Sunday, March 26, 2006

Lack of any Peer Reviewed Publication of Evolutionary Articles Keeps Naturalism Stuck in the Primordial Soup.

After exhaustively reviewing some of the worlds major peer reviewed journal publications such as The Journal of Christian Apologetics, Philosophia Christi, Faith and Philosophy, and Bibliotheca Sacra, I found that there is hardly an instant where evolutionary articles (from a purely naturalistic point of view) regarding science, sociology, or philosophy have received any publication worthy of note (other than an article here or there for the purpose of critical analysis). Neither these prestigious journals, nor outstanding peer reviewed blogsites such as UncommonDescent.com, IDTheFuture.com, or EvolutionNews.org, have seen fit to publish any work at length from the naturalistic/evolutionist camp (for any reason other than critical analysis, anyways).

If evolutionists want the Intelligent Design community to start thinking that naturalistic-evolution is viable scientific theory, then much publication in the aforementioned peer reviewed literature must be achieved by the evolutionary scholars in order for that kind of acceptance to take place. Until then, naturalistic evolution will be seen as just a fringe player in the general scheme of scientific inquiry and would be better off just calling a tow-truck to assist them in emerging from the primordial ooze in which they are stuck.

(That is, unless they can come up with a plausible pathway from that primordial goo, to the zoo, to you---that is testable and verifiable.)

Like they say...publish or perish.

7 Comments:

Anonymous Justin said...

But they do have a tooth or two from an ancient pig...I mean, uh, ancient man...so there.

4:53 AM  
Blogger Qualiatative said...

hahahaha

8:40 PM  
Anonymous M. Harper said...

Your satire and irony are funny, but I tend to think they (naturalistic/evolutionists) are right to an extent. That does not eliminate them from broadening there scope of reading, though.

8:11 AM  
Blogger Ed Darrell said...

You guys really don't get the idea of evidence, do you.

No, there's not much about evolution in some Christian journals. But if one were to take a juried journal such as Nature, one would find articles demonstrating five or six separate species of biped between modern man and the last common ancestor with the other great apes; another dozen or so articles describing separate species would be found in Science and major anthropology and paleontology journals.

So, while you might mock the sad case of the Christians who mistook an ancient pig's tooth for a hominid tooth (without giving a whit of thought as to why a human dentist, and Christian, might easily make such an error), the scientists have a score of species identified for real, with dozens or thousands of specimens in each species.

It's not easy to avoid all reality, but it is possible. But, why would one wish to do that?

8:31 PM  
Blogger davis said...

Ed,

I was tempted to delete that last comment because there was a bitter tone to it and quite frankly, from what I have seen at other blogs, you tend to be in league with most internet trolls. Then I read your comment again, and read Sal's blog post, and realized that you are the one who doesn't get it. Sal's post was written in part tongue-in-cheek, and and can rightly be considered a satirical post. Obviously you did not get that. Do you write to the editors of 'The Onion' often with similar snide comments like the ones you posted here? Too funny! Nevertheless, I've decided to let you stick around contingent on your continual inability to really get it, which makes me laugh. God bless!

-Davis

3:46 AM  
Blogger Mike Godfrey said...

Hi Guys,
I am still amazed at the old positivist attitude that Science is objective and not in any way subject to the bias of the Scientist.
Why is there little in the way of articles regarding Intelligent design ?Why is there little in the way of research being done regarding intelligent design? The answer is simple ....Bias!People wedded to a Naturalistic viewpoint-its ok to subscibe to that viewpoint -just don't pretend that its objective,neutral, passive data collection and interpretation that drives naturalistic evolution -cause it aint!
Other than that -this article is funny.

2:29 PM  
Anonymous Yao Ming said...

This... Is... Brilliant...

5:38 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home