Fake science: Creationist's "Answers Research Journal"

wahrheit

Philosopher
W
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Messages
5,485
Answers Research Journal (ARJ) is a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj

Wrapped in cool sounding sciency terms, a "pro" looking web design this fake journal offers peer-reviewed research papers.

Well, peer-reviewed by fellow creationists, that is.

Just randomly click through their online articles. Don't worry, you don't have to be a biologist or scientist at all to spot the masquerade.

For example this one, Microbes and the Days of Creation. For a quick glance, scroll down to tables 1 and 2 to get the idea. Everything looks very sciency, lots of references and even latin words!
 
I wonder what key of statisticals test you run on biblical research?
Omega test:
Null Hypothesis=bible is wrong

test statistic O = 1

Table of p-values

O = 1, p = 0
O not equal 1, p = impossible

We therefore can always reject the null hypothesis.
 
I think it is cool how Creationists are so eager to go the science way, either trying to depict creation as science or evolution as religion. Since both positions are obviously and provably wrong, they are never gonna win that way :D.

Now, if they concentrated on selling religion as religion, I might be marginally worried.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
I think it is cool how Creationists are so eager to go the science way, either trying to depict creation as science or evolution as religion. Since both positions are obviously and provably wrong, they are never gonna win that way :D.

Now, if they concentrated on selling religion as religion, I might be marginally worried.

Hans
Click to expand...

Never gonna win that way? I'm not sure about this. What worries me is that quite a lot of people fall for this pseudo-scientific approach. You can see it right here, in the forum.
 
wahrheit said:
Never gonna win that way? I'm not sure about this. What worries me is that quite a lot of people fall for this pseudo-scientific approach. You can see it right here, in the forum.
Click to expand...

Nine out of ten doctors disagree.
 
I stopped reading in the middle of the 1st paragraph of Microbes and the Days of Creation. By that time I was banging my head on the keyboard.
 
Wow, using .01, controlling for extraneous variables, and a significant sample size to increase the power of the study. Oh wait, these studies don't have any of these elements.
 
In the words of the immortal Calvin*, "We're using the same words, but we're speaking a different language." If you didn't know how to use those words in those papers, it really would sound almost like science. As it is, reading that paper about microbes and the days of creation is nearly painful. It's like every sentence you want to go, "but...but..but..." and it is so difficult to figure out where to start.


*The comic strip character, not the religious leader. He asked his mom for a snack and, with his hand already in the cookie jar, she said, "Yes. You may have an apple."
 
Meadmaker said:
It's like every sentence you want to go, "but...but..but..." and it is so difficult to figure out where to start.
Click to expand...
I would start by asking them: "Where is the testable hypothesis?"

After that, we can ask: "What new, more precise, information can we gain, from this paper, that we otherwise would not have discovered so easily?"

If they flounder on either answer, we can gently remind them that the paper probably isn't science, unless it can be held up to the basic scrutiny of such questions.

(And, that's not even addressing specific problems with their choices of "evidence". But, at least it's a start.)
 
Last edited:
I read about half of the Pasteur article. I feel dummer...

The half I read consisted of the usual Creationist tactic to conflate spontaneous generation with abiogenesis and evolution.
The theme of the book was that Darwinian evolution depended on the occurrence of spontaneous generation and therefore could not be considered because spontaneous generation was false (Farley 1974). Pasteur not only gave light to the question of origins, but he also resolved it. Other leading French scientists rallied to the cause because of political and religious implications of evolutionary ideas. In this politically charged climate, many members of the French scientific elite preferred Pasteur over Pouchet on political and scientific grounds. Many of these scientists joined the two-pronged attack against Darwinism and spontaneous generation.
Click to expand...

Ugh...
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
I read about half of the Pasteur article. I feel dummer...

The half I read consisted of the usual Creationist tactic to conflate spontaneous generation with abiogenesis and evolution.
Click to expand...

Plus some nice little argument from authority. Reminds me of [nick deleted].
 
This has the nasty smell of nonsense:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1#karyotype-variability-cattle

Karyotype Variability within the Cattle Monobaramin

by Dr. Jean K. Lightner

This paper may also be downloaded in full as a PDF.

The Genesis account states that God created all living things according to their kinds. Cattle, bison, and buffalo are identified as being derived from a single created kind (i.e., they belong to a monobaramin). Karyotype variability is examined within this monobaramin. I conclude that chromosomal rearrangements, particularly centric fusions, have played an important role in developing the chromosomal patterns that are seen in these animals today. Furthermore, it appears that these rearrangements are dependent on numerous mechanisms (to repair breaks, deactivate a centromere, and restructure heterochromatin) that allow for such changes while maintaining the viability of the animal.
Click to expand...
 
Scientific Misconduct:
Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in professional scientific research. A Lancet review on Handling of Scientific Misconduct in Scandinavian countries provides the following sample definitions:

* Danish Definition: "Intention(al) or gross negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist"

* Swedish Definition: "Intention(al) distortion of the research process by fabrication of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher's manuscript form or publication; or distortion of the research process in other ways."

Scientific misconduct may take place simply out of reasons of reputation - academic scientists are under pressure to produce publications in peer reviewed journals. Alternatively there may be commercial or political motivations where the financial or political success of a project depends on publishing evidence of efficacy. The consequences of scientific misconduct can be severe at a personal level for both perpetrators and any individual who exposes it. In addition there are public health implications attached to the promotion of medical or other interventions based on dubious research findings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct

fabrication – the publication of deliberately false or misleading research, often subdivided into:
o fabrication – the actual making up of research data and (the intent of) publishing them
o falsification – manipulation of research data and processes or omitting critical data or results[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct#Forms_of_scientific_misconduct
 
This is the one that got me to close the page:
Protozoan polulations [sic] may have lived symbiotically or mutualistically [sic] in man and animal before the Fall, only to take on a parasitic mode after the Fall.
Click to expand...
:jaw-dropp

Ouch! Other than that, just a bunch of "could have, might have, may be," and lots of scientific sounding stuff ending with question marks.

ETA: Almost forgot the best part, the fear of being "Expelled"!

These are pseudonyms. The writers, who hold PhDs in fields related to the topics of their abstracts, are scientists at prominent research facilities in the eastern part of North America. They prefer to keep their creationist credentials hidden for the moment until they achieve more seniority
Click to expand...

"Creationist credentials????" What does that mean?
 
Last edited:
I love the line in the “Microbes” article.

“In June 2007, a group of professional creation microbiologists assembled at the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum to meet and discuss ideas and papers at the first Microbe Forum (Purdom and Francis 2008).”

What the heck kind of research did they present, doodles on post-it notes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom