Claim CA325:

Creationists cannot get their views accepted by mainstream science because they are prevented from publishing in mainstream scientific journals.

Source:

Response:

1. The priorities of creationism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135,000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism (Scott and Cole 1985).
   
   In the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education creationism trial, the creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.
   
   
2. Creationists are free to publish in other venues, such as books and their own journals. These venues are as reputable as their authors and editors. Note that Darwin's major works were published in books.
   
   
3. Creationists do get published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals when they do real science. For example:
   • Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
   • Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
   • Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
   • Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
   • Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
   • Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
   • Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal für Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)
   
   In addition, many creationists have published science articles not related to creationism.
   
   
4. Scientists themselves are prevented from publishing in peer-reviewed journals when their science is not up to par. The peer-review process prevents lots of substandard work from being published, even from noncreationists such as myself. (The process, of course, is imperfect and produces a substantial borderline area, so some fairly good articles get rejected and some fairly poor ones get accepted. On the whole, however, it keeps quality up.) Creationists face no obstacles that mainstream scientists do not face themselves.
   
   
5. Creationists prevent others from publishing critical views in creationist journals. Glenn Morton, for example, has had papers rejected by the Creation Research Society Quarterly for violating their view that the Flood must be global and for criticizing Carl Froede's poor geology (Morton 1998).

Links:

Flank, Lenny. 1995. Does science discriminate against creationists? http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/discrim.htm

References:

---

---