By David Buckna

In his book The Monkey Business (1982) paleontologist Niles Eldredge wrote that no author who published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly ‘has contributed a single article to any reputable scientific journal’ (p.83). Apparently Eldredge couldn't be bothered to glance at the Science Citation Index or any other major science bibliographic source.

Developmental biologist Willem J. Ouweneel, a Dutch creationist and CRSQ contributor, published a classic and widely cited paper on developmental anomalies in fruit flies (‘Developmental genetics of homoeosis’, Advances in Genetics, 16:179–248, 1976). Herpetologist Wayne Frair, a frequent CRSQ contributor, publishes his work on turtle systematics and serology in such journals as Journal of Herpetology, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, and Herpetologica.

In their study of creationist publishing practices (‘The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation “Science”’, Quarterly Review of Biology 60:21–30, 1985), Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole surveyed the editors of 68 journals for the period from 1980–1983, looking for creationist submissions. Out of an estimated 135,000 submitted papers, Scott and Cole found only 18 that could be described ‘as advocating scientific creationism’ (p.26).

Scott and Cole were not looking for papers like the following: In 1983, the German creationist and microbiologist Siegfried Scherer published a critique of evolutionary theories of the origin of photosynthesis entitled ‘Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport’, Journal of Theoretical Biology 104: 289–299, 1983, one of the journals Scott and Cole surveyed. Only an editor who had a complete roster of European creationists, and the insight to follow the implications of Scherer's argument would have flagged the paper as ‘creationist’.

How many papers did Scott and Cole miss? Let's look at 1984, one year past the end of their survey. Would Scott and Cole have turned up ‘Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer’, by the creationist biochemist Grant Lambert (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107:387–403, 1984)? Lambert argues that without editing enzymes, primitive DNA replication, transcription, and translation would have been swamped by extremely high error rates. But the editing enzymes are themselves produced by DNA.

It’s a brilliant argument for design. Lambert understandably counts on some subtlety and insight from his readers, however. Lambert doesn’t ‘explicitly’ wave his creationist banner, leaving the dilemma as ‘an unresolved problem in theoretical biology’ (p.401). By Scott and Cole’s criteria, such papers don’t really count. By any other reasonable criteria, however, they do.

Dr D. Russell Humphreys, a physicist working for the prestigious Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico (who is involved with the laboratory's particle beam fusion project, concerning thermonuclear fusion energy research) is a board member of the Creation Research Society. He has about 30 published articles in mainstream technical journals from 1968 to the present. In the last eight years a lot of his work has been classified, so there has been less of it in the open literature.

His most recent unclassified publication is a multiple-author article in Review of Scientific Instruments 63(10):5068–5071, October 1992, ‘Comparison of experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFAII thermal source experiments.’ I understand that a more recent unclassified article will be published in the near future.

Here is just a sampling of some of his earlier articles:

‘Inertial confinement fusion with light ion beams’, (Multiple-author) International Atomic Energy Agency, 13th International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Washington D.C., 1–6 October 1990.

‘Progress toward a superconducting opening switch’, (Principal author), Proceedings of 6th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 29 – July 1, 1987) pp. 279–282.

‘Rimfire: a six megavolt laser-triggered gas-filled switch for PBFA II’, (Principal author), Proceedings of 5th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 10–12, 1985) pp. 262–2265.

‘Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons’, (Principal author) International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 34(1):261–268, 1983.

‘The 1/γ velocity dependence of nucleon-nucleus optical potentials’, (Only author) Nuclear Physics, A182:580–592, 1972.

Creationists such as Humphreys have extensive publications in mainstream journals on non-creationist topics. As mentioned previously, the article by Scott & Cole was a search for articles openly espousing creationism, which is a different matter altogether. Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications.

In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had ‘a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.’ Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, ‘It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism.’ This admission is particularly significant since Science’s official letters policy is that they represent ‘the range of opinions ’. e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.

Humphreys’ letter and Ms Gilbert’s reply are reprinted in the book, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)

On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article ‘Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps’ to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn’t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn’t even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a ‘slight bias’ exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.

The Institute for Creation Research published a laymanized version of Humphreys’ article in their Impact series [No. 233, 'Bumps in the Big Bang’, November 1992]. Reference 5 of that article contains information about the Nature submission.

In the 70s and early 80s, physicist Robert Gentry had several articles with very significant creationist data published in mainstream journals (Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc.), but found he couldn’t publish openly creationist conclusions. Gentry had discovered that granites contain microscopic coloration halos produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium. According to evolutionary theory, polonium halos should not be there. Some believe that the existence of polonium halos is scientific evidence that the Earth was created instantaneously.

When Oak Ridge National Laboratories terminated Gentry’s connection with them as a visiting professor (shortly after it became nationally known he is a creationist) the number of his articles slowed down, but he continues to publish.

Another example of blatant discrimination is Scientific American’s refusal to hire Forrest Mims as their ‘Amateur Scientist’ columnist when they found out that he was a creationist, although they admitted that his work was ‘fabulous’, ‘great’ and ‘first rate’. Subsequently Mims invented a new haze detector praised in the ‘Amateur Scientist’ column, without mentioning that Mims was rejected for this very column purely because of religious discimination. So it’s hardly surprising that some creationists write creationist papers under pseudonyms to avoid being victimised by the bigoted establishment. See Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination

Russell Humphreys said in a 1993 interview: ‘I’m part of a fairly large scientific community in New Mexico, and a good number of these are creationists. Many don’t actively belong to any creationist organization. Based on those proportions and knowing the membership of the Creation Research Society, it’s probably a conservative estimate that there are in the US alone around 10,000 practising scientists who are biblical creationists.’ (‘Creation in the Physics Lab’, Creation 15(3):20–23).

Additional information on Dr D. Russell Humphreys:

Dr Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist. For the next 6 years he worked in the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company. Since 1979, he has worked for Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project. Dr Humphreys is an adjunct professor of Geophysics and Astrophysics at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, a Board member of the Creation Research Society and is president of the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico. He is also the author of the book Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, Master Books, 1994 (ISBN 0-89051-202-7) which details his white hole cosmology theory.

One other ICR Impact article by Humphreys can be viewed at: The Earth's Magnetic Field is Young.

Dr Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University author of Darwin’s Black Box, is not even a biblical creationist, but has experienced blatant censorship simply because he highlights the strong evidence for an intelligent designer of life. Like Dr Gentry, he wasn’t even given a chance to respond to his critics — see his Correspondence with Science Journals.

Scientific American refused to allow Phillip Johnson to defend himself against a vindictive and petty review by the atheistic Marxist, Stephen Jay Gould. So Johnson published Response to Gould on the Internet, from Access Research Network.
Another prominent creationist who publishes in mainstream journals is Dr Robert A. Herrmann, professor of mathematics at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

See also the biographies of Dr Don Batten, Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Pierre Jerlström for examples of mainstream scientific publications by full-time CMI scientists.

Source.

Q: Do creation scientists publish in secular journals?

We referred this question to Dr D. Russell Humphreys, a physicist who works at Sandia National Laboratories. Dr Humphreys says he has often had this question put to him. He writes:

Dr D. Russell Humphreys
‘When people ask me this, I feel a certain amount of frustration because of the evolutionist brainwashing in our society which it reveals.

‘Firstly, it shows that the questioner is unaware of the large number of published professional scientists who are creationists. Where I live and work (Albuquerque, New Mexico) there are large numbers of scientists, and I know many who happen to be biblical creationists. Using a simple statistical approach, I would conservatively estimate that in the United States alone, there are around 10,000 practising professional scientists who openly believe in six-day recent creation.

‘Secondly, it suggests that the questioner doesn’t understand what the day-to-day life of a scientist is all about. One could almost say that publication in professional journals is the essence of being a scientist. So asking a man who says he is a scientist if he’s published in secular journals is like asking a man who says he’s married if he’s got a wife!

‘I would therefore reply to such a question ‘Are there any who don’t?’ Every one I know does publish. Even scientists who are full-time in creationist organisations usually have a few such publications, despite the serious disadvantage their institutional connections give them. Although there is strong discrimination against high-profile creationist scientists, most creationist scientists publish non-creationist scientific articles frequently. Moreover, many of them have published data with important creationist implications—but without explicit creationist conclusions, which would point out the significance of the data to the average non-creationist scientist.

‘What about creationist scientists publishing articles, in secular journals, which specifically come to creationist conclusions? The bitter experience of a number of us has made it clear that there is almost no chance that such articles will pass the review process, no matter what their quality. I have also had repeated correspondence with the letters editors of major journals, having submitted brief, well-written items which critiqued published conclusions favourable to long-agers or ‘big-bangers’. These contained no explicit creationist connotations, but I have concluded that, now that I am known as a creationist, such items have virtually no chance of publication.’

That’s why creationists have had to develop their own peer-reviewed journals, such as the Creation Research Society Quarterly and the Journal of Creation. Some creationist scientists are world leaders in their field, like geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner of Los Alamos Laboratories, in the field of plate tectonics [see interview Creation 19(3):40–43, 1997].

Source

I’ve read most of your post and I can see you do not understand evolution or any scientific fact or theory. I just feel bad for the innocent lives you’ve misled and you will still mislead

You’re not only a dangerous liar, you’re also dishonest. First of all there is no peer reviewed paper on creationism

hakeem4:
First of all there is no peer reviewed paper on creationism

In a nutshell, that's exactly what he is saying, though he does not say why, or rather, claims it is because of a bias against creationism. Could it be because creationism is pseudoscience? After all, before one can claim creationism one would have to show evidence for a creator, which, outside the realm of theology, does just not exist!

Nice try Doc!

budaatum:

In a nutshell, that's exactly what he is saying, though he does not say why, or rather, claims it is because of a bias against creationism. Could it be because creationism is pseudoscience? After all, before one can claim creationism one would have to show evidence for a creator, which, outside the realm of theology, does just not exist!

Nice try Doc!

I overrated you, your understanding, and your ability to make logical arguments anyway.

DoctorAlien:


I overrated you, your understanding, and your ability to make logical arguments anyway.

That's ok. It won't be the first time you've been wrong doc.

You never did say. Medical doc or what?

Highlight from the OP:

"In their study of creationist publishing practices (‘The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation “Science”’, Quarterly Review of Biology 60:21–30, 1985), Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole surveyed the editors of 68 journals for the period from 1980–1983, looking for creationist submissions. Out of an estimated 135,000 submitted papers, Scott and Cole found only 18 that could be described ‘as advocating scientific creationism’ (p.26)."

DoctorAlien:
Highlight from the OP:

"In their study of creationist publishing practices (‘The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation “Science”’, Quarterly Review of Biology 60:21–30, 1985), Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole surveyed the editors of 68 journals for the period from 1980–1983, looking for creationist submissions. Out of an estimated 135,000 submitted papers, Scott and Cole found only 18 that could be described ‘as advocating scientific creationism’ (p.26)."

So, the whole premise is that Creationism (Biblical or as a whole?) Can and is also published notable scientific journals?

That's fair.

johnydon22:


So, the whole premise is that Creationism (Biblical or as a whole?) Can and is also published notable scientific journals?

That's fair.

Not exactly. Lemme try to put it better.

First, the author(s) are Christian creationists. So they're most probably talking about Biblical views. But the gist of the OP is that creationist scientist publish in notable journals:

1. Sometimes on topics that are not concerned with origins
2. Sometimes papers that contain solid data that have creationist implications, but without overt creationist conclusions in the paper
3. Sometimes papers that openly promote creation science/scientific creationism. (at least there's the 18 which Eugenie Scott and co found)

But then Creation scientists meet bitter resistance in trying to publish their works in some of these journals. Sometimes their papers, which don't even deal with evolution/creation get rejected simply because they themselves are creationists. We all can see open-mindedness in action.

DoctorAlien:

Not exactly. Lemme try to put it better.

First, the author(s) are Christian creationists. So they're most probably talking about Biblical views. But the gist of the OP is that creationist scientist publish in notable journals:

1. Sometimes on topics that are not concerned with origins
2. Sometimes papers that contain solid data that have creationist implications, but without overt creationist conclusions in the paper
3. Sometimes papers that openly promote creation science/scientific creationism. (at least there's the 18 which Eugenie Scott and co found)

But then Creation scientists meet bitter resistance in trying to publish their works in some of these journals. Sometimes their papers, which don't even deal with evolution/creation get rejected simply because they themselves are creationists. We all can see open-mindedness in action.

Oh, I think it is unfair then to censor any idea and it is dangerously problematic

johnydon22:


Oh, I think it is unfair then to censor any idea and it is dangerously problematic

Even if that idea has no scientist basis? Should just anything be published in a scientific journal then?

budaatum:

Even if that idea has no scientist basis? Should just anything be published in a scientific journal then?

To me, any idea that bears the courage to attempt answering questions that we need to explore should be given an equal platform to be heard according to the merits of its argument.

I do not agree with censorship in anyway.

johnydon22:


To me, any idea that bears the courage to attempt answering questions that we need to explore should be given an equal platform to be heard according to the merits of its argument.

I do not agree with censorship in anyway.

What! Because one is bold one's research should be published? You are aware that scientific research is peer reviewed before publication, right, as in even before publication, one would get someone who knows of the topic to critique it? Should quality not matter?

No scientific journal will publish just anything, especially if it does not meet up to prescribed standards which all scientific journals have. Just as one wouldn't expect to read about gods in a science textbook, so too would one not expect to see god under any guise in a scientific journal unless it is presenting compelling well researched evidence never before heard and according to established scientific standards. But unfortunately, the gods don't seem to do science or stand up against scientific scrutiny.

And its not not published because its about gods and is censored, but because its not usually presented as a scientific paper or according to proper scientific research methods. If it were any good it would eventually be published despite all attempts to censor it. We learnt this from the likes of Copernicus and Galileo both whose works were censored but which eventually did see the light of day.

Crap science will just never get the same consideration as good science gets, fortunately, or someone might just pass pseudoscience off as science. And good science cannot be censored because someone will eventually publish it anyway. Competition is just way too good and thriving to kill off good science, in the long run.

budaatum:

What! Because one is bold one's research should be published?

No. Because it attempts to answer a question which humanity sort answers for.

I remember one Copernicus who in his days was afraid to publish his Heliocentric hypothesis because of the censorship built around the feverish dogma of the geocentric authorities of his days.

I also remember one Monseigneur Georges Lamitre, who was ignored and mostly not taken serious when he first propounded his theory of the primordial or cosmic atom because they thought it sounded too religious.

My stance simply is, no attempt to answer a question should be censored, it only should be left to the merits of its argument to either convince you or otherwise.

When you start to hush and censor contradicting ideas in the name of science, something has gone horribly wrong.

johnydon22:

No. Because it attempts to answer a question which humanity sort answers for.

I remember one Copernicus who in his days was afraid to publish his Heliocentric hypothesis because of the censorship built around the feverish dogma of the geocentric authorities of his days.

I also remember one Monseigneur Georges Lamitre, who was ignored and mostly not taken serious when he first propounded his theory of the primordial or cosmic atom because they thought it sounded too religious.

My stance simply is, no attempt to answer a question should be censored, it only should be left to the merits of it's argument to either convince you or otherwise.

When you start to hush and censor contradicting ideas in the name of science, something has gone horribly wrong.

You are so different from much of these atheists. You seem to understand far better than most of them.

I applaud this response.

johnydon22:

No. Because it attempts to answer a question which humanity sort answers for.

I remember one Copernicus who in his days was afraid to publish his Heliocentric hypothesis because of the censorship built around the feverish dogma of the geocentric authorities of his days.

I also remember one Monseigneur Georges Lamitre, who was ignored and mostly not taken serious when he first propounded his theory of the primordial or cosmic atom because they thought it sounded too religious.

My stance simply is, no attempt to answer a question should be censored, it only should be left to the merits of it's argument to either convince you or otherwise.

When you start to hush and censor contradicting ideas in the name of science, something has gone horribly wrong.

Well, no one is censoring. As I said, we've learnt a lot since Copernicus when there was only one 'journal'. There's quite a lot published out there one way or the other and a lot of competing journals today, and those who do research know to fight their case just as those who would censor know one can always go elsewhere. No one would publish a bad attempt to answer a question though as there's only so many journal pages and so few of us would bother to read or peer review a bad attempt which wouldn't be the case if it were any good and especially if it did "answer a question which humanity sort answers for". We humans are just way too curious and greedy for the case to be otherwise. And don't forget that there's also the choice of publishing one's "answer to a question which humanity sort answers for" in a book by oneself and selling it to great personal reward. If it's any good it's bound to sell well and cause waves, and if it's not, it's as damp as squid. An appropriate case of the fittest surviving, I guess. But no one says it must be easy or I might just go work some on my ludicrous two shoulders four head not exactly theory.

DoctorAlien:
By David Buckna

In his book The Monkey Business (1982) paleontologist Niles Eldredge wrote that no author who published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly ‘has contributed a single article to any reputable scientific journal’ (p.83). Apparently Eldredge couldn't be bothered to glance at the Science Citation Index or any other major science bibliographic source.

Developmental biologist Willem J. Ouweneel, a Dutch creationist and CRSQ contributor, published a classic and widely cited paper on developmental anomalies in fruit flies (‘Developmental genetics of homoeosis’, Advances in Genetics, 16:179–248, 1976). Herpetologist Wayne Frair, a frequent CRSQ contributor, publishes his work on turtle systematics and serology in such journals as Journal of Herpetology, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, and Herpetologica.

In their study of creationist publishing practices (‘The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation “Science”’, Quarterly Review of Biology 60:21–30, 1985), Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole surveyed the editors of 68 journals for the period from 1980–1983, looking for creationist submissions. Out of an estimated 135,000 submitted papers, Scott and Cole found only 18 that could be described ‘as advocating scientific creationism’ (p.26).

Scott and Cole were not looking for papers like the following: In 1983, the German creationist and microbiologist Siegfried Scherer published a critique of evolutionary theories of the origin of photosynthesis entitled ‘Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport’, Journal of Theoretical Biology 104: 289–299, 1983, one of the journals Scott and Cole surveyed. Only an editor who had a complete roster of European creationists, and the insight to follow the implications of Scherer's argument would have flagged the paper as ‘creationist’.

How many papers did Scott and Cole miss? Let's look at 1984, one year past the end of their survey. Would Scott and Cole have turned up ‘Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer’, by the creationist biochemist Grant Lambert (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107:387–403, 1984)? Lambert argues that without editing enzymes, primitive DNA replication, transcription, and translation would have been swamped by extremely high error rates. But the editing enzymes are themselves produced by DNA.

It’s a brilliant argument for design. Lambert understandably counts on some subtlety and insight from his readers, however. Lambert doesn’t ‘explicitly’ wave his creationist banner, leaving the dilemma as ‘an unresolved problem in theoretical biology’ (p.401). By Scott and Cole’s criteria, such papers don’t really count. By any other reasonable criteria, however, they do.

Dr D. Russell Humphreys, a physicist working for the prestigious Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico (who is involved with the laboratory's particle beam fusion project, concerning thermonuclear fusion energy research) is a board member of the Creation Research Society. He has about 30 published articles in mainstream technical journals from 1968 to the present. In the last eight years a lot of his work has been classified, so there has been less of it in the open literature.

His most recent unclassified publication is a multiple-author article in Review of Scientific Instruments 63(10):5068–5071, October 1992, ‘Comparison of experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFAII thermal source experiments.’ I understand that a more recent unclassified article will be published in the near future.

Here is just a sampling of some of his earlier articles:

‘Inertial confinement fusion with light ion beams’, (Multiple-author) International Atomic Energy Agency, 13th International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Washington D.C., 1–6 October 1990.

‘Progress toward a superconducting opening switch’, (Principal author), Proceedings of 6th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 29 – July 1, 1987) pp. 279–282.

‘Rimfire: a six megavolt laser-triggered gas-filled switch for PBFA II’, (Principal author), Proceedings of 5th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 10–12, 1985) pp. 262–2265.

‘Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons’, (Principal author) International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 34(1):261–268, 1983.

‘The 1/γ velocity dependence of nucleon-nucleus optical potentials’, (Only author) Nuclear Physics, A182:580–592, 1972.

Creationists such as Humphreys have extensive publications in mainstream journals on non-creationist topics. As mentioned previously, the article by Scott & Cole was a search for articles openly espousing creationism, which is a different matter altogether. Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications.

In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had ‘a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.’ Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, ‘It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism.’ This admission is particularly significant since Science’s official letters policy is that they represent ‘the range of opinions ’. e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.

Humphreys’ letter and Ms Gilbert’s reply are reprinted in the book, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)

On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article ‘Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps’ to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn’t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn’t even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a ‘slight bias’ exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.

The Institute for Creation Research published a laymanized version of Humphreys’ article in their Impact series [No. 233, 'Bumps in the Big Bang’, November 1992]. Reference 5 of that article contains information about the Nature submission.

In the 70s and early 80s, physicist Robert Gentry had several articles with very significant creationist data published in mainstream journals (Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc.), but found he couldn’t publish openly creationist conclusions. Gentry had discovered that granites contain microscopic coloration halos produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium. According to evolutionary theory, polonium halos should not be there. Some believe that the existence of polonium halos is scientific evidence that the Earth was created instantaneously.

When Oak Ridge National Laboratories terminated Gentry’s connection with them as a visiting professor (shortly after it became nationally known he is a creationist) the number of his articles slowed down, but he continues to publish.

Another example of blatant discrimination is Scientific American’s refusal to hire Forrest Mims as their ‘Amateur Scientist’ columnist when they found out that he was a creationist, although they admitted that his work was ‘fabulous’, ‘great’ and ‘first rate’. Subsequently Mims invented a new haze detector praised in the ‘Amateur Scientist’ column, without mentioning that Mims was rejected for this very column purely because of religious discimination. So it’s hardly surprising that some creationists write creationist papers under pseudonyms to avoid being victimised by the bigoted establishment. See Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination

Russell Humphreys said in a 1993 interview: ‘I’m part of a fairly large scientific community in New Mexico, and a good number of these are creationists. Many don’t actively belong to any creationist organization. Based on those proportions and knowing the membership of the Creation Research Society, it’s probably a conservative estimate that there are in the US alone around 10,000 practising scientists who are biblical creationists.’ (‘Creation in the Physics Lab’, Creation 15(3):20–23).

Additional information on Dr D. Russell Humphreys:

Dr Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist. For the next 6 years he worked in the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company. Since 1979, he has worked for Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project. Dr Humphreys is an adjunct professor of Geophysics and Astrophysics at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, a Board member of the Creation Research Society and is president of the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico. He is also the author of the book Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, Master Books, 1994 (ISBN 0-89051-202-7) which details his white hole cosmology theory.

One other ICR Impact article by Humphreys can be viewed at: The Earth's Magnetic Field is Young.

Dr Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University author of Darwin’s Black Box, is not even a biblical creationist, but has experienced blatant censorship simply because he highlights the strong evidence for an intelligent designer of life. Like Dr Gentry, he wasn’t even given a chance to respond to his critics — see his Correspondence with Science Journals.

Scientific American refused to allow Phillip Johnson to defend himself against a vindictive and petty review by the atheistic Marxist, Stephen Jay Gould. So Johnson published Response to Gould on the Internet, from Access Research Network.
Another prominent creationist who publishes in mainstream journals is Dr Robert A. Herrmann, professor of mathematics at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

See also the biographies of Dr Don Batten, Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Pierre Jerlström for examples of mainstream scientific publications by full-time CMI scientists.

Source.

Wow!! This brought back memories, my brother. It reminded me of when apologetics was an exciting sport. Good one.

Unfortunately, atheists are liars, not just any kind of liars, but the kind that is not ashamed to lie about what is obvious, so this does not really make much of a difference. It only works - as all of our defense against their incredible lies - to expose their hypocrisy.

I also agree that johnydon22 (pardon my mentioning you if it offends you, sir) is a special specimen among their number, but I don't share the enthusiasm you have about him. Being an atheist takes a very unique approach to life and reality. It is a very conscious decision to reject what is obvious in favor of insane fantasies that one then defends with a manic fervor that bewilders anyone else listening to them.

As for the other one, I don't know if I know a more dishonest person on Nairaland. The shorter the conversation with him/her, the better.

Ihedinobi3:

Wow!! This brought back memories, my brother. It reminded me of when apologetics was an exciting sport. Good one.

Unfortunately, atheists are liars, not just any kind of liars, but the kind that is not ashamed to lie about what is obvious, so this does not really make much of a difference. It only works - as all of our defense against their incredible lies - to expose their hypocrisy.

I also agree that johnydon22 (pardon my mentioning you if it offends you, sir) is a special specimen among their number, but I don't share the enthusiasm you have about him. Being an atheist takes a very unique approach to life and reality. It is a very conscious decision to reject what is obvious in favor of insane fantasies that one then defends with a manic fervor that bewilders anyone else listening to them.

As for the other one, I don't know if I know any more dishonest person on Nairaland. The shorter the conversation with him/her, the better.

Bro. It's great and exciting to see you again. Yeah. I agree with you so much that this looks like it's not gonna make much difference with the situation of the atheists. I also totally agree with you that the main thing is to continue to lay open their hypocrisies to everyone, and especially the unsuspecting.

I had to applaud johny's response because it was just in line with proper reasoning. Johny is also a kind of fresh air when it comes to arguments atheists on this forum. Sure, I don't approve of his atheism, but on the line of being honest with arguments, he stands ahead of a lot of them.

DoctorAlien:


Bro. It's great and exciting to see you again. Yeah. I agree with you so much that this looks like it's not gonna make much difference with the situation of the atheists. I also totally agree with you that the main thing is to continue to lay open their hypocrisies to everyone, and especially the unsuspecting.

I had to applaud johny's response because it was just in line with proper reasoning. Johny is also a kind of fresh air when it comes to arguments atheists on this forum. Sure, I don't approve of his atheism, but on the line of being honest with arguments, he stands ahead of a lot of them.

It is always refreshing to see you and read your posts, my dear brother.

As for johnydon22, I agree with you. Unfortunately, this sort of thing also serves to prevent people like him from embracing the Truth. They follow a morality of their own making, and when they are applauded for it, it only confirms (that is, hardens) them in their error. It reminds me of the man to whom the Lord Himself said that he was not far from the Kingdom of God. This was certainly true, but if he went on to get saved, the Scriptures do not tell us. Compare Simon the magician who even after believing still missed the point of the Faith and thought to buy the Holy Spirit with money. The chastisement he received from Peter set him straight.

But I don't take issue with you on commending his behavior. Good behavior is good even when it comes from the wrong heart or attitude. Perhaps your acknowledgement of his will help to steer him toward the Truth, but I suppose I just wanted to warn you to maintain your alert even around him, because no matter what concessions and what allowances they make, an unbeliever who chooses to blind themselves to the reality of God is never going to be less than a terrible danger to a believer.

I see you too Ihedinobi3.

.