This journal upset Evolutionists
Joel Kontinen
Answers in Genesis launched a new peer reviewed online journal in January and promptly received comments from an unexpected source - the science journal Nature. Originally set up by T. H. Huxley and other Darwinists to be a voice for evolution, it is still staunchly committed to a naturalistic view of origins. For instance, in a recent editorial Nature stated that evolution was a scientific fact just like atoms or Earth’s revolution round the moon.
Faithful to its anti-creationist stance, Nature made a distinction between science and “science” in its comments. The article put the word science in quotes when referring to the AIG journal. It seems that by their definition everything that smacks of criticism of Darwinism cannot be regarded as genuine science.
The Nature article included the views of two well-known evolutionists. Keith Miller, a theistic evolutionist, admitted that this was not the first peer reviewed creationist publication. Indeed, Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)has been published for over 40 years and the Journal of Creation for 22 years. Miller emphasised the need to “educate non-scientists about the scientific process”. Creationists would agree, provided this is not Orwellenianese for “indoctrination”.
Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the pro-evolution National Center for Science Education, who has previously admitted that bringing up alternatives to Darwinian evolution tends to confuse students, claims that publications like the Answers Research Journal are part of an ongoing battle to exclude science from local curricula. This statement has nothing to do with the truth, since no creationist would dream of putting an end to science.
Contrary to what Nature claims, creationists do not want to “discourage the teaching of evolution.” More evolution should be taught, not as dogma but with warts and all. As AIG, ICR, CMI and other creationist organisations have shown, there is much to write about in evolution.
2009 is a momentous year for evolutionists the world over. Not only do they celebrate Darwin’s 200th birthday, but it will also be 150 years since the publishing of the Origin of Species. Might the Darwinists be a little scared that some dissidents will spoil their nice birthday party? At least Eugenie Scott conceded, “Creation science is alive and well and appealing to a substantial minority of the American public.” She could as well have included that its influece is by no means restricted to the US.
Nature’s peer review might be in need of an update. Geoff Brumfiel, who wrote the article, defined intelligent design as “a belief that a higher being shaped evolution”. While some ID supporters might accept this interpretation, many others would disagree.
You can read more about Answers Research Journal here.
For a more intelligent definition of intelligent design read this.
You can read an analysis of this panic here.
Sources:
Brumfield, Geoff . 2008. Creationists launch ‘science’ journal. Nature 451:7178, 382-383.
Luskin, Casey. 2008. Nature Fulfilling Its Charter to Defend Evolution at all Costs. Evolution News and views. 11. 1. 2008. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/01/nature_fulfilling_its_charter.html#more
Nature 2008. Spread the word. Evolution is a scientific fact and every organisation whose research depends on it should explain why. Nature 451:7175, 108.
Posts
