Peer-reviewed creationist research? HAHAHAhahahahaha!

By Phil Plait | May 1, 2007 6:19 pm

In case you haven’t seen this on other reality-based blogs, the Institute of Creation Research is starting a peer-reviewed journal, and is putting out an initial call for contributions. See how many misused words you can find in this one paragraph:

Addressing the need to disseminate the vast field of research conducted by experts in geology, genetics, astronomy, and other disciplines of science, IJCR provides scientists and students hard data based on cutting-edge research that demonstrates the young earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of the species, and other evidences that correlate to the biblical accounts.

Well, there’s the word "experts" in there, for one. And "scientists"! Hmmm, "data based", "research"… but my favorite is "young earth model". A model is a scientifically created idea that is testable, and represents a preliminary view of reality. As you test it, parts of it pass or fail the tests, and you modify (or dump) it as needed. Will creationists ever dump the young earth model?

Heh.

Their intent gets more clear when you read the PDFs they have online about instructions to authors and editors. There’s a section in one about what to do about conflicts of interest! Wow. I think anyone trying to fit facts to match their presuppositions would certainly count for that, so "scientific" creationism itself is one giant conflict of interest.

But my very very favorite is this bit in what the Editor in Chief will do to consider the paper for inclusion in the journal:

2. Review the Paper for possible inclusion into the IJCR review process.
The following criteria are to be used in judging the papers:
(a) Is the Paper’s topic important to the development of the creation model?
(b) Does the Paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the creation model?
(c) Is this Paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
(d) If (c) above is not satisfied, does this Paper offer a very constructively-positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
(e) If the Paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?
(f) Does this Paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatico-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture?

Lessee, what did they leave off? Oh yeah: is the paper scientific? How about, is the paper accurate?

Silly me. I forgot: it’s a creationist paper. It can’t be scientific, or accurate.

It would be fun to pull a Sokal on these guys. Of course, just mentioning it here means I can’t, but it would be a fascinating test of the ability of the ICR to separate reality from fantasy…

Oh wait. Never mind.

Comments (67)

  1. Standard inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive). That’s the sort you use in court where there are only two sides to an argument, and you presume that yours is correct. In this technique, you don’t have to prove your side correct, you just have to prove the other side wrong.

    How is this any different than any of the other ICR propaganda machines? It will only accept papers that pass their inductive filter (“support the creationist/young earth model).

    Inductive filter, sounds too much like some sort of EE jargon. That would give it legitimacy.

    - Jack

  2. “Lessee, what did they leave off? Oh yeah: is the paper scientific? How about, is the paper accurate?”

    Of course, we all know that this is not a major consideration among the YEC crowd. They have an entirely different defintion of science.

    YEC Scientific method:

    1) Form hypothesis
    2) Does the hypothesis confirm scripture? If no, return to 1.
    3) Collect data
    4) Interpret data. If you were unable to collect any data, create some (We are creationists after all).
    5) Does the data support your hypothesis? If no, modify your data.
    6) Label your findings as ‘scientific’ and publish them quickly before actual scientists can review them.

    OEJ

  3. Max Fagin

    Still, this is a problem because the argument:

    “There is no peer reviewed science to support the young Earth position”

    holds a lot more weight than:

    “There is no unbiased peer reviewed science to support you position.”

    I hope we aren’t seeing the spawning of the next idea from young earth creationists.

    Biblical Creationism —> ID —> ???

  4. folcrom

    Hmm.
    I thought the “Young Earth Hypothesis” had already been proven incorrect and already dumped accordingly by the Scientific community.
    Didn’t that happen, oh I don’t know about a century or ago.

    Given half a chance, these creationist idiots will drag us all, kicking and screaming back to the dark ages, where independant thought was considered heresy. If they ever get real power, they’d probably persecute any one who “thinks outside” their rigid reality.

    Folcrom.

  5. Jon Hendry

    People should submit papers under the names of various creator-gods.

    “Excedrin won’t help this headache: On the population of worlds via the forehead”

    “Eschatological Ephemerides: Scheduling of Apocalyptical Events”, by Odin

    “Don’t cry over spilled milk: A new method of host galaxy fabrication”

    “Design Critique: Jehovah’s Mark VII Prostate – This too won’t pass”

  6. The following criteria are to be used in judging the papers:

    (a) Is the Paper’s topic important to the development of the Buffyverse?
    (b) Does the Paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Buffyverse?
    (c) Is this Paper formulated within the canon limits set by Joss Whedon?
    (d) If (c) above is not satisfied, does this Paper offer a justifiable Buffy Alternate Universe? (i.e. Buffy and Willow in a romantic relationship)
    (e) If the Paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the Buffyverse?
    (f) Does this Paper promote faithfulness to the canon characters as written?

    Of course you could replace Buffy with Serenity, Babylon 5 or any of your favorite shows. Doing that helps to put this stuff in perspective.

  7. folcrom

    Please, please, please.

    Can I replace the word “buffy” with the phrase “mutant star goat”?

    Folcrom

  8. Nolwe

    I don’t know if this is hilarious or disturbing. I think that, perhaps, it’s too early to be disturbing because we’re unsure of how many people will take it seriously, so we might as well enjoy a laugh.

    I agree with Folcrom. The “Young Earth Hypothesis” is provably wrong from both secular science’s perspective and creationist’s perspective. I’m not even sure why some people still bother.

    By the way, I rather like your YEC “Scientific” Method, OEJ. Seems fairly accurate.

    I can’t to wait to see some of their first articles! It’s exciting. Almost like there ought to be a competition between them and Cornell’s arXiv, right?

  9. folcrom Says: “I thought the “Young Earth Hypothesis” had already been proven incorrect and already dumped accordingly by the Scientific community.
    Didn’t that happen, oh I don’t know about a century or ago.”

    Actually it was more like three centuries ago. During the early 18th century there were a lot of large earthworks projects going on (canals and dams mostly). The engineers of the day were also scientists and they were fascinated with the fossils being dug up. The more they looked into it, the more they saw it was not in accordance with the Biblical account, so they started down the same road as Copernicus, Galileo, etc. in questioning the infallibility of the Bible.

    This being the age of reason, they felt free to create new hypotheses, and one of the first was that the Earth must be immensely older than the Bible says. This was confirmed by measuring sedimentation rates in the oceans and discovering that it would have taken millions of years to create sedimentation layers as thick as they found when digging the canals, etc.

    Ad Astra per aspera!

    - Jack

  10. Cameron

    Why are we even having this debate? Evolution and Genesis are BOTH wrong. The only debate is whether the earth was created at the touch of His Noodly Appendage or sneezed out by the Great Green Arkleseizure.

  11. Wait, wait, wait, are they paying people for these articles? ‘Cause crankery isn’t that hard to write. And it might even count towards membership in the Science Fiction Writers of America.

  12. folcrom

    Now, now Cameron.
    Everyone knows the universe was created from the flatulent fart gases of a Mutant Star Goat.
    The only question to answer is “What made the Mutant Star Goat fart?”
    I reckon it was cabbage.
    Folcrom

  13. Bad Albert

    I’d like to see the BA or some other real scientist submit a serious paper to them that thoroughly debunks all Creationist ideas just to see what they write in the rejection letter.

    Oh I forgot. The BA is no longer a real scientist, he’s a writer. That means he doesn’t work anymore. :)

  14. folcrom

    Perhaps a “scientific paper” supporting the, I dont know, perhaps the “Asatru Creation Myths”. That might be more fun.
    Folcrom.

  15. Bharat

    Phil – Thanks for always putting these people in their places. I cannot understand how these people lead their lives..

  16. Drbuzz0

    It’s just sad. I don’t care what people want to believe but when they try to cram it down the throats of others as “science” it’s just plain stupid. It’s so absolutely clear that this is the WORST kind of scientific logic. They proclaim they know the truth from the getgo and then try to force what data they can come up with to support their views.

    Read a page and it always starts with “We know the truth of the good book and we will prove it even if scientists conspire to disprove it.” You never see something reasonable like “After taking into account all the avaliable data, it is our conclusion that the best explanation for this is….”

  17. yy2bggggs

    The proper term to apply here is “cargo cult science”.

  18. crankery isn’t that hard to write. And it might even count towards membership in the Science Fiction Writers of America.

    I remember ANALOG had various ‘far out’ articles and very short stories. Can’t recall the title of the recurring series, maybe The Alternate View?

    J/P=?

  19. Sue Mitchell

    Scientific creationism?

    Isn’t that an oxymoron? Like military intelligence, or fun run…? ;-)

  20. The only question to answer is “What made the Mutant Star Goat fart?”
    I reckon it was cabbage.
    Folcrom

    If creation of the universe resulted from Mutant Star Goat exhaust, where was the cabbage before the universe was created? And where was the goat?

  21. I just want to say (and I’m sure my comment will be deleted..) that I’m not interested in reading what this site has to say anymore. I’ve had it on my favourites for some time now, but no longer. I’ve been frustrated time and again, coming here and finding the same bitter “everybody else is SO WRONG!” entries. Yeah, I agree with a lot of the principles, but I really don’t find it useful to read this site when 95% of it is “holy crap are people ever stupid” and 5% is actual information. Yeah, people are stupid, but I already know that. I’ll be sticking to the sites that have a neutral-to-positive spin to them from now on. The negativity, along with the mindset that we must find things we disagree with and make fun of them, has really run its course.

    I loved your youtube video clips. Too bad you stopped making them to focus on, well, more of the same stuff on your front page here. :-/

  22. In light of this hellspawn that threatens to muddle what your average person thinks of as “science” and “scientific” (“No, honey, it was in a scientific journal: Noah had two of every single animal on earth, except for dinosaurs. That’s why we don’t have dinosaurs anymore. I heard it on the news.”), I’d like to cheer for this News from Yahoo:

    “[Julie MacDonald, deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks] resigned a week before a House congressional oversight committee was to hold a hearing on accusations that she violated the Endangered Species Act, censored science and mistreated staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”

    Yay Science!

  23. Will

    I just want to say (and I’m sure my comment will be deleted..) that I’m not interested in reading what this site has to say anymore. I’ve had it on my favourites for some time now, but no longer. I’ve been frustrated time and again, coming here and finding the same bitter “everybody else is SO WRONG!” entries. Yeah, I agree with a lot of the principles, but I really don’t find it useful to read this site when 95% of it is “holy crap are people ever stupid” and 5% is actual information. Yeah, people are stupid, but I already know that. I’ll be sticking to the sites that have a neutral-to-positive spin to them from now on. The negativity, along with the mindset that we must find things we disagree with and make fun of them, has really run its course.

    I loved your youtube video clips. Too bad you stopped making them to focus on, well, more of the same stuff on your front page here. :-/

    Translation:

    You guys sure are mean! Screw you guys, I’m going home.

  24. Joao

    why does this only happen in the US?

    I live in a country where the majority of the population is catholic and we don’t have a “Institute of Creation Research”
    Spooky…

    Keep on the good work BA! you’re blog is awesome

  25. Daffy

    Sadly, a lot of the people expressing disdain for this silliness will suddenly fall silent when it is mentioned that the Bush administration has appointed over 150 of these people to positions throughout the government.

    Be afraid, folks, be very afraid.

  26. I just received an interesting suggestion for a paper over at my site. If you like black holes and want to pull a Sokal, come give Ben a helping hand!

  27. Gary Ansorge

    Gee, Ranco, thanks for stopping by. Hope you had a good time.

    First, science is from the Latin, scientia, which merely means “knowledge”.
    Second scientific method means a technique for acquiring and verifying the validity of knowledge.
    Third, people AREN’T stupid, they’re merely misinformed and poorly educated.

    Granted, there are a few humans who are “wired” to find the acquisition of knowledge a fascinating endeavor. It is really an obsessive state of mind, to HAVE to know the truth, to be able to reconcile inconsistancies(like Richard Feynman) and to accept that all human knowledge is, by it’s very nature, incomplete and subject to revision at any time. For most people, such uncertainty is an uncomfortable situation.
    ,,,but I, for one, love surprises,,,and uncertainty is an integral part of surprise.

    We live in the most challenging time of drastic change ever encountered by humanity. Some of us thrive on this but others,,,seek islands of certainty, a life raft to hold tight. Belief in a supreme being, one who will make all this uncertainty sensible, in some far distant time, is, for many, just such a raft.

    Understand these human limitations and spare a bit of compassion.
    Then find those ones who take advantage of such for profit and,,,

    ,,,kick their booties back to hell.

    Hey, I try to be compassionate and patient, but even my patience has its limits,,,

    GAry 7

  28. John Phillips

    Let me get this straight, they admit they are making it up but they want scientific sounding papers to make it look as if they are not making it up.

  29. TSgt DGKnipfer (USAF)

    Sue Mitchell
    Says:

    May 2nd, 2007 at 2:01 am
    Scientific creationism?

    Isn’t that an oxymoron? Like military intelligence, or fun run…?
    –

    Sue,

    Military Intelligence is not an oxymoron. It is a descriptive term noting the limits of ones intelligence. Military Genius is an oxymoron.

  30. Judas

    But, but, but, but, but…

    Doesn’t the definition of “peer-reviewed” imply that it’s reviewed by your peer?

    So a YEC paper reviewed by YEC supporters *IS* “peer-reviewed,” no?

  31. D.S. Ellis

    I was raised in a part of the country where this sort of thing would go over like GANGBUSTERS. I used to try and engage my deeply religious friends in a debate over subjects of science and religion. The results were never positive. I actually lost a lot of ‘christian’ friends that way. Their beliefs are so deeply rooted that they would rather cut me out their life completely than have anyone question those beliefs in any way, shape or form. The creation of this ‘peer-reviewed journal’ is just an extension of that mindset.

    I submit to the unhappy poster, ranco, that the folks here are not being overly negative and harsh but blunt and honest. You can try a more ‘positive’ approach, but it won’t work, ranco. I speak from experience. I am nontheistic, raised in the ‘buckle’ of the ‘bible belt’, where Pentecostal and Church of Christ doctrines are an everyday part of every aspect of your life. Religion rules all back home and is part of the reason I live in New York now.

    When people make a choice to use mythology to shape their world view instead of science (especially when that world view puts you in a position to make laws, start wars and determine education policy), you have to stand up. You have to be blunt.

    And maybe even a little mean.

  32. tacitus

    OEJ said:

    YEC Scientific method:

    1) Form hypothesis
    2) Does the hypothesis confirm scripture? If no, return to 1.
    3) Collect data
    4) Interpret data. If you were unable to collect any data, create some (We are creationists after all).
    5) Does the data support your hypothesis? If no, modify your data.
    6) Label your findings as ’scientific’ and publish them quickly before actual scientists can review them.

    Actually, that is giving YECs far too much credit. What passes for science at ICR and AIG is:

    1) Scan the science news headlines for latest origins-related stories.

    2) Is there a way to make the story look as though it confirms scripture?

    3a) Yes — write a glowing “told you so” article about the merits of the new research and the “brave scientists” who “risked their reputations” to do it.

    3b) No — write a dismissive and disparaging article about how those atheistic scientists deliberately misinterpreted and skewed their data as a direct attack on creationism and Christianity. For bonus points, taking no more than a couple of hours, provide your own “scripturally sound” conclusions to the research in the original paper.

    4) Did you use plenty of long, scientific, impressive-sounding words that most lay creationists will not understand but will make them believe you know what you’re talking about?

    5a) Yes — publish your article in a sciency-looking format and don’t forget to add a couple of footnotes to fool them into thinking that you opened a couple of books before writing it.

    5b) No — publish your article anyway, but don’t bother so much with the formatting or the footnotes.

    P.S. Articles and papers based on original fieldwork and/or your own data analysis will also be considered, but really, why are you wasting your time when the above process is so much easier, and just as effective??

  33. Irishman

    I was wondering when this was going to happen. We’ve been hitting people up with the mantra, “peer-reviewed literature” for so long, is it any wonder they finally figured out they can make a journal and be their own “peers”? Max Fagin is right, this adds a layer of obfuscation. Now we have to argue over which “peer-reviewed literature” is biased and which is scientifically valid. Much harder to make clear for the uninitiated lay person who just sees Christian-supporting “science” and “Anti-Christian” science.

  34. Lurchgs

    I’ve been giving this a little thought – probably much more than it deserves. How do they justify stating a specific conclusion as a requirement for a “scientific” paper?
    At best, I can only think they are thinking along the lines of “JAMA is about medicine, that that’s scientific, Molecular Biology is about.. well, molecular biology, and THAT’s scientific.. and Scientific American is ABOUT science, and THAT is scientific. So, if we create a journal and focus only on woo-woo… er, creationism and accept only papers we write ourselves, it MUST be scientific.”

    Just like Road and Track is scientific

    Actually, come to think of it, R&T is fairly scientific in their approach.

    Pass the peanutbutter.

  35. Why go through all the pretense of trying to make something up that sounds like it could be accidentally mistaken for science? Isn’t Creationism anti-science to begin with?

    In order to make the young earth model work you need to break physics, geology, astronomy, and any other science that stands in the way. It’s not just evolution and the big bang they are after. That big black hole at the center of the Milkyway can’t possibly exist where astronomers say it does, because the light from the stars whipping around it would have started off before the universe existed! So, either it is an illusion, or the speed of light is variable and the signal REALLY flew here at many times the speed of light to get here?

    Or maybe there is something wrong with the formula for displacement b a constant velocity: d = vt. Some missing terms might make light travel faster over longer distances. Or maybe the distances are all off and all the stars and galaxies are really within 5-10000 light years away from here. Or, they are all painted on the Celestial Sphere.

    Or, maybe math is broken. If Pi had the value of 3….

  36. BIG MACK

    THIS IS JUST ANOTHER EGOTISTICAL PERSON’S BLOG… HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT LIFE…………. BUT CONTENDS THAT HE KNOWS EVERYTHING. THEY ALL DO. SO YOUNG, SO FOOLISH. THE MOON EFFECTS / AFFECTS EVERYTHING.

  37. What we need is the creationist version of this software. It’s already been used to pull a Sokal on conferences with ridiculously lenient standards for submitting papers.

  38. Phobos

    “Peer reviewed journal”. Ok, here we have creationists reviewing creationists’ work. It’s still not science based on their methods & premise.

    I wonder how often they’ll be able to publish (assuming a limited pool of “researchers” and reviewers who are actually producing new & thoughtful work). Or should we expect the same old arguments each time with new spins?

  39. // grammatico-historical/normative

    Is this a contrived concept?

    supercalifragilisticexpialidocious…..
    :)

  40. Quiet_Desperation

    Oh, I have *GOT* to try and get some piffle published there. Anyone want to collaborate?

    Like those guys that got a computer generated paper published a couple years ago.

    http://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/tech/mg18624963.700.html

    >>> why does this only happen in the US?

    Freedom? (relatively speaking, of course) :) I’m only being a little snarky here. These people speak up because, well, they can.

    You also have to realize this is a vocal minority, despite what some polls claim. I am enormously skeptical of most polls touted in the media.

    >>> I live in a country where the majority of the population is catholic

    Papal acceptance of evolution helps there. The USA is, I think, about 2 to 1 non-Catholic Christian to Catholic. That’s off the top of my head.

    Dunno what the percentage for Scientology is. :)

  41. Is there any way we can sneak Coco the gorilla in as a reviewer or author?

  42. Graham Berndt

    I think what enrages me the most is when actions like this take place, it acts like molasses that science must pass through to get to the “next step” of our understanding of ourselves, and the world around us.

    Why we offer equal time to the superstitious and narrow minded is beyond me.

  43. Peer Gent

    This is a bizarre attempt to co-opt the peer review process for creationist works, so it’s a nice volley from the other side and will certainly be revealing in ways I can’t begin to imagine.

    It begs the question: what will happen if IJCR readers begin to respect peer review because of this new direction? I think this experiment will backfire because scientific integrity can’t always be twisted out of shape to make black white and night day. Readers will foul themselves trying to tout IJCR papers as peer-reviewed.

  44. Troy

    I suppose for their double blind experiments they literally remove the eyeballs (Oedipus Rex style) of the subjects and experimenters of the experiments.

    Second comment “why does this only happen in the U.S.”? Oh because all the nut jobs left Europe and settled here (U.S.), that’s my take on things. Think about the Puritans a.k.a. the Pilgrims. I suspect if any of the original lot were still around they would watch Pat Robertson and nod subtly in constant agreement.

  45. tacitus

    I have previously suggested reasonably simple and cheap experiments that young-Earthers could reasonably perform–namely running experiments to see how much plant, fish, and insect life could survive months of global flood conditions (i.e. how many species could survive that long in salty, or at least, brackish waters).

    Curiously, I didn’t see much enthusiasm for such an endeavor.

  46. Lurchgs Says: “Just like Road and Track is scientific”

    Hey! Don’t go dissn’ R&T!

    “Actually, come to think of it, R&T is fairly scientific in their approach.”

    Check out the current issue with the article by my bud, Tech Editor Dennis Simanaitis on AGW (not that I want to open that can of worms again).

    Wow. Creationism and Global Warming in the same thread!

    - Jack

  47. nate

    Pheh. Articles cannot be submitted as LaTeX or pdf files. And they call it a science research journal? Pheh.

  48. Ray

    tacitus, I have an even simpler ‘experiment’ that even lay young-Earthers can do. Start a venture capital fund; the stakes are used to apply young-Earth geology to finding new deposits of oil, coal, and other valuable materials.

    After all, if young-Earth geology is a better theory, it should make better predictions than ‘mainstream’ geology overall, right? A few good strikes would pay off handsomely as an investment, and offer dramatic proof of their claims. Oddly enough, none of them seem too enthusiastic about this one either.

  49. JohnW

    It’s a typo. The ICR journal will use pier review. Authors of papers will be thrown off the end of a pier. If they float, they’re witches and will be burned at the stake. If they sink, their paper will be published.

  50. Jess Tauber

    J.Greer said:

    // grammatico-historical/normative

    Is this a contrived concept?

    Actually it goes back to Norm Chimp Sky, God of Mighty Morphin’ Sin Tax

  51. Since real science journal publish many papers pointing out errors in previously published work, will the IJCR publish papers pointing out YEC errors?

    Maybe I’ll submit some of my materials (http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1).

    It they refuse to publish me, can I scream ‘censorship’!!! ? ;^)

  52. Jon Hendry

    “Pheh. Articles cannot be submitted as LaTeX or pdf files. And they call it a science research journal? Pheh.”

    I’m sure they accept stone tablets.

  53. Darwin59

    There are a couple of minor pieces of information that need to be put out there. One, because of the corrupt faction of the Catholic Church Erasmus Darwin did not make his ideals known to the general public. He was questioned and stated that it was all in theory and did not go against the beliefs of the Church. It was this same theory that Lamark was using in the early 1800′s. Second, Charles Darwin in 1859 finally published the work that he had in his hands for nearly 30 years. It was because of the reaction of the Church to other ideals that he did not make his theory known.
    To make a long story short it has been proven through Lyells observations, as well as Darwin’s, that the creationist ideal is no longer valid, but it has now come up with new defenses against the evolutionist theory. These new theories will try to prove the existence of a God and his/her ability to create life from nothing. Only through extensive study and observations can we continue to maintain the evolutionist theroy as the correct one.

  54. Isamu

    I wonder how long before they start insisting the Earth goes around the Sun again.

  55. Darwin59

    Well now that they are trying to claim intelligent design as one of God you know they will go back and claim that the Grand Canyon was not carved out by a great flood, but that of God, if there is one. On another point I have yet to meet an intelligent individual who is so devoted to their religion that they can not see the proof that has been put forth against the creationist ideal. Any takers on a debate lets get it started.

  56. carlos
  57. I’m sure the “peers” who review those research have to be Creationists themselves. If they’re going to keep the discussions amongst themselves and ignore counterarguments, what’s the point?

  58. Pierre

    I like how they are doing research to find correlations with the Bible. Even if it wasn’t on religious principles, it’d be biased “research” right from the beginning…

  59. I believe in the young earth model. Let’s see the Universe is about 15 billion years old and the earth is around 4 billion years old .. seems sorta young to me.

    What’s all the fuss about?

    Kmuzu – USA

  60. Dr. Tim

    Science, in all its might, is a religion.

    The initial premise, that the world started with a bang is faith based.

    I don’t really care who started what and when.

    Just admit that scientific assumptions (the universe started x number of years ago) are based upon conjecture (guessing) and faith.

    Science. The new religion. (Actually, one of the oldest religions)

  61. Dr. Tim (#64): You are incorrect; science is NOT faith based and is therefore not a religion.

  62. Mary

    #27 Gary Great post. Your explanation is so right about exposing those who deliberately try to profit from people’s lack of knowledge.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »