peer reviewed creationism
Answers Research Journal is a new online journal for “interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.” I think my colleague, Tom “The Boundary Man” Gieryn, would find this rather interesting, as an example of marginal academics acquiring legitimacy by mimicking the mainstream. If nothing else, it’ll provide internal coherence to the creationist movement by allowing them to say their work is peer reviewed. Lyotard would love it, or not.
The tougher question is whether this is science. If you take a Mertonian view, that it’s about institutionalized skepticism, then yes, maybe it is scientific. Given certain assumptions and a good faith effort to produce universalistic knowledge about the Flood, it does seem to mimic science to some extent. It’s kind of a Feyerabend point. Change the underlying cultural framework, and you might start accepting different things as science. Perhaps, but don’t expect many tenure committees to impressed with the forthcoming article: “The Economic Sociology of Ark Builders: Bringing the Flood Back In.”
Hat tip to Bonnie Goldstein at Slate.com
I don’t think this would count as science from the Mertonian perspective. For one, it is certainly not skepticism. It’s more like institutionalized group-think. The functionalist beauty of science consists precisely in the mutually regulating presence of proponents of alternative (and sometimes radically opposed) takes on the same empirical issues. Closer to this in some social scientific and humanities communities are those “theory groups” (and journals associated with them) which require you to swear by some quasi-biblical sacred text in order to belong.
Omar
February 14, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Omar: Is institutional theory such a ‘theory group?’
tf
February 14, 2008 at 6:08 pm
along those same lines: the institute for creation research.
rob
February 14, 2008 at 6:20 pm
The obvious problem is that nothing can be dismissed as non-science if we define science — as many seem to do — as a linguistic exercise, completely dependent on its internal machinery of reasoning, not allowing for the existence of language-independent reasoning and logic and facts.
tf
February 14, 2008 at 6:49 pm
I was about to say that this could possibly be analysed using David Bloor’s notion of Controversy Studies, where symmetry is applied to the two (or more) sides of the debate.
Then I did a little search and found that ‘evolution*’ appears only once in the papers of the first issue of the ARJ. As you see, there is no real discussion between this and evolution. So, no Controversy Studies here, I should think:
Evolutionary theory is quick to point out the relative “simplicity” of microbes and that they represent the common ancestor from which all of life has evolved. New discoveries reported almost daily show microbes are anything but simple. The ability of microbes to adapt to their environment through various genetic mechanisms, such as in the case of antibiotic resistance, is often touted as an example of evolution in action. While this leads to change within a bacterial population, it does not support the type of change needed for microbes-to-man evolution. In addition, microbes are unique from animal, plants, and humans in their need for variety to deal with changing environments which they may not be able to escape.
yuvalmillo
February 14, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Teppo: The Feyerabend point is deeper than that. He’s not arguing that linguistic formailty determines scientific status. His point is that the evaluation of empirical evidence is often linked to prior beliefs. His arguments often have the flavor of “X may seem stupid now, but given how people understood the world back then X was justified and the people we now call scientific heroes were in some ways rather irrational, if by rational you mean they stick to the traditional concept of scientific method.”
fabiorojas
February 14, 2008 at 9:51 pm
But sometimes the Feyerabendian non-sequitur consists in going from showing that the history of really-existing science does not conform to some old and stodgy (and philosophical) conception of the scientific method to concluding that it therefore it fails to follow any recognizably systematic pattern at all (that is that it is anarchic). This is clearly not warranted. As the growing field of cognitive studies of the history of science shows you can argue against (and reject most of) the traditional strictures and implications of the philosophy of science, and even see a lot messiness in the history of really-existing science, and yet, show that it still follows systematic patterns of discovery and transition between different theoretical systems.
Teppo, I don’t know about that, but I have heard John Mohr refer to the DiMaggio and Powell book as the “orange bible.” Does that count?
Omar
February 14, 2008 at 11:42 pm
peer reviewed magic? Why would anyone bother with this childish stupidity?
BobC
February 15, 2008 at 12:17 am
I just love evolutionists. They are so fanatical about their religion. Anyone who doubts any aspect of their faith is branded a heritic, is considered intellectually inferior. Most of those who believe in Darwinian evolution do so because it is considered intelletually the right thing to do, even though the hypotheses is like a c entipede with four legs, flawed. But they just have to believe it. There is, in their opinion, no alternative. So right or wrong the universe just had to have come from the ‘Big Bang.’
Never mind, one day, evolutionist or creationist, we will know for sure. But by then it will be too late to do anything about it.
Pete Hodge
February 15, 2008 at 7:22 am