Quote# 24500

IJCR is a professional peer-reviewed journal of interdisciplinary scientific research that presents evidence for recent creation within a biblical framework.

Addressing the need to disseminate the vast field of research conducted by experts in geology, genetics, astronomy, and other disciplines of science, IJCR provides scientists and students hard data based on cutting-edge research that demonstrates the young earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of the species, and other evidences that correlate to the biblical accounts.

[includes links to Call for Papers, and to their unscientific Peer Review process]

Institute for Creation Research, Institute for Creation Research Graduate School 36 Comments [5/1/2007 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: fuzon

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom

The Watcher

I love the peer review process; if papers don't support the outcome they're looking for, they get rejected.

5/1/2007 12:44:15 AM


Because if we hang enough scientific jargon on it, the Bible will miraculously turn into science!

5/1/2007 12:55:35 AM


I'm assuming that in this case \"peer\" means other creationists?

5/1/2007 12:55:41 AM


That's some scientific scruiteny they have ::puke::;

5/1/2007 12:58:18 AM

Old Viking

Next time you come up with something good and it passes a creationist peer review, why not toss it out into the general scientific community? You know, just for fun.

5/1/2007 1:14:35 AM

Bunyip Girl

A peer reviewed journal alright, where all your peers are crackpots too.

5/1/2007 1:20:01 AM


I looked under their admissions page, it costs $8,500.00 to got there. And my guess is that that is $8,500 not well spent.

5/1/2007 1:25:07 AM


I'm going to love to see their paper on how the Earth is not only flat but is supported by four elephants ridding a turtle in an endless ocean.

5/1/2007 1:27:34 AM

Captain Janeway

Peer reviewed? I can't stop laughing!!!

5/1/2007 1:42:56 AM


Its reviewed by their peers in the creationist movement. THem not being scientists and not being able to grasp the scientific method, its pretty pointless.

Hey, if I make a \"violent video game\"(just to maximize the piss-off factor) and then let it review by my peers (fellow gamemakers), does that make a peer-reviewed video game?

5/1/2007 2:37:55 AM


Except the scientific method doesn't include deciding on an outcome before examining the evidence. Any scientist who works within such restrictions is not a real scientist. Therfore, any \"peer-review\" done by such scientists is invalid.

5/1/2007 4:19:00 AM


You know, peer review means the reviewers should be people that don't already agree with you.

5/1/2007 4:44:22 AM


See? YEC DO have a sense of humour.
They're SERIOUS?
*runs away screaming

5/1/2007 5:15:22 AM


It´s a journal where they use demagogy and profit in the lack of knowledge of the people to make them believe that God made the world in six days, but not looking like crackpots.

5/1/2007 7:10:38 AM


To quote Bender:
'Oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder'.

5/1/2007 7:35:02 AM


is this a gonna become a fundy equivelent for FSTDT, coz if so, ive found me new trolling grounds

5/1/2007 9:18:20 AM

richard skidmark

\"four elephants ridding a turtle\"

It's turtles all the way down!!

5/1/2007 12:12:04 PM


Peer-reviewed ONLY by the peers that agree with you. Like goldfish swimming around in a fishbowl surrounded by an ocean of hungry sharks. Pathetic.

5/1/2007 1:03:41 PM


Creation science isn't real science.

5/1/2007 3:19:12 PM


As a scientist, I take personal offence to this joke of a journal and it's self-congratulatory, biased, unscientific publishing. Although, presumably, only other creationists are going to read it.

5/1/2007 3:29:56 PM


Yet more evidence YECs have to be some of the stupidest people on the planet.

5/1/2007 4:52:29 PM


On a related note, Newt Gingrich thinks that cash prizes are a workable alternative to the peer review process (the one that actually does work).

I can't begin to describe why this is a bad idea, Newt.

5/1/2007 7:14:05 PM


There was definately a \"global flood\" Thats why all other ancient cultures remember it so vividly its like it happened yesterday

5/1/2007 10:55:50 PM


Peer review? What kind of peer review is it if you only ask people who agree with you? Check TalkOrigins for legitimate scientific objections to almost everything published by IJCR. How many of these objections get answered before publication? Read the somewhat humorous account of attempts to get creationist Duane Gish to provide sources for some of his claims.

5/2/2007 12:11:42 AM


There isn't a single \"professional peer-reviewed\" journal in existence that calls for paper sumbissions over the internet. The very idea is laughable.

5/2/2007 1:27:52 AM

1 2 | top: comments page