ICR Says Science Journals Censor Creationism

A shocking accusation is being made by the creation scientists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom.

Their article is Do Creation Scientists Publish in Mainstream Journals?, written by Brian Thomas. He’s described at the end of his articles as “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.” This is ICR’s biographical information on him. Here are some excerpts from his article, with bold font added by us:

If ICR scientists are “real” scientists [Hee hee!], then they should publish in respected, peer-reviewed, mainstream journals, right? In fact, many have. But mainstream journal editors’ zeal for naturalism can keep them from fairly analyzing contrasting views on origins — leading them to say “no” to quality creation science.

Egad — the mainstream journals reject “quality creation science.” This is serious! Then we’re told:

Science reviewers and journal editors serve as gatekeepers, closing the gate to prevent bad science from reaching the printed page. For example, they are right to reject a submitted article if its conclusions rest more on speculation than on results. But they can also close the gate for unscientific reasons.

Unscientific reasons? What might those be? Let’s read on:

Mainstream gatekeepers generally maintain a bias against God, His work, and His Word. They therefore can close the publication gate to science that confirms Scripture, regardless of the quality of that science. The problem peaks in historical disciplines where naturalist gatekeepers axe all challenges to their tightly held belief in billions of years of evolution.

Archeology journals show no such bias. They routinely publish articles about excavations at biblical sites — but of course, those don’t involve billions of years. We need something specific. ICR continues:

Take geology, for example. Geologists fit observable rock features into an unobservable rock history. Naturalist geologists strongly favor rock histories that include millions of years, even if they must disregard evidence for recent rock origins. Gatekeepers exercise their anti-Bible bias when they reject manuscripts that challenge uniformitarianism — the belief that the rates and intensities of present processes like erosion, river flows, and seismic activity explain all of geology.

We’re shocked — shocked! This could explain why the journals don’t publish creationist research that confirms the Flood. Does Thomas have any examples? Yes, he mentions one:

I once spoke with a creation geologist who submitted a paper about billions of straight-shelled nautiloid fossils entombed in a single limestone layer that spans several southwestern U.S. states. The mainstream editor replied that he rejected the paper because it implies that a no-longer-present process best explains this titanic rock layer. It seems he was uncomfortable with the idea that only a flood with enough force to affect the whole globe could leave that many sea creatures stranded on a continent beneath that much lime mud.

That’s outrageous! Here’s more:

The mainstream journal PLOS ONE published a paper describing the precise coordination between nerves, muscles, and finger motions in the human hand. Its Chinese authors wrote that this anatomy reflects “proper design by the Creator.” The evolutionary community revolted and forced the journal to retract the paper, which is available online.

We wrote about that a few times — see, for example PLOS Retracts, Discovery Institute Reacts. It’s amusing, but not surprising, to see the Discoveroids and ICR on the same side. Here’s one final excerpt:

Creation research would appear in mainstream journals if naturalist gatekeepers stuck strictly with data and logic. Instead, they also judge work based on evolutionary doctrines like millions of years and an infinite potential for creatures to change from one type to another. For this reason, ICR funds scientific research into origins questions that naturalists wouldn’t dare ask.

ICR is so courageous! What would we do without them?

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

20 responses to “ICR Says Science Journals Censor Creationism

  1. Christine Janis

    Given that creationists hardly publish anything in their own scientific journal (BioComplexity) I’d say that they don’t have much to offer the other scientific ones.

    Did those people who published in PloSONE provide scientific evidence for a creator in their paper, or did they merely present an unsubstantiated opinion?

  2. Shock: Science journals want to publish science! Who’d a thunk it?

    But then, religious journals not only won’t publish science articles that challenge their dogma and scripture, but they also won’t publish religious articles that don’t conform to their particular dogma and scripture.

  3. ICR:
    “— leading them to say “no” to quality creation science.”

    Now there’s an oxymoron for you — “quality creation science”! Can ICR give any examples of what “quality creation science” would look like?

  4. The nautiloid story refers to Steve Austin, a well-known young-earth creationist. I attended a talk he gave at a Geological Society of America (GSA) national conference years ago in which he talked about current-aligned cephalopod fossils in the Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon. The room was packed with curious onlookers, hoping for some drama. Austin played it more-or-less straight, however (unlike the GSA field trip he infamously co-led in the Colorado Springs area – there was much in-your-face creationism during the trip & in the published guidebook), to the disgust of many.

    I wonder why creationists don’t often make a big deal of the Coconino Sandstone in the Grand Canyon? An unambiguous desert sand dune deposit sits a bit above the Redwall Limestone. Yeah – “only a flood with enough force to affect the whole globe” could have formed that. Weapons-grade fail.

  5. Back when I was looking at Jason Lisle’s “solution” to the “Distant Starlight Problem” and also his dr/dt = k/r^6 rate of recession of the Moon’s orbit, I was wondering if Lisle ever considered sending his stuff to, say, Physical Review Letters or, in the case of his explanation of the Moon’s orbital recession, to some astrophysics journal.

    Whenever any real scientist is writing up a paper, he or she is thinking about which journals would give their work the best exposure to the most appropriate audience. What are ID/creationists “PhDs” like Jason Lisle thinking when they write up a paper dealing with “fundamental ideas?”

    I don’t claim to know exactly what goes on inside their heads at these “critical times” in their “thinking,” but I would not be surprised if they have some subliminal sense that they dare not send their stuff to a real scientific journal. They have been bending and breaking scientific concepts to fit with their sectarian dogma for their entire lives; they don’t think the way scientists do.

    They fear scientists and real scientific peer review; but they cover it up with bravado and blame the scientific journals and the scientific community for “expelling” them. They remind me of the kids in middle school that hated the smart kids and wanted to beat them up at any opportunity. There is something about ID/creationist thinking that reminds me of early middle school angst.

  6. Recently creationists have been touting “intuition”. Do they feel that they are being rejected because we all doubt that they have a scientific basis for their views. I suppose that they are outraged that we don’t accept their ideas of “proof”.

  7. The nautiloid story refers to Steve Austin, a well-known young-earth creationist.

    I still can’t escape the thought that this man survived an experimental aircraft accident and was rebuilt as a bionic man at the sum of a whopping six million dollars.

  8. @Christine

    Did those people who published in PloSONE provide scientific evidence for a creator in their paper, or did they merely present an unsubstantiated opinion?

    It was actually the translation from Chinese to English that produced that artifact. The paper wasn’t retracted, it was just rewritten with a more careful translation.

    Of course, the ever literal and persecuted creationists got their temple garments in a twist about it, but it was a very minor and explainable situation.

  9. Brian Thomas tells us:

    I once spoke with a creation geologist who submitted a paper about billions of straight-shelled nautiloid fossils entombed in a single limestone layer that spans several southwestern U.S. states. The mainstream editor replied that he rejected the paper because it implies that a no-longer-present process best explains this titanic rock layer. It seems he was uncomfortable with the idea that only a flood with enough force to affect the whole globe could leave that many sea creatures stranded on a continent beneath that much lime mud.

    It couldn’t be, I suppose, that the paper was rejected because it posited an unobservable process, which by definition is outside the scope of science.

    Funny: creationists constantly huff and puff that what they insist on calling “macroevolution” or “molecules-to-man” evolution isn’t science because it can’t be observed. But when it comes to a magical geological process which somehow supports the notion of Noah’s flood, unobservability suddenly isn’t a problem.

    And yet they complain (whine, really) about bias in mainstream scientific publishing.

  10. While we’re talking about censorship, the Discoveroids’ creationist blog has been inaccessible all day. Either they’ve somehow figure out a way to block me, or the whole internet is ganging up on them.

  11. Looks like the Tooter’s web service is down. “Can’t connect to server.”

    Either maintenance or a bolt from beyond.

  12. Use the break to have a look at the (c)Ark Park this Saturday prime time.

    Not good, is it?

  13. Christine Janis

    @ DocBill. “It was actually the translation from Chinese to English that produced that artifact. The paper wasn’t retracted, it was just rewritten with a more careful translation.”

    Oh yes, I know that, I was just being facetious.
    Meanwhile, if you look at the online comments at PLoS you can see I was one of the first people there, telling them not to retract it so that the creationists couldn’t complain

  14. “It’s Only Science If Republicans Agree With It”

    http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/gop-science

  15. @SC: As of 1738 Eastern time, their server was down and down hard. Can’t even ping it. They’re still on DNS (www.evolutionnews.org still provides an IP address), but a simple ping to their server comes back “unreachable”. Yeah, they’re having a bad day. And on a Sunday, too. It’s as if Their Unnamed Creator (Blessed be he!) was trying to tell them something.

  16. Just in case curious creationists are reading this, current-aligned conical or cylindrical fossils are not rare, but they are not everywhere. I’ve seen current-alignment of various things – nautiloid cephalopods in the Ordovician of Quebec, tentaculites in the Ordovician of the Cincinnatian area, cephalopods in the Ordovician of Iowa, crinoid stems in the Cincinnatian, etc. They are in tempestites (storm deposits). Much of the sedimentary rock record represents storm deposits – this is the concept of neocatastrophism (in contrast to pre-uniformitarianism concept of catastrophism). In shallow marine settings, this does not necessarily mean hurricanes only. In the Bahamas Platform, modern storms that affect sediments are often non-hurricanes.

  17. Gary:
    “It’s as if Their Unnamed Creator (Blessed be he!) was trying to tell them something.”

    Yeah, like maybe He doesn’t like the way the Discoveroids refuse to call Him by name.

  18. @Christine

    Oh yes, I know that, I was just being facetious.

    My Queen. *bows*

  19. 1912 Central Time. Still down. We can only hope.

  20. Charles Deetz ;)

    Aren’t scientific articles iterative, would the creationists be rejected just because their science needs a dozen or more published articles just to confirm their view of science before any new theories/hypothesis/assumptions are considered legit. Their mambo of ‘observable science’ is just as painful a reminder of how much they don’t get how science is done.