Ek was eenkeer in ’n debat met ’n ateïs (No Proof for Evolution). Een van sy groot argumente teen skeppingsleer is dat ons artikels nie eweknie geëvalueer (“peer review”) is nie en nie in sekulêre tydskrifte verskyn nie. Dus is skeppingsleerders se inligting onder verdenking.

Terloops, dieselfde argument word ook soms gebruik vir die sogenaamde “Climategate” kwessie – dat globale verwarming eintlik nie ’n probleem is nie[1]. ’n Joernalis het al die volgende aan my gesê: “Die kort antwoord is dat die wetenskaplikes se navorsing wat klimaatsverandering agv CO₂ voorstaan in gesaghebbende peer reviewed tydskrifte soos Nature en New Scientist verskyn, en ’n UN paneel van die voorste wetenskaplikes in die veld van oral insluitend SA (meer as 600) gevind het dit is omtrent 100% seker dat CO₂ verantwoordelik is. Dit teenoor geen artikels in die gesaghebbende wetenskap tydskrifte wat die teendeel bewys. Ek is bevrees die denialists se argumente leef net op die internet en in debatte wat hulleself skep.”

Ek het egter nie ’n sterk mening hieroor nie omdat ek te min weet, maar indien dit wel eendag bewys word dat globale verwarming nie waar is nie, gaan hierdie baie gebruik word in die skepping-evolusie debat om te wys hoe baie mense aan die neus gelei kan word deur ’n leuen wat voorgehou word as wetenskap. Die feit dat daar alreeds soveel mense verskil oor hierdie kwessie en dat hulle hulle argumente met wetenskaplike feite voorlê, bewys eintlik alreeds dat die wetenskap nie altyd ’n eksakte wetenskap is nie, maak nie saak wat die uitslag van hierdie debat is nie :-). Wetenskap is gewoonlik net eksak wanneer met operasionele wetenskap gewerk word[2].

Kyk die artikel Creationism, Science and Peer Review wat die kwessie van eweknie-evaluering bespreek. Dit is eintlik skokkend wat soms in die wetenskapswêreld gebeur. Dit is glad nie so ’n objektiewe besigheid soos ’n mens dink nie. Ek haal slegs die volgende aan:

Again, the exact same tactics are used against creationist scientists. In fact, in most cases, letters from creationists to the journal are often refused outright. Indeed, such prejudice is openly admitted and defended by Karl Giberson, editor of Research News & Opportunities in Science and Theology:

‘If an editor chooses to publish a hostile review of a book, common politeness would suggest that the author ought to have some space to respond. But editors have a “higher calling” than common politeness, namely the editorial mission and guidelines that inform every decision as to what will be printed and what will be rejected. I have learned, since becoming the editor of Research News, common politeness is often in tension with editorial priorities … In my editorial judgment, the collection of ideas known as “scientific creationism” (which is not the same as intelligent design) lacks the credibility to justify publishing any submissions that we get from its adherents. I would go even further, in fact. The collection of creationist ideas (6,000 year old earth, no common ancestry, all the fossils laid down by Noah’s flood, Genesis creation account read literally, etc.) has been so thoroughly discredited by both scientific and religious scholarship that I think it is entirely appropriate for Research News to print material designed to move our readers away from this viewpoint. For example, we might publish a negative review of a book promoting scientific creationism … while refusing to allow the author a chance to respond. Is this an unfair bias? Or is it proper stewardship of limited editorial resources?’(My onderstreping)

Net ’n opmerking oor die stelling: “The collection of creationist ideas… has been so thoroughly discredited…”: As dit waar is, hoekom mors hy “waardevolle” hulpbronne om dit steeds te weerlê?

Vir meer oor hierdie kwessie, kyk:

• Discrimination against creation scientists (and ID advocates) (Lys van ander artikels.)
• Doppler toppler?
• Darwinian thought police strike again (Guillermo Gonzalez)
• Hoekom is daar soveel wetenskaplikes wat aan evolusie glo? (Daniel Louw)

Voetnotas

[1] Vir meer oor CMI se siening oor aardverwarming, kyk The ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’ Debate en Researcher speaks up on pressure to conform. Vir nog meer, soek vir “climate change” op www.creation.com.

[2] Kyk Science Questions and Answers onder “What is the difference between ‘operational’ (or ‘normal’) science and ‘origins’ science?” en Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’? of It’s not science.

Is die skepping-evolusie kwessie belangrik?

Die volgende is aangehaal uit From (theistic) evolution to creation:

Prof. Rendle-Short is acutely aware of the harm done to Christianity by evolutionary compromises. Some years ago he met a pastor who, on finding that Prof was now a ‘full on’ creationist, reacted strongly. He said that many years ago, he had heard Prof espouse theistic evolution. This had started this pastor on a downhill road which, he exclaimed, ‘nearly destroyed my faith.’

Kyk ook die effek wat evolusie-misleidings gehad het:

“’I have every sympathy with those Christians of a past generation who felt compelled to try to find a way to cope with evolution. For them, there seemed to be very little choice—all the science they were told of pointed to evolution—the alleged long age of the earth, Piltdown man, and so on.’”

“Sadly, Piltdown man, a cleverly conceived hoax which seemed to have been a powerful influencing factor in Arthur Rendle Short’s acceptance of evolution, was only revealed as a fraud in December 1953, some two months after Prof’s father died.”