ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

I think this comment is a bit unfair. Which journal are you referring to? Yes the main YEC journals (J of C, CRSQ) will only publish articles that defend a YEC view. I don’t see why that is a problem

jhappel,

I appreciate your concern and criticism. I did not mean to be unfair. I am interested in furthering YEC theory by making the YEC community aware of the serious issues it must solve, and there are many.

I do not think the YEC cause is served well by only allowing serious criticisms to come from YEC quarters. Even if a question or problem was posed because someone has evil intent, the empirical and theoretical question remains. Dismissing the objection on grounds that it’s unbiblical will reinforce the perceptions that YEC is indefensible on theoretical and empirical grounds. I do not think such dismissals are consistent with 1 Pet 3:15.

If YEC is true, then nature points firmly to Christianity as the one true religion. I think there is a good chance that God delights to ordain nature to make that conclusion inescapble to empirical science.

As Solomon said, there is a time and place for everything. In the church we gather together based on common beliefs and creeds. We encourage members to leave who do not share our creed. I think a case can be made that it is unwise (perhaps even inconsistent with what God would have us do) to run a scientific enterprise like a church.

I just got back to the weblog. Please accept my apologies for my delay in clearing your last comment from the spam buffer.

Salvador

What sort of help are you looking for?

I think this comment is a bit unfair. Which journal are you referring to? Yes the main YEC journals (J of C, CRSQ) will only publish articles that defend a YEC view. I don’t see why that is a problem since there are hundreds of secular journals available for scientists to publish articles that argue against a YEC view. However, I feel both journals have done a good job of letting YECs that hold to opposing theories dialogue. Some recent examples are here.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4509/
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1594
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp
The latest CRSQ printed a sharp critique by John Whitmore on a previous CRSQ article.

Most creationists journal will not pass something written favorable to Old Earth or Darwinists. But this scientific research is not about evangelizing or persuading, it is about dealing with tough questions and finding answers. YEC theory will advance by allowing criticism, it will be hindered to the extent it evades and supresses it. YECs will not solve problems with YEC theory unless they are willing to first acknowledge these problems exist.

YECs are not suppressing problems. I have subscribed to both CRSQ and J of C for over 6 years and have read many technical monographs from the CRSQ. I rarely see the case overstated or tough questions ignored. However, its clear they hold scripture to a higher authority than man’s ability to understand how God created through scientific investigation. This is were I agree with them and where many ID supporters and OECs would differ. Science is a fallible enterprise especially in areas that are unobservable and unrepeatable. There are many YEC theories that are little more than untestable speculation. But sometimes thats the best we can do due to the limitations of understanding the unobserved past. Its the YECs that are often much more honest about science than the uniformitarians who try to claim they have solved all the tough problems and have established the age of the Earth down to 3 significant figures (4.57 billion) Of course more journals with higher quality research would be a plus. Both the real problem is a lack of qualified YECs do to the work and not lack of mediums to discuss science from a YEC perspective.

I think this comment is a bit unfair. Which journal are you referring to? Yes the main YEC journals (J of C, CRSQ) will only publish articles that defend a YEC view. I don’t see why that is a problem since there are hundreds of secular journals available for scientists to publish articles that argue against a YEC view. However, I feel both journals have done a good job of letting YECs that hold to opposing theories dialogue. Some recent examples are here.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1594

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4509/

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

Thanks! I corrected May to June. Goodness, time flies when you’re having fun.

Salvador

1) Available both in print and online. Papers get posted online 1 or 2 months after the print articles come out, or immediately for a per-article fee.

2) MUST HAVE an ISSN.

3) Publish monthly

4) Include even marginally-related stuff

5) Try to make it Creation-oriented, but relevant to non-Creationists.

Wouldn’t it be great to have a journal that non-Creationists were eager to read? What if the great ideas for the next several years came from a Creation-oriented journal.

Also, it must have a name that doesn’t immediately shout “Creationism”, simply so that papers that cite the journal aren’t auto-rejected.