Empathy for colleagues

Science follows certain procedures, but does the media get the signal? Credit: CSIRO

The Australian astrophysicist Mathew Bailes recently got international recognition for his part in the discovery of an exoplanet which could be made of diamond. As he says: “Following the publication of our finding in the journal Science, our research received amazing attention from the world’s media.” (See Diamond planets, climate change and the scientific method)

It’s always nice when a scientific discovery, and the work of a scientist, receive public attention. Even though, as he says:

” in the overall scheme of things, it isn’t that important.

And yet the diamond planet has been hugely successful in igniting public curiosity about the universe in which we live.

In that sense, for myself and my co-authors, I suspect it will be among the greatest discoveries of our careers.

Our host institutions were thrilled with the publicity and most of us enjoyed our 15 minutes of fame.”

It could have been different

But here’s the lesson in this story:

“The attention we received was 100% positive, but how different that could have been.

How so? Well, we could have been climate scientists.”

And he asks you to consider a parallel scenario;

“Imagine for a minute that, instead of discovering a diamond planet, we’d made a breakthrough in global temperature projections.

Let’s say we studied computer models of the influence of excessive greenhouse gases, verified them through observations, then had them peer-reviewed and published in Science.

Instead of sitting back and basking in the glory, I suspect we’d find a lot of commentators, many with no scientific qualifications, pouring scorn on our findings.

People on the fringe of science would be quoted as opponents of our work, arguing that it was nothing more than a theory yet to be conclusively proven.

There would be doubt cast on the interpretation of our data and conjecture about whether we were “buddies” with the journal referees.

If our opponents dug really deep they might even find that I’d once written a paper on a similar topic that had to be retracted.

Before long our credibility and findings would be under serious question.”

And:

“Sadly, the same media commentators who celebrate diamond planets without question are all too quick to dismiss the latest peer-reviewed evidence that suggests man-made activities are responsible for changes in concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere.The scientific method is universal. If we selectively ignore it in certain disciplines, we do so at our peril.”

It’s worth those of us outside the climate science community reflecting on this. Scientists and non-scientists alike.

Consider the continuing harassment of Dr Michael Mann who is still be pursued by climate deniers and conservative politicians. What do they want. His emails from years back! (see Professor turns to law to protect climate-change work).

Similar articles

About these ads

37 responses to “Empathy for colleagues

  1. This would be Michael Mann of the “Nature Trick” fame?

    Maybe Ken, you’d like to explain to me what “Mike’s nature trick to “hide the Decline” means in layman’s terms, and why it is a valid scientific technique.

    perhaps you’d like to throw in some examples of where “tricks” like this are used in other areas of science

    Just a thought.

    Like

  2. Oops, almost missed the strawman

    all too quick to dismiss the latest peer-reviewed evidence that suggests man-made activities are responsible for changes in concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere.

    Don’t think too many are disputing that Ken

    Like

  3. Mick, there us plenty on this you can check for yourself. You could start by checking one of the 4 or 5 reports of committees that have looked into this “climategate” affair – and cleared the scientists of any wrong doing.

    Those reports are readily available (I can provide references if you desire). But you would know that if you had approached the subject with an open mind . (Get someone, perhaps your mother, to explain to you what I mean by that).

    I am afraid you are revealing your denier status with that little, and tardy, charge.

    Like

  4. Sorry, I don’t accept the findings of the climategate enquiries at all. They didn’t investigate the science, gave Phil Jones a slap with a wet bus ticket, and i was business as usual.

    In my view, you have to either (a) incredibly thick, (b) gullible or (c) totally corrupt and criminal, or (d) all of the above, to accept that there was no wrongdoing in climategate. The invesigations were even more damning

    Even some “consensus” scientists think this.

    Like

  5. But, Mick, they did investigate the exact point you made about a “trick.” that’s not science it’s purely a matter of presentation.

    But of course a denier can always avoid reality by extending the conspiracy – just as you are doing.

    Those committees, after all, are going to murder us in our beds, aren’t they Mick?

    You are a parody!

    Like

  6. You are the parody Ken. A True Believer. A member of The Faithful.

    Can I sell you a bridge?

    Like

  7. Richard Christie

    Mick, do you mind if I call you John?

    Like

  8. Here’s the link to the Deniergate emails Mick – http://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/emails.pdf

    No, I wouldn’t buy a bridge off you. After all I have learned not to trust deniers. Just check out Treadgold’s agreement to send me his spreadsheets when he obviously had no intention of doing so and finally refused to.

    Not prepared to stand by his shonky “science” – can hardly blame him as it isn’t science, it’s politics. As are your conspiratorial ravings.

    Like

  9. OK, Ken, I have cluttered you blog enough. Let’s leave it there for now
    I’d be delighted to read your emails.
    Actually, for the record, I do actually get annoyed too by these “denier” sites that make wild claims like the “cosmic rays disprove global warming stuff”.

    As I have already said, I don’t agree with that at all.
    So to be fair to myself, I like to think that I sit somewhere in the middle.

    So let’s have a look at your emails when you get a chance and we can take it from there. OK?

    (i have no idea why Richard wants to call me John. Maybe he’d like to call be Susan if it makes him feel better)

    Like

  10. Mick – the email link is in my previous comment.

    That “John” seems to have hit a sensitive spot!

    Like

  11. It seems remarkable (on account of it being physically impossible) but plenty of deniers actually claim human emissions aren’t driving atmospheric CO2 changes. Though I think has worked out he’s wrong by Salby’s talk was widely cited by ‘skeptics’

    I think you’re going to have to explain ‘trick’ and ‘hide the decline’. Since they’re talking about two different things. And the decline isn’t in global temperature…

    Like

  12. I think you’re going to have to explain ‘trick’ and ‘hide the decline’. Since they’re talking about two different things. And the decline isn’t in global temperature…

    Why do I need to explain this? It was in Phil Jones’s emails, investigated by the “independent” enquiries.

    Sure I know what it means. “Hide the decline” is referring to the divergence problem, where the proxy data doesn’t match the instrumental data.

    The “trick” is to splice the two datasets together.

    My questions are.
    (a) Why is the proxy data diverging? Doesn’t this raise questions about using tree ring proxies at all?
    (b) More seriously, why is it valid (and not indeed fraudulent) to splice two datasets together and make them appear as one?

    Doesn’t sound like science to me.

    Like

  13. It’s not science – it’s communication. There must be huge numbers of examples where a presentation contains multiple data sets.

    And really – if scientists included data they knew was faulty in a presentation, without clarifying and explaining, that would be fraud.

    It’s like the local deniers claiming that NIWA’s exclusion of early data covering only one or two stations from a 7 station set is fraud. The deniers would love to take the average of one station and present it as seven stations, without explaining the problem, because it suits their preconceived and desired model.

    Now that is not science, it’s fraud.

    But you are happy with that because it’s your fraud.

    Like

  14. But you are happy with that because it’s your fraud.

    Did you read their latest report? The one that says that NIWA didn’t follow their own peer-reviewed process of Rhoades and Salinger? This information has been published. Have you read it Ken? Have you found the errors?

    Maybe it’s because the fraud is actually in NIWAs court. Maybe you are quiet because you know this. You prefer to remain in denial, or perhaps you support fraud in science Ken. You support fraud if it supports your political ideology.

    Just a thought Ken.,
    Just a little question for you to ponder……..

    Like

  15. Mick – their first report claimed there were no justifications for adjustments. They claimed that NIWA created a temperature trend by adding adjustments. That was slanderous, they have not backed away from that claim it apologized.

    Now they want to discredit the recalculated data where adjustments are provided and justified.

    They will invent any “when are you going up stop beating your wife” claims to attempt that.

    Now what about explaining to us what is specifically wrong in the NIWA methodology (reference to R&S doesn’t cut it – remember Treagold claimed there was no reason for adjustments – he was opposing R&S)?

    Explain why the denier group will not reveal the names and affiliations of the writers of their report?

    Explain why we should believe their claim that the report was peer reviewed?

    Explain why they are not submitting the report to a credible journal where a proper peer review will be possible?

    Explain why they refused to provide their data and methodology if their first report to mr – especially after Treadhold had assured me he would?

    Are they prepared to provide the data, workings and consultants identities fir their current report?

    Why should anyone give them the time if day when they refuse to participate in an open science process that our scientists see as perfectly normal?

    Some question for you to answer, Mick. Of course we know you will avoid them – after all you are a denier not a scientist.

    Like

  16. And now that you agree that it is fraud to splice the datasets together to “hide the decline” without explaining the “trick”, you don’t mind if I provide evidence that this is the case Ken?

    Then we can all agree that Phil Jones was involved in fraud, and that the “independent enquiries” were also complicit.

    Do don’t mind Ken?

    Just a thought

    Like

  17. Mick, you deniers really have trouble reading don’t you?

    I said:
    “if scientists included data they knew was faulty in a presentation, without clarifying and explaining, that would be fraud.”

    The point is they didn’t include the faulty data. It would have required an explanation and references to work showing why the tree ring data from that period was considered faulty. All this is well covered in the literature but it is certainly distracting in a presentation aimed at popular consumption.

    Now what about my specific questions of you? Are you going to defend you denier mates?

    Or are you going to retreat like last night when you wrote: “I have cluttered you blog enough. Let’s leave it there for now”

    I agree – you do tend to clutter with meaningless nonsense. All deniers do.

    Like

  18. Richard Christie

    Just a thought

    As little evidence provided for that as supplied in support of all your other claims and hand waving.

    Like

  19. Hiding the Decline

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/

    by Judith Curry

    To date, I’ve kept Climate Etc. a “tree ring free zone,” since the issues surrounding the hockey stick are a black hole for conflict and pretty much a tar baby, IMO. Further, paleoproxies are outside the arena of my personal research expertise, and I find my eyes glaze over when I start reading about bristlecones, etc. However, two things this week have changed my mind, and I have decided to take on one aspect of this issue: the infamous “hide the decline.”

    The first thing that contributed to my mind change was this post at Bishop Hill entitled “Will Sir John condemn hide the decline?”, related to Sir John Beddington’s statement: It is time the scientific community became proactive in challenging misuse of scientific evidence.

    The second thing was this youtube clip of physicist Richard Muller (Director of the Berkeley Earth Project), where he discusses “hide the decline” and vehemently refers to this as “dishonest,” and says “you are not allowed to do this,” and further states that he intends not to read further papers by these authors (note “hide the decline” appears around minute 31 into the clip). While most of his research is in physics, Muller has also published important papers on paleoclimate, including a controversial paper that supported McIntyre and McKitrick’s analysis.

    The question I am asking myself is what is my role as a scientist in challenging misuses of science (as per Beddington’s challenge)? Why or why not should I personally get involved in this? Is hiding the decline dishonest and/or bad science?

    Explanations, interpretations, and misrepresentations of “hide the decline”

    Realclimate describes the issue as follows:

    Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

    Steve McIntyre has quite a different intepretation. With regards to Briffa 1998:

    Despite relatively little centennial variability, Briffa’s reconstruction had a noticeable decline in the late 20th century, despite warmer temperatures. In these early articles [e.g. Briffa 1998], the decline was not hidden.

    For most analysts, the seemingly unavoidable question at this point would be – if tree rings didn’t respond to late 20th century warmth, how would one know that they didn’t do the same thing in response to possible medieval warmth – a question that remains unaddressed years later.

    Briffa et al 1998a (Nature 391): During the second half of the twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer temperatures have increasingly diverged as wood density has progressively fallen. The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known, but if it is not taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions, past temperatures could be overestimated.

    With regards to the IPCC TAR:

    In a post-mortem a few weeks later, Coordinating Lead Author Folland wrote that, although a proxy diagram was “a clear favourite for the Policy Makers summary”, the Briffa reconstruction “dilutes the message rather significantly”, adding that this was “probably the most important issue to resolve in Chapter 2 at present”. Mann wrote that “everyone in the room” agreed that the Briffa series was a “potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we’d like to show”. Briffa recognized there was “pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more ’”, but expressed many caveats, in particular that the proxies were not responding the way that they were supposed to and that that the recent warmth was “probably matched” 1000 years ago.

    Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder! (Mann Sep 22, 0938018124.txt)

    And on and on, McIntyre provides substantial documentation for his analysis.

    With this context, the media has continued to completely misrepresent the situation, being inconsistent with either the RC or McIntyre analyses. Tim Lambert provides a summary of recent inaccurate media statements, here is a common example:

    4 February 2011, Investor’s Business Daily: The ClimateGate scandal was a direct result of scientists — and we use the term loosely — at Britain’s Climate Research Unit and others, such as Michael Mann, conspiring to manipulate data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.

    The obvious inaccuracy of such statements and their easy refutation distracts from addressing the substantive issues raised by McIntyre.

    Bad science and/or dishonesty?

    There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record. The one statement in AR4 (put in after McIntyre’s insistence as a reviewer) that mentions the divergence problem is weak tea.

    It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.

    McIntyre’s analysis is sufficiently well documented that it is difficult to imagine that his analysis is incorrect in any significant way. If his analysis is incorrect, it should be refuted. I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues. Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable? I sure don’t.

    Can anyone defend “hide the decline”? I would much prefer to be wrong in my interpretation, but I fear that I am not.

    State of the paleoreconstruction science

    This raises the issue as to whether there is any value at all in the tree ring analyses for this application, and whether these paleoreconstructions can tell us anything. Apart from the issue of the proxies not matching the observations from the current period of warming (which is also the period of best historical data), there is the further issue as to whether these hemispheric or global temperature analyses make any sense at all because of the sampling issue. I am personally having a difficult time in seeing how this stuff has any credibility at the level of “likely” confidence levels reported in the TAR and AR4.

    I am really hoping that the AR5 will do a better job of providing a useful analysis and assessment of the paleodata for the last millennium. However I am not too optimistic. There was another Workshop in Lisbon this past year (Sept 2010), on the Medieval Warm Period. The abstracts for the presentations are found here. No surprises, many of the usual people doing the usual things.

    I view paleoclimate as a really important subject in the context of understanding climate change. I have no interest in warmest year or warmest decade; rather we need to understand the magnitude and characteristics and causes of natural climate variability over the current interglacial, particularly the last 2000 years. I’m more interested in the handle than the blade of the hockey stick. I also view understanding regional climate variations as much more important than trying to use some statistical model to create global average anomalies (which I personally regard as pointless, given the sampling issue).

    I don’t want to throw the baby away with the bath water here. But this whole issue is a big problem for the science and has been an enormous black eye for the credibility of the IPCC and climate science. I suspect that many denizens will be on board with my assessment and are very familiar with McIntyre’s analysis. I would be particularly interested in hearing from any defenders of these global paleotemperature analyses by Mann et al.

    If there is a problem, lets get to the bottom of it and fix it.

    Just a thought

    Like

  20. “Just a thought” (but not a very bright one).

    Mick, what about specific answers to my specific questions?

    Or should I take it you will avoid them?

    Like

  21. Mick, what about specific answers to my specific questions?
    Sorry, which specific question are these Ken?

    I find it hard to locate content in between all the “denier” ad homs

    Like

  22. Come off it Mick – you have to be purposely avoiding the question in my 3rd to last comment above and my repeated request in the 2nd to last one. My last comment also repeated my request.

    Like

  23. Ken, these are not my “denier mates”. I don’t feel any requirement to defend them any more than I feel the need to defend David Bain or Clayton Weatherstone.

    I was specifically referring to the latest paper published by them. I believe all their workings and methodology is published therein.
    NIWA have been asked to respond, but do far have not replied.

    It should be noted that NIWA reworked their series, so there must have been some issues with it in the first place.

    Like

  24. Your refusal doesn’t surprise me Mick – typical of a denier.

    NIWA recalculated the data because the were asked to by their minister and money was allocated. The purpose was to put to rest the harassing claims of the deniers. The independent recalculation produced a very similar result showing the deniers claims to be worthless. Just as we expected.

    But deniers are never satisfied – because they aren’t I interested in the truth. Just in attempting to discredit honest scientists.

    Yet if you honestly looked at the events I refer to in my questions (and the email exchange) you would see how dishonest these clowns are.

    But you aren’t being honest yourself, are you Mick? You wouldn’t even answer the questions related to their last “paper” would you?

    Like

  25. I’ll just repeat these questions for youy Mick because on Checking I find all but one refer to “the latest paper published by them.” (as you express it) and whioch you claim you were spcifically referring to
    Here goes (and I will do it in bold so you don’t loser them again:

    Now what about explaining to us what is specifically wrong in the NIWA methodology (reference to R&S doesn’t cut it – remember Treagold claimed there was no reason for adjustments – he was opposing R&S)?

    Explain why the denier group will not reveal the names and affiliations of the writers of their report?

    Explain why we should believe their claim that the report was peer reviewed?

    Explain why they are not submitting the report to a credible journal where a proper peer review will be possible?

    (Explain why they refused to provide their data and methodology if their first report to me – especially after Treadhold had assured me he would?) – you can miss this one out if you wish, Mick)

    Are they prepared to provide the data, workings and consultants identities fir their current report?

    Why should anyone give them the time if day when they refuse to participate in an open science process that our scientists see as perfectly normal?

    Some question for you to answer, Mick. Of course we know you will avoid them – after all you are a denier not a scientist.

    Like

  26. Ken,
    As Cedric says, if you get angry, it is better in caps

    leaving that aside, the questions you ask are not for me to answer, as I am not privy to the inner details.

    However, as a concession to you, I would make the following points:

    If they stated that no adjustments were needed, and then retracted that, then I would agree that this is a mistake and they should have stated this. Maybe they did – I don’t know

    Why didn’t they reveal the names of the contributors? Don’t know. Maybe it was for professional reasons. There are a lot of people afraid to speak out on climate issues because of the stigma it might cause.

    Why don’t they submit it to a per-reviewed journal? Are you kidding me? Do you really think I am that naive? Which journal is going to publish a paper that rocks the “consensus” boat?

    Look Ken, for the record, I am all in favour of open data and methodology. In this respect, I support the Climate Code Project.
    I also think Steven Mosher is doing a great job. He was one of the climategate guys but believes CO2 is a problem we need to look at.
    I also have the same opinion of Steve McIntyre.

    Neither of these guys we can classify as “deniers”. But they demand open access to data and methodology.

    if you have a problem with your local group then take it out on them, not me, as I have nothing to do with them .

    Like

  27. By the way Ken, you maybe need to let this go. the diamond planet is actually rather interesting, but you made this into a personal rant against your pet peeve out of choice.

    Why don’t you stick to the diamond planet stuff and leave the personal bitterness (this applies to me too, so I am expressing this out of some empathy)

    Ultimately, it doesn’t achieve a lot.

    Like

  28. Mick – you say “if you have a problem with your local group then take it out on them, not me, as I have nothing to do with them.”

    Yet you specifically raised their last report and argued their argument. Now you refuse to explain why (I don’t think you understand their point at all) and keep well clear of that document.

    I raise the issues with you because you are presenting their arguments.

    Typical of a denier.

    As someone who has both published in and reviewed papers for scientific journals I can assure you that your cop out on this is just avoidance – typical of the creationist explanation for their non-appearance of research in scientific journals. It is a cowardly and obviously disingenuous cop out.

    My experience is that a good journal will not accept a paper when submitted. There will always be problems the reviewers pick up or questions that authors need to respond to.

    Of course, if the science is faulty authors may well give up at this stage.

    In my experience I have always had my papers accepted after dealing with criticisms and questions.

    Doesn’t it raise a red flag? – they obviously have no confidence in the reviewers they claim (and refuse to name)

    Afraid to speak up!! That is pathetic. More likely they are ashamed to be associated with the rubbish their organisation comes out with.

    In practice, we do actually know the scientists connected with these groups (read my emails). I am actually quite close to one of them and have discussed these issues with him. I am quite aware of the holes in his background and reading on these issues (he for example has read Monckton and similar but never the IPCC reports). He does from time to time make public statements for the organisation (as do others) but none if them want to be associated with these two reports. Says something doesn’t it?

    And after all, isn’t this what you do. Use their arguments and when pressed for justification pretend the questions are “not for you to answer”

    Cowardly denial.

    Cowardly because you are quite prepared to slander honest scientists. And denial because you avoid supporting your own claims.

    Like

  29. All deniers and conspiracy theorists sound alike. They never say anything new.
    Behold, the flabby recycled excuses.

    Maybe it was for professional reasons. There are a lot of people afraid to speak out on climate issues because of the stigma it might cause.

    Claim CA320:
    Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.
    Source:
    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182.
    Response:
    1. The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution — quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.
    2. Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.

    Why don’t they submit it to a per-reviewed journal? Are you kidding me? Do you really think I am that naive? Which journal is going to publish a paper that rocks the “consensus” boat?

    Claim CA325:
    Creationists cannot get their views accepted by mainstream science because they are prevented from publishing in mainstream scientific journals.
    Source:Morris, Henry M. 1998. Bigotry in science. Back To Genesis 114a (June). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=840
    Response:
    1. The priorities of creationism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135,000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism (Scott and Cole 1985).

    In the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education creationism trial, the creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.
    2. Creationists are free to publish in other venues, such as books and their own journals. These venues are as reputable as their authors and editors. Note that Darwin’s major works were published in books.
    3. Creationists do get published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals when they do real science. For example:
    •Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, “Amos’s Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C.” (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
    •Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
    •Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
    •Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
    •Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
    •Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
    •Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal für Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)

    In addition, many creationists have published science articles not related to creationism.
    4. Scientists themselves are prevented from publishing in peer-reviewed journals when their science is not up to par. The peer-review process prevents lots of substandard work from being published, even from noncreationists such as myself. (The process, of course, is imperfect and produces a substantial borderline area, so some fairly good articles get rejected and some fairly poor ones get accepted. On the whole, however, it keeps quality up.) Creationists face no obstacles that mainstream scientists do not face themselves.
    5. Creationists prevent others from publishing critical views in creationist journals. Glenn Morton, for example, has had papers rejected by the Creation Research Society Quarterly for violating their view that the Flood must be global and for criticizing Carl Froede’s poor geology (Morton 1998).

    Like

  30. Fuck this. I can play Cedric Cut n Paste too
    All deniers and conspiracy theorists sound alike. They never say anything new.
    Behold, the flabby recycled excuses.

    Maybe it was for professional reasons. There are a lot of people afraid to speak out on climate issues because of the stigma it might cause.

    Claim CA320:
    Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.
    Source:
    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182.
    Response:
    1. The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution — quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.
    2. Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.

    Why don’t they submit it to a per-reviewed journal? Are you kidding me? Do you really think I am that naive? Which journal is going to publish a paper that rocks the “consensus” boat?

    Claim CA325:
    Creationists cannot get their views accepted by mainstream science because they are prevented from publishing in mainstream scientific journals.
    Source:Morris, Henry M. 1998. Bigotry in science. Back To Genesis 114a (June). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=840
    Response:
    1. The priorities of creationism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135,000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism (Scott and Cole 1985).

    In the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education creationism trial, the creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.
    2. Creationists are free to publish in other venues, such as books and their own journals. These venues are as reputable as their authors and editors. Note that Darwin’s major works were published in books.
    3. Creationists do get published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals when they do real science. For example:
    •Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, “Amos’s Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C.” (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
    •Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
    •Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
    •Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
    •Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
    •Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
    •Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal für Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)

    In addition, many creationists have published science articles not related to creationism.
    4. Scientists themselves are prevented from publishing in peer-reviewed journals when their science is not up to par. The peer-review process prevents lots of substandard work from being published, even from noncreationists such as myself. (The process, of course, is imperfect and produces a substantial borderline area, so some fairly good articles get rejected and some fairly poor ones get accepted. On the whole, however, it keeps quality up.) Creationists face no obstacles that mainstream scientists do not face themselves.
    5. Creationists prevent others from publishing critical views in creationist journals. Glenn Morton, for example, has had papers rejected by the Creation Research Society Quarterly for violating their view that the Flood must be global and for criticizing Carl Froede’s poor geology (Morton 1998).

    All deniers and conspiracy theorists sound alike. They never say anything new.
    Behold, the flabby recycled excuses.

    Maybe it was for professional reasons. There are a lot of people afraid to speak out on climate issues because of the stigma it might cause.

    Claim CA320:
    Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.
    Source:
    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182.
    Response:
    1. The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution — quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.
    2. Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.

    Why don’t they submit it to a per-reviewed journal? Are you kidding me? Do you really think I am that naive? Which journal is going to publish a paper that rocks the “consensus” boat?

    Claim CA325:
    Creationists cannot get their views accepted by mainstream science because they are prevented from publishing in mainstream scientific journals.
    Source:Morris, Henry M. 1998. Bigotry in science. Back To Genesis 114a (June). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=840
    Response:
    1. The priorities of creationism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135,000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism (Scott and Cole 1985).

    In the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education creationism trial, the creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.
    2. Creationists are free to publish in other venues, such as books and their own journals. These venues are as reputable as their authors and editors. Note that Darwin’s major works were published in books.
    3. Creationists do get published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals when they do real science. For example:
    •Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, “Amos’s Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C.” (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
    •Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
    •Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
    •Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
    •Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
    •Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
    •Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal für Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)

    In addition, many creationists have published science articles not related to creationism.
    4. Scientists themselves are prevented from publishing in peer-reviewed journals when their science is not up to par. The peer-review process prevents lots of substandard work from being published, even from noncreationists such as myself. (The process, of course, is imperfect and produces a substantial borderline area, so some fairly good articles get rejected and some fairly poor ones get accepted. On the whole, however, it keeps quality up.) Creationists face no obstacles that mainstream scientists do not face themselves.
    5. Creationists prevent others from publishing critical views in creationist journals. Glenn Morton, for example, has had papers rejected by the Creation Research Society Quarterly for violating their view that the Flood must be global and for criticizing Carl Froede’s poor geology (Morton 1998).

    All deniers and conspiracy theorists sound alike. They never say anything new.
    Behold, the flabby recycled excuses.

    Maybe it was for professional reasons. There are a lot of people afraid to speak out on climate issues because of the stigma it might cause.

    Claim CA320:
    Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.
    Source:
    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182.
    Response:
    1. The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution — quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.
    2. Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.

    Why don’t they submit it to a per-reviewed journal? Are you kidding me? Do you really think I am that naive? Which journal is going to publish a paper that rocks the “consensus” boat?

    Claim CA325:
    Creationists cannot get their views accepted by mainstream science because they are prevented from publishing in mainstream scientific journals.
    Source:Morris, Henry M. 1998. Bigotry in science. Back To Genesis 114a (June). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=840
    Response:
    1. The priorities of creationism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135,000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism (Scott and Cole 1985).

    In the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education creationism trial, the creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.
    2. Creationists are free to publish in other venues, such as books and their own journals. These venues are as reputable as their authors and editors. Note that Darwin’s major works were published in books.
    3. Creationists do get published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals when they do real science. For example:
    •Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, “Amos’s Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C.” (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
    •Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
    •Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
    •Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
    •Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
    •Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
    •Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal für Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)

    In addition, many creationists have published science articles not related to creationism.
    4. Scientists themselves are prevented from publishing in peer-reviewed journals when their science is not up to par. The peer-review process prevents lots of substandard work from being published, even from noncreationists such as myself. (The process, of course, is imperfect and produces a substantial borderline area, so some fairly good articles get rejected and some fairly poor ones get accepted. On the whole, however, it keeps quality up.) Creationists face no obstacles that mainstream scientists do not face themselves.
    5. Creationists prevent others from publishing critical views in creationist journals. Glenn Morton, for example, has had papers rejected by the Creation Research Society Quarterly for violating their view that the Flood must be global and for criticizing Carl Froede’s poor geology (Morton 1998).

    All deniers and conspiracy theorists sound alike. They never say anything new.
    Behold, the flabby recycled excuses.

    Maybe it was for professional reasons. There are a lot of people afraid to speak out on climate issues because of the stigma it might cause.

    Claim CA320:
    Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.
    Source:
    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182.
    Response:
    1. The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution — quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.
    2. Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.

    Why don’t they submit it to a per-reviewed journal? Are you kidding me? Do you really think I am that naive? Which journal is going to publish a paper that rocks the “consensus” boat?

    Claim CA325:
    Creationists cannot get their views accepted by mainstream science because they are prevented from publishing in mainstream scientific journals.
    Source:Morris, Henry M. 1998. Bigotry in science. Back To Genesis 114a (June). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=840
    Response:
    1. The priorities of creationism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135,000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism (Scott and Cole 1985).

    In the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education creationism trial, the creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.
    2. Creationists are free to publish in other venues, such as books and their own journals. These venues are as reputable as their authors and editors. Note that Darwin’s major works were published in books.
    3. Creationists do get published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals when they do real science. For example:
    •Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, “Amos’s Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C.” (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
    •Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
    •Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
    •Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
    •Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
    •Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
    •Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal für Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)

    In addition, many creationists have published science articles not related to creationism.
    4. Scientists themselves are prevented from publishing in peer-reviewed journals when their science is not up to par. The peer-review process prevents lots of substandard work from being published, even from noncreationists such as myself. (The process, of course, is imperfect and produces a substantial borderline area, so some fairly good articles get rejected and some fairly poor ones get accepted. On the whole, however, it keeps quality up.) Creationists face no obstacles that mainstream scientists do not face themselves.
    5. Creationists prevent others from publishing critical views in creationist journals. Glenn Morton, for example, has had papers rejected by the Creation Research Society Quarterly for violating their view that the Flood must be global and for criticizing Carl Froede’s poor geology (Morton 1998).

    All deniers and conspiracy theorists sound alike. They never say anything new.
    Behold, the flabby recycled excuses.

    Maybe it was for professional reasons. There are a lot of people afraid to speak out on climate issues because of the stigma it might cause.

    Claim CA320:
    Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.
    Source:
    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182.
    Response:
    1. The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution — quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.
    2. Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.

    Why don’t they submit it to a per-reviewed journal? Are you kidding me? Do you really think I am that naive? Which journal is going to publish a paper that rocks the “consensus” boat?

    Claim CA325:
    Creationists cannot get their views accepted by mainstream science because they are prevented from publishing in mainstream scientific journals.
    Source:Morris, Henry M. 1998. Bigotry in science. Back To Genesis 114a (June). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=840
    Response:
    1. The priorities of creationism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135,000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism (Scott and Cole 1985).

    In the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education creationism trial, the creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.
    2. Creationists are free to publish in other venues, such as books and their own journals. These venues are as reputable as their authors and editors. Note that Darwin’s major works were published in books.
    3. Creationists do get published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals when they do real science. For example:
    •Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, “Amos’s Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C.” (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
    •Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
    •Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
    •Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
    •Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
    •Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
    •Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal für Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)

    In addition, many creationists have published science articles not related to creationism.
    4. Scientists themselves are prevented from publishing in peer-reviewed journals when their science is not up to par. The peer-review process prevents lots of substandard work from being published, even from noncreationists such as myself. (The process, of course, is imperfect and produces a substantial borderline area, so some fairly good articles get rejected and some fairly poor ones get accepted. On the whole, however, it keeps quality up.) Creationists face no obstacles that mainstream scientists do not face themselves.
    5. Creationists prevent others from publishing critical views in creationist journals. Glenn Morton, for example, has had papers rejected by the Creation Research Society Quarterly for violating their view that the Flood must be global and for criticizing Carl Froede’s poor geology (Morton 1998).

    All deniers and conspiracy theorists sound alike. They never say anything new.
    Behold, the flabby recycled excuses.

    Maybe it was for professional reasons. There are a lot of people afraid to speak out on climate issues because of the stigma it might cause.

    Claim CA320:
    Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.
    Source:
    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182.
    Response:
    1. The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution — quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.
    2. Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.

    Why don’t they submit it to a per-reviewed journal? Are you kidding me? Do you really think I am that naive? Which journal is going to publish a paper that rocks the “consensus” boat?

    Claim CA325:
    Creationists cannot get their views accepted by mainstream science because they are prevented from publishing in mainstream scientific journals.
    Source:Morris, Henry M. 1998. Bigotry in science. Back To Genesis 114a (June). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=840
    Response:
    1. The priorities of creationism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135,000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism (Scott and Cole 1985).

    In the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education creationism trial, the creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.
    2. Creationists are free to publish in other venues, such as books and their own journals. These venues are as reputable as their authors and editors. Note that Darwin’s major works were published in books.
    3. Creationists do get published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals when they do real science. For example:
    •Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, “Amos’s Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C.” (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
    •Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
    •Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
    •Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
    •Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
    •Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
    •Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal für Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)

    In addition, many creationists have published science articles not related to creationism.
    4. Scientists themselves are prevented from publishing in peer-reviewed journals when their science is not up to par. The peer-review process prevents lots of substandard work from being published, even from noncreationists such as myself. (The process, of course, is imperfect and produces a substantial borderline area, so some fairly good articles get rejected and some fairly poor ones get accepted. On the whole, however, it keeps quality up.) Creationists face no obstacles that mainstream scientists do not face themselves.
    5. Creationists prevent others from publishing critical views in creationist journals. Glenn Morton, for example, has had papers rejected by the Creation Research Society Quarterly for violating their view that the Flood must be global and for criticizing Carl Froede’s poor geology (Morton 1998).

    All deniers and conspiracy theorists sound alike. They never say anything new.
    Behold, the flabby recycled excuses.

    Maybe it was for professional reasons. There are a lot of people afraid to speak out on climate issues because of the stigma it might cause.

    Claim CA320:
    Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.
    Source:
    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182.
    Response:
    1. The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution — quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.
    2. Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.

    Why don’t they submit it to a per-reviewed journal? Are you kidding me? Do you really think I am that naive? Which journal is going to publish a paper that rocks the “consensus” boat?

    Claim CA325:
    Creationists cannot get their views accepted by mainstream science because they are prevented from publishing in mainstream scientific journals.
    Source:Morris, Henry M. 1998. Bigotry in science. Back To Genesis 114a (June). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=840
    Response:
    1. The priorities of creationism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135,000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism (Scott and Cole 1985).

    In the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education creationism trial, the creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.
    2. Creationists are free to publish in other venues, such as books and their own journals. These venues are as reputable as their authors and editors. Note that Darwin’s major works were published in books.
    3. Creationists do get published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals when they do real science. For example:
    •Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, “Amos’s Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C.” (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
    •Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
    •Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
    •Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
    •Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
    •Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
    •Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal für Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)

    In addition, many creationists have published science articles not related to creationism.
    4. Scientists themselves are prevented from publishing in peer-reviewed journals when their science is not up to par. The peer-review process prevents lots of substandard work from being published, even from noncreationists such as myself. (The process, of course, is imperfect and produces a substantial borderline area, so some fairly good articles get rejected and some fairly poor ones get accepted. On the whole, however, it keeps quality up.) Creationists face no obstacles that mainstream scientists do not face themselves.
    5. Creationists prevent others from publishing critical views in creationist journals. Glenn Morton, for example, has had papers rejected by the Creation Research Society Quarterly for violating their view that the Flood must be global and for criticizing Carl Froede’s poor geology (Morton 1998).

    All deniers and conspiracy theorists sound alike. They never say anything new.
    Behold, the flabby recycled excuses.

    Maybe it was for professional reasons. There are a lot of people afraid to speak out on climate issues because of the stigma it might cause.

    Claim CA320:
    Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.
    Source:
    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182.
    Response:
    1. The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution — quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.
    2. Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.

    Why don’t they submit it to a per-reviewed journal? Are you kidding me? Do you really think I am that naive? Which journal is going to publish a paper that rocks the “consensus” boat?

    Claim CA325:
    Creationists cannot get their views accepted by mainstream science because they are prevented from publishing in mainstream scientific journals.
    Source:Morris, Henry M. 1998. Bigotry in science. Back To Genesis 114a (June). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=840
    Response:
    1. The priorities of creationism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135,000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism (Scott and Cole 1985).

    In the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education creationism trial, the creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.
    2. Creationists are free to publish in other venues, such as books and their own journals. These venues are as reputable as their authors and editors. Note that Darwin’s major works were published in books.
    3. Creationists do get published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals when they do real science. For example:
    •Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, “Amos’s Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C.” (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
    •Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
    •Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
    •Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
    •Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
    •Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
    •Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal für Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)

    In addition, many creationists have published science articles not related to creationism.
    4. Scientists themselves are prevented from publishing in peer-reviewed journals when their science is not up to par. The peer-review process prevents lots of substandard work from being published, even from noncreationists such as myself. (The process, of course, is imperfect and produces a substantial borderline area, so some fairly good articles get rejected and some fairly poor ones get accepted. On the whole, however, it keeps quality up.) Creationists face no obstacles that mainstream scientists do not face themselves.
    5. Creationists prevent others from publishing critical views in creationist journals. Glenn Morton, for example, has had papers rejected by the Creation Research Society Quarterly for violating their view that the Flood must be global and for criticizing Carl Froede’s poor geology (Morton 1998).

    All deniers and conspiracy theorists sound alike. They never say anything new.
    Behold, the flabby recycled excuses.

    Maybe it was for professional reasons. There are a lot of people afraid to speak out on climate issues because of the stigma it might cause.

    Claim CA320:
    Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.
    Source:
    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182.
    Response:
    1. The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution — quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.
    2. Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.

    Why don’t they submit it to a per-reviewed journal? Are you kidding me? Do you really think I am that naive? Which journal is going to publish a paper that rocks the “consensus” boat?

    Claim CA325:
    Creationists cannot get their views accepted by mainstream science because they are prevented from publishing in mainstream scientific journals.
    Source:Morris, Henry M. 1998. Bigotry in science. Back To Genesis 114a (June). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=840
    Response:
    1. The priorities of creationism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135,000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism (Scott and Cole 1985).

    In the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education creationism trial, the creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.
    2. Creationists are free to publish in other venues, such as books and their own journals. These venues are as reputable as their authors and editors. Note that Darwin’s major works were published in books.
    3. Creationists do get published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals when they do real science. For example:
    •Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, “Amos’s Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C.” (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
    •Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
    •Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
    •Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
    •Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
    •Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
    •Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal für Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)

    In addition, many creationists have published science articles not related to creationism.
    4. Scientists themselves are prevented from publishing in peer-reviewed journals when their science is not up to par. The peer-review process prevents lots of substandard work from being published, even from noncreationists such as myself. (The process, of course, is imperfect and produces a substantial borderline area, so some fairly good articles get rejected and some fairly poor ones get accepted. On the whole, however, it keeps quality up.) Creationists face no obstacles that mainstream scientists do not face themselves.
    5. Creationists prevent others from publishing critical views in creationist journals. Glenn Morton, for example, has had papers rejected by the Creation Research Society Quarterly for violating their view that the Flood must be global and for criticizing Carl Froede’s poor geology (Morton 1998).

    All deniers and conspiracy theorists sound alike. They never say anything new.
    Behold, the flabby recycled excuses.

    Maybe it was for professional reasons. There are a lot of people afraid to speak out on climate issues because of the stigma it might cause.

    Claim CA320:
    Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.
    Source:
    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182.
    Response:
    1. The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution — quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.
    2. Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.

    Why don’t they submit it to a per-reviewed journal? Are you kidding me? Do you really think I am that naive? Which journal is going to publish a paper that rocks the “consensus” boat?

    Claim CA325:
    Creationists cannot get their views accepted by mainstream science because they are prevented from publishing in mainstream scientific journals.
    Source:Morris, Henry M. 1998. Bigotry in science. Back To Genesis 114a (June). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=840
    Response:
    1. The priorities of creationism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135,000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism (Scott and Cole 1985).

    In the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education creationism trial, the creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.
    2. Creationists are free to publish in other venues, such as books and their own journals. These venues are as reputable as their authors and editors. Note that Darwin’s major works were published in books.
    3. Creationists do get published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals when they do real science. For example:
    •Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, “Amos’s Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C.” (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
    •Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
    •Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
    •Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
    •Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
    •Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
    •Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal für Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)

    In addition, many creationists have published science articles not related to creationism.
    4. Scientists themselves are prevented from publishing in peer-reviewed journals when their science is not up to par. The peer-review process prevents lots of substandard work from being published, even from noncreationists such as myself. (The process, of course, is imperfect and produces a substantial borderline area, so some fairly good articles get rejected and some fairly poor ones get accepted. On the whole, however, it keeps quality up.) Creationists face no obstacles that mainstream scientists do not face themselves.
    5. Creationists prevent others from publishing critical views in creationist journals. Glenn Morton, for example, has had papers rejected by the Creation Research Society Quarterly for violating their view that the Flood must be global and for criticizing Carl Froede’s poor geology (Morton 1998).

    All deniers and conspiracy theorists sound alike. They never say anything new.
    Behold, the flabby recycled excuses.

    Maybe it was for professional reasons. There are a lot of people afraid to speak out on climate issues because of the stigma it might cause.

    Claim CA320:
    Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.
    Source:
    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182.
    Response:
    1. The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution — quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.
    2. Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.

    Why don’t they submit it to a per-reviewed journal? Are you kidding me? Do you really think I am that naive? Which journal is going to publish a paper that rocks the “consensus” boat?

    Claim CA325:
    Creationists cannot get their views accepted by mainstream science because they are prevented from publishing in mainstream scientific journals.
    Source:Morris, Henry M. 1998. Bigotry in science. Back To Genesis 114a (June). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=840
    Response:
    1. The priorities of creationism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135,000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism (Scott and Cole 1985).

    In the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education creationism trial, the creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.
    2. Creationists are free to publish in other venues, such as books and their own journals. These venues are as reputable as their authors and editors. Note that Darwin’s major works were published in books.
    3. Creationists do get published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals when they do real science. For example:
    •Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, “Amos’s Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C.” (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
    •Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
    •Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
    •Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
    •Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
    •Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
    •Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal für Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)

    In addition, many creationists have published science articles not related to creationism.
    4. Scientists themselves are prevented from publishing in peer-reviewed journals when their science is not up to par. The peer-review process prevents lots of substandard work from being published, even from noncreationists such as myself. (The process, of course, is imperfect and produces a substantial borderline area, so some fairly good articles get rejected and some fairly poor ones get accepted. On the whole, however, it keeps quality up.) Creationists face no obstacles that mainstream scientists do not face themselves.
    5. Creationists prevent others from publishing critical views in creationist journals. Glenn Morton, for example, has had papers rejected by the Creation Research Society Quarterly for violating their view that the Flood must be global and for criticizing Carl Froede’s poor geology (Morton 1998).

    Like

  31. Fuck you Ken,
    You are a cunt.
    100% Pure, unadulterated New Zealand Cunt

    I hope you fucking die soon.

    Like

  32. Did you get that Ken?

    A FUCKING CUNT

    You worthless piece of shit.
    Fuck off and die cunt.

    Like

  33. All deniers and conspiracy theorists sound alike. They never say anything new.
    Behold, the flabby recycled excuses.

    Maybe it was for professional reasons. There are a lot of people afraid to speak out on climate issues because of the stigma it might cause.

    Claim CA320:
    Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.
    Source:
    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 182.
    Response:
    1. The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution — quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.
    2. Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.

    Why don’t they submit it to a per-reviewed journal? Are you kidding me? Do you really think I am that naive? Which journal is going to publish a paper that rocks the “consensus” boat?

    Claim CA325:
    Creationists cannot get their views accepted by mainstream science because they are prevented from publishing in mainstream scientific journals.
    Source:Morris, Henry M. 1998. Bigotry in science. Back To Genesis 114a (June). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=840
    Response:
    1. The priorities of creationism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135,000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism (Scott and Cole 1985).

    In the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education creationism trial, the creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.
    2. Creationists are free to publish in other venues, such as books and their own journals. These venues are as reputable as their authors and editors. Note that Darwin’s major works were published in books.
    3. Creationists do get published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals when they do real science. For example:
    •Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, “Amos’s Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C.” (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
    •Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
    •Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
    •Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
    •Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
    •Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
    •Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal für Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)

    In addition, many creationists have published science articles not related to creationism.
    4. Scientists themselves are prevented from publishing in peer-reviewed journals when their science is not up to par. The peer-review process prevents lots of substandard work from being published, even from noncreationists such as myself. (The process, of course, is imperfect and produces a substantial borderline area, so some fairly good articles get rejected and some fairly poor ones get accepted. On the whole, however, it keeps quality up.) Creationists face no obstacles that mainstream scientists do not face themselves.
    5. Creationists prevent others from publishing critical views in creationist journals. Glenn Morton, for example, has had papers rejected by the Creation Research Society Quarterly for violating their view that the Flood must be global and for criticizing Carl Froede’s poor geology (Morton 1998).

    Like

  34. John Wakelin, you really are the perfect representative of the climate denier community. Tell us more about the conspiracy.

    Mick | September 15, 2011 at 8:55 pm |

    Do you think I am a cretin like you Richard?

    You brainless fucktard
    September 16, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
    Fuck you Ken,
    You are a cunt.
    100% Pure, unadulterated New Zealand Cunt

    I hope you fucking die soon.

    Mick | September 16, 2011 at 6:28 pm | Did you get that Ken?
    A FUCKING CUNT
    You worthless piece of shit.
    Fuck off and die cunt.

    I wonder if John Wakelin’s family and friend knows what he gets up to on the Internet? I feel sorry for them.

    Like

  35. Richard Christie

    He didn’t forget the allcaps this time.

    Like

  36. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
    Oh that was a good one. :)

    Like

  37. I think this discussion has reached a natural, if not satisfactory, end. it has become too cluttered and the level somewhat irrelevant.

    Cosnequently I have decided to close off this particular thread. Any relevent (and civil, please) discussion can be transferred to a seperate post, or to this same post where it is syndicated at SciBlogsNZ (Empathy for colleagues).

    Like