Answers in Genesis #fundie

Answers in Genesis #fundie answersingenesis.org

Answers in Genesis is excited to announce the launch of its online technical journal called Answers Research Journal (ARJ). Hosted at www.answersresearchjournal.org (but linked to AiG’s website), this will be a professional peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.

Addressing the need to disseminate the vast fields of research conducted by creationist experts in theology, history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy, and other disciplines of science, Answers Research Journal will provide scientists and students the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,” and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins. The newly expanded research effort at Answers in Genesis, with the establishment of its Research Department, will facilitate this further venue for publication and dissemination of the results of creationist research.

62 comments

old comment by WWWWolf

> from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.
> that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,” and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins.

Look, peer reviewed science has seen damn many revolutions. Just look at physics: the math gets more accurate, the theories and models become more complex. And they don't even look much like the previous iteration.

Are you ready for research that can challenge some pretty fundamental assumptions that you have? In other words, are you ready for some new information?

If you're just "demonstrating the validity" of the "framework", you're not going to get too far when (I was about to say "if", but, ahem, there's this recent research I've heard of that kind of guarantees that questions will be raised) the evidence contradicts it.

Oops, addition, almost forgot:

Be sure you have the right kind of peer review. These guys had some fun with people who had an "informal" peer review process. You don't want to use an "informal" peer review process like those guys. Because that kind of process just isn't very good. ...go ahead, read the site.

old comment by Reverend Jeremiah

"this will be a professional peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research"

Translation - If we use these same words that scientists use, then we will be taken just as seriously as they are..regardless of wether we use the scientific method or not.

"cutting-edge"

I only hear creationists using this slogan so much. Also, how can something be "cutting edge" when the whole point is to do everything possible to prove a 2000 year old myth is correct and everything else is "of da debil".

Where is that "cutting edge" world wide proof of that global flood you mention? There should be MASSIVE amounts of evidence in MANY feilds across the board if that REALLY happened..hey, not a single bit of evidence. Merely local floods here and there, as what was expected of people who reason and use common sense.

How about those "kinds"? When are you fools going to come to a concensus on that one huh? What "kind" is a platypus? How about the differences of "kinds" between whales and hippos? What "kind" is a giraffe? How about the differences of "kind" between Ferrets and Weasels? Are ferrets the "weasel" kind or the "ferret" kind? If so then why call Ferrets ferrets? Why not just call them weasels, since they are the same "kind"? Same with the difference between lions and domestic cats. How about you do some research on basic deffinitions first, because they seem VERY fuzzy to me...

...get back to me on the other stuff AFTER you clear up this whole "kind" definition process...mmmkay.

old comment by Papabear

"Answers in Genesis is excited to announce the launch of its online technical journal called Answers Research Journal (ARJ). ...this will be a professional peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework."

Ha! Good one.

Peer-reviewed? Yeah, I'll bet it's reviewed by Fundie peers of the Fundie author.

AiG using the term "science" is always suspect. They don't understand that science doesn't start out with a conclusion and then search out only evidence which supports that conclusion.

Should be a good source of fodder for the FSTDT mill, though.

old comment by Swede

Science = having a hypothesis, then seeing where it leads you, looking at all possible outcomes, trying to be the first with something completely new.
Creationism = having a goal, then looking for evidence that supports it, while discarding the evidence that debunks it, trying to stay with 2000+ years old myths.

Are there really creationist experts enough to create "vast fields of research"?
Will you also look into the cutting-edge research demonstrating the validity of alchemy, astrology, the existence of Nessie, and comparative studies in holocaust-deniers vs 9/11-deniers.

As others have already said; first come to a consensus as to what constitutes a "kind", then we can discuss the origin of the different kinds of "kinds".