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.