Answers Research Journal
(→Volume 1 articles) |
|||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
===Volume 1 articles=== | ===Volume 1 articles=== | ||
*"Proceedings of the Microbe Forum, June 2007" | *"Proceedings of the Microbe Forum, June 2007" | ||
| − | *"Microbes and the Days of Creation" | + | *"Microbes and the Days of Creation"--this article brings up such useful questions as "which day where microbes created?" and "are harmful microbes evidence of the Fall?". |
:::These two articles try to figure out which day microbes were formed. It's hard when [[Guide to Genesis|Genesis]] gives no information to figure it out, so we can just personally muse about it. A highlight quotes from the second article that emphasizes the cutting edge of creation science sounds like a crap shoot: | :::These two articles try to figure out which day microbes were formed. It's hard when [[Guide to Genesis|Genesis]] gives no information to figure it out, so we can just personally muse about it. A highlight quotes from the second article that emphasizes the cutting edge of creation science sounds like a crap shoot: | ||
::::"I once believed that all microbes were simply created on Day Three—with all the plants (and seed-bearing life). . . . Upon further reflection on the origin of microbes, I realized that not all microbes could be classified as “seed-bearing” life, like plants, cyanobacteria, or photosynthetic bacteria. This led me to the conclusion that the Creator probably created animal-like (nonphotosynthetic) microbes on Days Five and Six."<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/microbes-days-of-creation</ref> | ::::"I once believed that all microbes were simply created on Day Three—with all the plants (and seed-bearing life). . . . Upon further reflection on the origin of microbes, I realized that not all microbes could be classified as “seed-bearing” life, like plants, cyanobacteria, or photosynthetic bacteria. This led me to the conclusion that the Creator probably created animal-like (nonphotosynthetic) microbes on Days Five and Six."<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/microbes-days-of-creation</ref> | ||
Revision as of 04:04, 4 March 2008
Answers Research Journal[1] (ISSN 19379056) is a "peer-reviewed" (in the peer-creationist sense...) creation "science" "journal", with all "scare quoted" terms used loosely.[2] It is published by Answers in Genesis, and it features a lot of history, philosophy and Bible analysis pieces, but not much in the way of science. Appropriately enough for a journal of pseudoscience, authors are free to publish under pseudonyms, ostensibly to avoid persecution for their beliefs.[3][4][5]
Ulrich's Periodical Directory™ classifies the journal under "Religons and Theology",[6] despite having many science categories available.
Contents |
Judging criteria
"Answers" lists a bizarre set of criteria for articles submitted for publication:
- Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
- Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
- Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
- If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively [sic] positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
- If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?
- Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture? [7]
Number 4 is by far the most important. The parallel criterion in a science journal would read, "If the paper discusses claimed evidence for science, does this paper offer a very constructive positive criticism and provide a possible pseudoscientific alternative?" Most of the published articles are invalid by criterion 2 as they are mostly re-hashed creationist propaganda.
Editor-in-Chief
Andrew A. Snelling is the editor-in-chief, who claims to have "more than 24 years of technical scientific publication experience."[8] Unfortunately the highlight of this experience includes founding the Journal of Creation. He is also quoted as saying:
“”It is our hope that the online publication of ARJ will encourage Christians with powerful results of the latest creationist research, providing them with new resources for use in their own research and education—and in their witnessing to the truth and authority of God’s Word.[9]
|
Err... and the science?
Content analysis
Volume 1 articles
- "Proceedings of the Microbe Forum, June 2007"
- "Microbes and the Days of Creation"--this article brings up such useful questions as "which day where microbes created?" and "are harmful microbes evidence of the Fall?".
- These two articles try to figure out which day microbes were formed. It's hard when Genesis gives no information to figure it out, so we can just personally muse about it. A highlight quotes from the second article that emphasizes the cutting edge of creation science sounds like a crap shoot:
- "I once believed that all microbes were simply created on Day Three—with all the plants (and seed-bearing life). . . . Upon further reflection on the origin of microbes, I realized that not all microbes could be classified as “seed-bearing” life, like plants, cyanobacteria, or photosynthetic bacteria. This led me to the conclusion that the Creator probably created animal-like (nonphotosynthetic) microbes on Days Five and Six."[10]
- These two articles try to figure out which day microbes were formed. It's hard when Genesis gives no information to figure it out, so we can just personally muse about it. A highlight quotes from the second article that emphasizes the cutting edge of creation science sounds like a crap shoot:
- "Catastrophic Granite Formation"
- This is recycled global flood garbage. No evidence for a recent creation at all.
- "An Apology and Unification Theory for the Reconciliation of Physical Matter and Metaphysical Cognizance"
- A philosophical piece. Don't ask. No evidence for a recent creation at all. It also justs combines science and religion with abandon.
- "God is eternal. God is Spirit. Spirit is life. Spirit is the ultimate reality for both the metaphysical and the physical. The physical universe and all that is in it, including time, is the manifestation of the thought of God. He spoke, and it was so. Therefore, our physical universe is essentially a holographic image empowered by the Spirit of God. God exists aside from our temporal material paradigm, of which He is the light, the ultimate source of energy. Here there exists a certain entanglement between the quantum state and the Spirit of God. Even beyond His empowerment of the infinitesimal electromagnetic charges and the nuclear forces that bind all things together, this entanglement brings life in all its forms to the universe."[11]
- This article is so bad, there has been some discussion in the blogosphere that this article is a hoax.[12]
- A philosophical piece. Don't ask. No evidence for a recent creation at all. It also justs combines science and religion with abandon.
- "Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs"
- Want to "prove" that life was created? Cite the opinion of a famous scientist of yesteryear.
Original Experimentation
As of May 2, 2015, there are no new experiments or data represented in the journal.
External criticism
Scientific American[13] and Discover[14] quickly published criticism of the site. Slate[3] and AiG themselves[15] have traded commentary.
See also
References and notes
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/
- ↑ Loosely, as in compltely inaccurately.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 http://www.slate.com/id/2184384
- ↑ "Any author using a pen name or who has a reason for not wanting their biographical details publicized on the AiG website should specifically request this, and their wishes will be respected." from page three of the instructions to authors (large pdf file).
- ↑ Although, quite honestly, if that's the best publishing you can do as an academic, you probably don't deserve tenure. In fact, it may be against some university's policies to publish anonymously work that you supposedly did "in the line of duty".
- ↑ http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/ulrichsweb_news/uu/newTitles.asp?uuMonthlyFile=uu200712/new_titles.txt&Letter=R&navPage=9&
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/arj/instructions-to-authors.pdf page nine.
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/about
- ↑ http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2008/01/11/free-answers-research-journal/
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/microbes-days-of-creation
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/Unification-Theory.pdf
- ↑ http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/which_one_of_you_little_rascal.php
- ↑ http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=news-bytes-mystery-illness-strikes-bats
- ↑ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2008/02/13/inside-a-creationist-journal/
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/02/16/news-to-note-02162008 #5 on the list