Will Creationism slowly fade away into oblivion?

[ImmortalFlame]

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

Yeah, there will always be people who are unconcerned with facts.

 

[Shermana]

Yeah, there will always be people who are unconcerned with facts.

Yes, especially so from the Evolutionists' camp.

And as long as Creationist arguments and interpretations of the facts don't get equal footing or respect or acknowledgment, they will be all the more emboldened.

 

[Shermana]

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

Do you mean 10% worldwide? As I showed in the links, the numbers are rising rapidly in even Secularized places. Where are you getting your figures that it's only 10% of the world population anyway? I'd bet that most of Africa are Creationists for one thing.

 

[sonofdad]

Yes, especially so from the Evolutionists' camp.

And as long as Creationist arguments and interpretations of the facts don't get equal footing or respect or acknowledgment, they will be all the more emboldened.

When the creationist camp starts producing falsifiable hypotheses and going through the same peer review processes as any other scientist, they will be taken seriously.

 

[Shermana]

When the creationist camp starts producing falsifiable hypotheses and going through the same peer review processes as any other scientist, they will be taken seriously.

I showed two links, one showing how clearly biased the peer review process is against even allowing Creationist-leaning studies to get published (many papers are in fact submitted, and they are well researched by accomplished scientists but have a huge ideological uphill battle to fight against not just the peer reviewers but an even worse opponent, the pubilshers of the Journals themselves), and another link showing a Creationist article that DID somehow manage to make it to the Peer Review process. It's not a "Conspiracy Theory" to call a spade for a spade in this case. Those who think that the science just isn't up to snuff are clearly in denial, the Peer Review process is indeed laden with internal management issues, even non-Creationists are so fed up with the increasingly corporate-influenced process of the established journals that independent journals are springing up.

I should make a whole thread on this issue.

Again, I say, don't think for a second that they haven't been trying. And there's no reason to write off Creationist published peer-reviewed journals other than ideological preference.

 

[Shermana]

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Bias In the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary And Personal Account | Watts Up With That?

Bias in peer review - Lee - 2012 - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology - Wiley Online Library

Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System

Double-blind peer review reveals gender bias : Peer-to-Peer

Bias in peer review.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...RF26TQ&usg=AFQjCNGciG6_lfORqRYmPRUtZZ4G3tv-8Q

http://books.google.com/books?id=lH...X&ei=JIZ0Uf7pHqHKigKG_IDoAQ&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAjgK

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Ethics/23568

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/12/peer-review-is-random.html

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/pe...-reject-papers-because-they-have-to-be-wrong/


It would be utterly dishonest to assume that established Peer Review Journals fairly and accurately accept all papers that have good science and that there's no "conspiracy" element of Confirmation bias involved. Even non-Creationist secular sources are fed up with this, especially with its increasing level of corporate influence. Creationist scientists aren't the only ones resorting to publishing their own peer-reviewed journals now.

If anything, this proves an excellent point about the blind faith of Evolutionists in the Peer Review system, worse than the blind faith of Biblical inerrantists by an equally dangerous degree.

I should copy and paste this post for future ease when dealing with those who think its a simple matter of getting a paper published in the Peer Review and that it's automatically bad science if it gets rejected. Maybe start a new thread on this to get back to the topic.

There will be thousands of people like me to help Creationists understand just how desparately slanted the playing field is against them, and this will only make them stronger.

 

[sonofdad]

I'm not reading all that.
Just give an example of a couple of papers that you think were unjustly rejected and we can work from there.

 

[Shermana]

We'll start with Russ Humphrey who got rejected by the Peer Review process.


Bumps in the Big Bang The "Laymanized" version for easier reading.

Here is an attempt to critique one of his papers, which I nonetheless commend them for being honest enough to include Humphrey's rebuttal where he basically shows how badly they had to strawman and misrepresent his points and ignore his previous statements.

http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_fackmcin1.pdf

 

[sonofdad]

Seriously?

A two decade old example that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Besides, Humphrey went so far to make the big bang theory fit his holy scripture that he proposed the earth had been inside a time reversing reverse black hole during it's creation, explaining the higher age of the universe relative to the age of the earth.
Not only is there no empirical evidence for his claims, but there is no empirical evidence for a young earth either, meaning it has no place in science.

 

[Shermana]

Seriously?

A two decade old example that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Besides, Humphrey went so far to make the big bang theory fit his holy scripture that he proposed the earth had been inside a time reversing reverse black hole during it's creation, explaining the higher age of the universe relative to the age of the earth.
Not only is there no empirical evidence for his claims, but there is no empirical evidence for a young earth either, meaning it has no place in science.

Ahem...the issue was about Creationism, i.e. YEC, and YEC Astrophysics fits the bill. Whether its 2 decades ago has nothing to do with it. And his points aren't disproven. The critiques have to resort to grossly misrepresenting his position in the first place. Age has little to do with a study unless its been disproven by a more recent study. Please keep the goalposts in place.

Now as for "No empirical evidence for a Young Earth", there is indeed. Another example of the dismissive assertions as if your claims are matter of fact and as if the Creationist arguments have been all rebutted and proven wrong automatically.

Here is an example of an attempt to debunk some of the Young Earth arguments, and many of the arguments fall into the same line of "We have insufficient data" reasoning that Creationsts are accused of. The 'unexplained mystery fallacy" apparently only goes one way?

Is There Really Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth?

The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences.

 

[sonofdad]

Age has little to do with a study unless its been disproven by a more recent study. Please keep the goalposts in place.

That is true. But there has to be some way to disprove it in the first place.
If I claim that rainbows are the result of invisible and undetectable flying unicorns and present it in the form of a scientific article, would that need to be disproved as well?
What predictions did Humphreys make which could confirm or falsify his hypothesis?

As for a young earth, are we going to have a discussion or are you just going to keep flooding links thinking your argument wins in sheer quantity?

 

[Shermana]

That is true. But there has to be some way to disprove it in the first place.
If I claim that rainbows are the result of invisible and undetectable flying unicorns and present it in the form of a scientific article, would that need to be disproved as well?
What predictions did Humphreys make which could confirm or falsify his hypothesis?

As for a young earth, are we going to have a discussion or are you just going to keep flooding links thinking your argument wins in sheer quantity?

I say again, I will discuss the specifics of this issue on a separate, appropriate thread. Flooding links serves my purpose for this OP of showing that the Creationist arguments are not going to simply vanish but have a solid footing that will require far more than well poisoning to dislodge. If you have a solid scientific basis with factual based observations and interpretations of evidence behind magical flying unicorns being the cause of rainbows, then you'd have a significant case of which disproving a negative would thus become a plausible necessity.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It wont ever be completely gone, but I think that it is, at the moment, quickly lowering.

 

[painted wolf]

Do you mean 10% worldwide? As I showed in the links, the numbers are rising rapidly in even Secularized places. Where are you getting your figures that it's only 10% of the world population anyway? I'd bet that most of Africa are Creationists for one thing.

United States population.

Since that is the country I'm in and thus primarily concerned with.

And again, it depends on how you define "creationist".... by a selectively loose definition I'm a "creationist" even though I fully accept and study evolution.

wa:do

 

[sonofdad]

I say again, I will discuss the specifics of this issue on a separate, appropriate thread. Flooding links serves my purpose for this OP of showing that the Creationist arguments are not going to simply vanish but have a solid footing that will require far more than well poisoning to dislodge. If you have a solid scientific basis with factual based observations and interpretations of evidence behind magical flying unicorns being the cause of rainbows, then you'd have a significant case of which disproving a negative would thus become a plausible necessity.

The gish gallop does not strengthen your case, it makes you look like a spambot.
I'm sure you guys are gonna be around for a while, but if you want people with opposing views to take you seriously then you can't just keep throwing piles of barely relevant information at the wall and taking whatever sticks. It's impossible to have a rational debate that way.

My rainbow unicorn idea would break several laws of physics and is based on wrong calculations and wishful thinking. There is also no way to detect them, therefor no way to disprove them.

 

[Skwim]

I always get a kick out of this recurring creationist routine. Failing to get their works peer reviewed by legitimate science journals they then try to show how flawed peer reviewing is anyway.


Hmmmm. Seems there's a word for this. Let's see . . .flower . . . dower. . . . . . .dower drapes. . . . nope. Sour drapes? WAIT!! I got it! it's . . . . . . it's

Sour grapes!!

​

Yeah, that's it!​

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you mean 10% worldwide? As I showed in the links, the numbers are rising rapidly in even Secularized places.

Those links lack credibility, I am sorry to have to say.

Where are you getting your figures that it's only 10% of the world population anyway? I'd bet that most of Africa are Creationists for one thing.

I would like to call that bet, particularly if we take the trouble to consider non-Abrahamic communities there (or at least the less radical Abrahamic communities).

Given, of course, that what you call Creationism is what I will name the "militant" definition, the one that actively tries to deny biological evolution.

In sharp contrast to the simple, legitimate belief that God created life, that one is an aberration that outlived its reasonable existence for decades, and is destined to fall decisively in a generation or two.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is true. But there has to be some way to disprove it in the first place.
If I claim that rainbows are the result of invisible and undetectable flying unicorns and present it in the form of a scientific article, would that need to be disproved as well?

Well, it wouldn't be a scientific article in the first place. Not without some sort of evidence or falsifiable test anyway.

 

[Shermana]

United States population.

Since that is the country I'm in and thus primarily concerned with.

And again, it depends on how you define "creationist".... by a selectively loose definition I'm a "creationist" even though I fully accept and study evolution.

wa:do

Umm, what sources are you using, because my sources say it's close to half that are specifically YEC, not 10%.
http://atheism.about.com/od/America...y-Half-Americans-Young-Earth-Creationists.htm

Nearly Half of Americans are Young Earth Creationists

American Beliefs About Evolution & Human Origins

 

[Shermana]

I always get a kick out of this recurring creationist routine. Failing to get their works peer reviewed by legitimate science journals they then try to show how flawed peer reviewing is anyway.


Hmmmm. Seems there's a word for this. Let's see . . .flower . . . dower. . . . . . .dower drapes. . . . nope. Sour drapes? WAIT!! I got it! it's . . . . . . it's

Sour grapes!!

​

Yeah, that's it!​

Does that also apply to the Nobel prize winners who got rejected by Peer Review?