Creationism Gets Peer-Review?

2008-02-18T23:35:00.000-08:00

The Christian apologetics organization Answers in Genesis has sent out a call for papers for a new journal on "creation science," their Answers Research Journal. While they do not explicitly state the reason, one would assume that they are attempting to create a forum whereby they can answer the question, "Where are your peer-reviewed sources?" and thereby lend credibility to their claims.

A document entitled "Instructions to Authors Manual" (PDF) is publically available, so I decided to take a look at it. It reveals a number of signifcant differences between this publication and other scientifc journals. Following are some of the more obvious contrasts.

A legitimate scientific journal does not filter based on ideology, but only based on evidence. From the Answers Research Journal "Instructions to Authors Manual," the criteria for acceptance include the following:

Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?

By this guideline, any paper in support of old-earth creationism would be rejected. They are not just looking for creationism, but a specific form of creationism.

By extension of this guideline, this journal lacks one of the touchstones of all legitimate science journals: the expert rebuttal. Take a look at a recent issue of Science or Nature (available at most public libraries) and you will see that debate is encouraged through rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. It is only through this kind of discourse that any progress is achieved.

Tellingly, however, the "journal" demands a rebuttal to any old-universe cosmology, while disallowing the reciprocal view. From the criteria:

If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?

And what is the filtering ideology?

Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture? [...] The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand.

So submissions are beholden not just to the constraints of "Scripture," but to a specific interpretation of scripture as determined by Answers in Genesis. I cannot imagine a more glaring conflict of interests.

That in itself is a huge reason to reject out-of-hand any article appearing in the journal from the realm of science, but there's more. From the aforementioned manual:

Along with your first draft send to the editor-in-chief a completed Suggested Reviewers Form. List at least three (3) names of experts in the field of your paper’s topic.

Yes, you read that right: authors actually get to choose exactly who will be "reviewing" their submissions.

Oh, and one more thing: authors need not reveal their identity.

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.

So any claims about a supposed "scientist's" credentials will be unverifiable to the general public.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Answers Research Journal does not care about academic standards or the scientific method at all; merely about dissemination of religion in the guise of science, targeted at non-scientists, to further a religious and political agenda. It is a farce and deserves to be treated as such.

Naturally Selectable

Creationism Gets Peer-Review?