm asking for a single, solitary scientific paper on YEC.

Can you present your refutation for the time being?

It makes a lot of accusations which have no basis, and all it really says it "the scientific method isn't perfect: therefore conspiracy". I don't care what some article says, I want the science. If there are papers on YEC which have been unjustly rejected by peer review, then please present them.

Regardless, the issue of why Plate Tectonics was held in contempt is one of the biggest smoking guns in history.

Present evidence, please.

 

[Shermana]

I'm not asking for all of it. I'm asking for a single, solitary scientific paper on YEC.


It make a lot of accusations which have no basis, and all it really says it "the scientific method isn't perfect: therefore conspiracy". I don't care what some article says, I want the science. If there are papers on YEC which have been unjustly rejected by peer review, then please present them.


Present evidence, please.

It says a lot more than that.

The Semantic issue here is "isn't perfect". Well there's a reason it isn't perfect.

It should also be noted that peer review panels do not necessarily determine whether an article is published. The editors of the journal have the final say, and can often override the recommendations of peer reviewers.
In any case, many landmark scientific papers (like Watson’s and Crick’s on DNA6) were never subjected to peer review, and as David Shatz has pointed out, ‘many heavily cited papers, including some describing work which won a Nobel Prize, were originally rejected by peer review.’

What we see is that there is in fact evidence of a command-and-control structure which determines who gets published in what. It's what makes it "not perfect" which is the issue at stake. What would make it "perfect" is if papers with solid scientific backing didn't have to worry about who gets to decide if its good enough to be published and to let the readers decide whether the journal is justified in publishing it as long as qualifies criteria of having solid evidence and data, regardless of the conclusion.

However, here is a Creationist who did get his paper published.

Creationist Paper Published in Peer-Reviewed Biology Journal, UD Author Cited — Origins 2012 Conference | Uncommon Descent

But if Creationists publish their own journals, for some reason it counts as pseudo-science.

I will address the other issues later today or tomorrow on an appropriate thread.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It says a lot more than that.

The Semantic issue here is "isn't perfect". Well there's a reason it isn't perfect.

What we see is that there is in fact evidence of a command-and-control structure which determines who gets published in what.

Actually, we see nothing of the sort. All it says is "some papers have been rejected by peer review". It doesn't go into any detail about why. In fact, it doesn't go into any detail in any of its claims whatsoever. It avoids providing evidence of anything, instead preferring random quotations and generalizations.

It's what makes it "not perfect" which is the issue at stake. What would make it "perfect" is if papers with solid scientific backing didn't have to worry about who gets to decide if its good enough to be published and to let other people decide whether the journal is justified in publishing it.

I agree. The question is how we discern those papers with solid scientific backing from those that do not. If a paper with such a backing is rejected by peer review, it can be appealed and resubmitted. If there is bias in the peer review process, the correct response is not to whine about it in an article on a creationist website, it's "bring the bias to the attention of the scientific community".

However, here is a Creationist who did get his paper published.

Creationist Paper Published in Peer-Reviewed Biology Journal, UD Author Cited — Origins 2012 Conference | Uncommon Descent

Firstly, I asked for a paper by the YEC which was unjustly rejected by the scientific community.

Secondly, what was the paper which was accepted? I can't find a link to it in article.

But if Creationists publish their own journals, for some reason it counts as pseudo-science.

For the same reason that if I publish my own journal and submit articles to it which are not subject to peer review it wouldn't be considered credible science. Again, crying conspiracy doesn't make your claims credible. The credibility of the claims makes them credible. Can you present science?

 

[McBell]

Seriously, I am predicting a reference to Expelled any minute now.

 

[painted wolf]

The issue is Creationism.

Theistic Evolution is Creationism.

Is it not?

Perhaps you all mean a different word?

As I said earlier, it depends on how you define "creationism".
YEC is certainly going to remain in the 10% area of the population.

Besides, the same issues involve apply to the so-called "Science" and "Evidence", the popularity of YEC studies will be just as prominent no matter how much it is called "Pseudo-science" and what not. If anything, what we will see is an ever greater increase of traditional "Fundamentalist"-style YEC among religious people and a great drop in the OEC-TOE view.

YEC "studies" are generally as popular as UFO "studies" and Astrology "studies".
I see no indication that they are gaining in popularity outside of their established niche.

wa:do

 

[Random]

No, never. Not so long as there are people informed by a higher intelligence than 'Science' and 'peer review' anyway.