Peer Review “troubled from the start” according to an article in Nature, vol. 352, p306, 21 April 2016. One of the ways evolutionary scientists dismiss evidence for creation is to claim that ‘Creation Research’ is not published in peer reviewed science journals. Therefore, they claim, our work is not subject to the inherent self-correcting mechanisms of real science. This issue came up in the recent Creation Evolution debate in Norwich UK.

However, Harvard University historian Alex Csiszar states the current system of refereeing and peer review is relatively new and fundamentally flawed. Csiszar wrote: “It was only near the turn of the twentieth century that the idea began to take hold that editors and referees, taken as one large machinery of judgement, ought to ensure the integrity of the scientific literature as a whole. As this idea gained ground, many began to worry that the system itself might be intrinsically flawed, a force that impeded creative science and which ought to be abolished sort of universal gatekeeper with a duty to science.” It was not until the 1960’s that “refereeing emerged as a symbol of objective judgement and consensus in science”. However, this gatekeeping is still not universally accepted by all, and there are websites for publishing unreviewed papers, e.g. arXiv.org, which started life as an e-mail/FTP server in 1991, and continues as a centre for discussions about the end of peer-reviewing in journals.

Editorial Comment: The fundamental flaw in the system is that if the gatekeepers already believe a lie they will keep out anyone who wants to expose that lie and tell the truth. Reviewing and critiquing scientific reports is a good and useful process that can stimulate scientific research and discussion, but it can and does degenerate easily into a means of closing down any discussion of a topic that has been deemed as unacceptable by the ruling elite.

A classic example is when AAAS, who publish the journal Science, formally resolved to prevent the idea of intelligent design from being taught in schools and universities. . See our report “New Battle on Peer Review” here. Another less formal example is the forced retraction of a paper on the bio mechanics of the human hand that used the word “creator”, after the journal who published it was subjected to a barrage of insults from atheists outraged by even the admission of the word creation. See “Creator has to go!” here.

The idea of a “duty to science” elevates science to the status of an authority that human beings are accountable to, i.e. a god. However, science is merely a human activity, and is only as good as the people doing it. Scientists are subject to all the failings and foibles of human nature, and the history of science is littered with errors, ranging from honest mistakes and ignorance, through exaggerations and omissions, to deliberate frauds. Good science will only flourish in a society that has a clear moral compass from the true God who has defined right and wrong, and has the power and authority to judge. When scientific research is carried out in a society that works on a Darwinian struggle for power and status, rather than God fearing honesty and cooperation, science becomes corrupted, just like any other human activity. (Ref. history, society, behaviour, censorship)

Evidence News vol. 16, No.8
4 May 2016
Creation Research Australia