  |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Evolutionary Discrimination"If creationists are so right, why don't they publish in major journals?"It has long been one of the questions that evolutionists ask of creationists. Is it valid? No more than any of their other "just so" stories to explain away evidence. What these scoffers should really be asking is "why don't creationists publish their creationist views in major journals?" It is certainly true that no articles supporting creation or doubting the validity of evolutionary dogma appear in the major journals, but it is just as untrue that creationists publish nothing in these journals. There are two issues that need to be addressed here: 1) The fact that creationists do publish in major and technical academic journals and 2) that no creationist information is published due to a high degree of discrimination, bias, and censorship by evolutionists (which can be documented). Creationists and the Scientific Literature It has often and vocally been argued that no creationist publishes in the scientific literature today. This is blatently, entirely, and completely false. Of course, this hardly stops the evolutionists from continuing to disseminate their lies. For example, the famous evolutionist Niles Eldridge has blindly asserted that none of the contributors to the peer-reviewed techncial journal Creation Research Society Quarterly have "contrubuted a single article to any reputable scientific journal" (Eldridge 1982). This sentiment, however patently obsurd, has been echoed through the evolutionary ranks, intentionaly or ignorantly (neither bespeaking to their objectivity) the creationists responses as if they hardly mattered, despite the simple fact that creationists have and still do publish in the scientific literature. Willem J. Ouweneel (see "Developmental Genetics of Homoeosis", Advances in Genetics, 16 [1976]: 179-248) Siegfried Scherer (see "Basic Functional States of the Evolution of Light-Driven Cyclic Electron Transport", Journal of Theoretical Biology, 104 [1983]: 289-299) Grant Lambert (see "Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer," Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107 [1984]: 387-403) Russell Humphreys has published at least 30 papers in the scientific journals (see Robert Gentry, who was recognized as the world's leader on polonium halos, has published at least 26 papers (read them all here) Thus it is readily obvious from this small selection of papers that this argument by evolutionists is completely incorrect. One is tempted to speculate on why they continue to disseminate false information. Creationists and Discrimination We will now deal with the blatant and documentable discrimination on the part of the evolutionists, even while attempting to keep a superficially objective face on things. For example, Scientific American refused to hire science writer Forest Mims III after he admitted he was a creationist and pro-life. The editor of SA at that time even had the nerve to say that Mims' work was "fabulous," "first rate," "great," and "should be published somewhere." (Harper's, 1991) After this incident of blatant discrimination, Scientific American published an article on his revolutionary atmospheric haze detector, but did not even mention the incident (Sarfati, 2002) In 1985, Dr. Russell Humphreys wrote to Science pointing out that openly creationist letters were suppressed, and asked whether Science had a "hidden policy of supressing creationist letters." The letters editor, Christine Gilbert, replied and admitted that "It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters." There are several things interesting with this admission. The first is that if they are not willing to publish the letters of creationists, what would make them open to publishing actual papers by creations? The second is that this admission is a clear violation of Science's policy to represent "the range of opinions received." Apparently this policy applies to everyone but the creationists. Dr. Robert Gentry was able to publish his work on polonium halos only until the establishment realized that the results sided with the creationists and an ex nilo recent creation. He documents the repression of his work in his book, Creation's Tiny Mystery. Shortly after it became known that he was a creationist, his position as visiting professor at Oak Ridge National Laboratories was terminated and it became much more difficult to publish anything that doubted evolution or supported creation. After Dr. Michael Behe published his book, Darwin's Black Box, many of the journals published negative reviews to it but subsequently refused to allow Behe any space (let alone equal) to respond to these attacks on his work. In January of 2004, the presidents of seven geological societies, representing about 100,000 geologists, wrote in protest to the Grand Canyon National Park because they were selling in the canyon book store a picture book by creationists which offers a different view on it's formation. They demanded that it be removed from the science section and even went so far as to threaten the National Park Service by stating: "The National Park Service should be extremely careful about giving the impression that it approves of the anti-science movement known as young-Earth creationism or endorses the advancement of religious tenets as science." So, why should they be careful about exercising their legitimate right to free speech in giving the visitors all sides of the story? Question: if the evolutionists are so eager to supress such creationist material, why would someone expect to find papers endorsing creation in the scientific literature? When Dr. Jack Cuozzo was investigating Neaderthal reconstruction in Europe, his findings indicated that the skulls had been (intentionally or unintentionally) reconstructed to make them look like ape-men. These findings caused them to be followed, their hotel rooms broken into and searched, and which culminated in a frantic car chase through downtown Paris. When he revealed his work in a presentation on the Penn State University campus, one of the professors leaped onto the stage and grabbed the microphone from his hands, and which resulted in an out-and-out riot in the auditorium with shouting and screaming students rushing the stage. Subsequently, Dr Colin Groves, in a review of Dr. Cuozzo's book, stated that Cuozzo's "basic assessments of the fossils" were "almost uniformly excellent." References Eldridge, N, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982 Harper's Magazine, "Science's Litmus Test," March 1991 Sarfati, J, Refuting Evolution 2, 2002 |
|||||||||||
| Design copyright 2004 Justin Dunlap | ||||||||||||
