Or are they not published in reputable journals because they are bogus?
2007-09-28 01:33:04 · 16 answers · asked by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It's not published because it doesn't fit the personal agenda of the editor(s).
2007-09-28 02:43:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
2
2007-09-28 08:46:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Reputable scientific journals don't publish propaganda.
I strongly recommend to anyone interested in this topic that you go to the library and skim through a few issues of the journal "Nature". Many of the creationist strawman arguments will dissolve before your eyes.
2007-09-28 08:46:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Somehow I can't see a reputable Science publication such as Nature publishing a inane creationist article about Noah's Ark.
2007-09-28 08:42:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I would say the second one. What reputable journal would publish something so bizarre and absurd as being true - other than a religious one.
2007-09-28 08:38:41 · answer #5 · answered by HP 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Reputable scientific journals publish actual scientific work: experiments and repeatable observations which amount to actual evidence. Creationists have yet to produce any. If they did, they would be published. They haven't.
2007-09-28 08:38:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Definately the second.
Creationism would have to start with an observation, work through a hypothesis and find evidence to support their claim before they could even be regarded as an actual theory. Now they're just a wild-a** guess. No valid observations, no workable hypothesis based on the observation, and only "evidence" in bad logic and trying to refute evolution.
2007-09-28 08:38:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Because they are bogus and know none of it will pass peer review. That's why they make appeals to the court of public opinion and write books that belong in the religion section.
2007-09-28 08:37:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Both along with that what they publish, at least from the apologetic and "science" sides are dated and in some cases blatant misunderstandings.
2007-09-28 08:38:03 · answer #9 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The 2nd. There are many valid theories that are first proposed in other mediums. Darwin, for example, wrote a book.
The fact that they still haven't been able to enter an article in a peer-reviewed journal...Maybe Ben Stein will answer this one...
2007-09-28 08:40:13 · answer #10 · answered by Eleventy 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋