Scientific Paper Recalled for "Inappropriate Language"
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Evolutionist owlhoots are showing their blatant bigotry when a paper in PLoS One used a bad word four times! No, it wasn't ****, ****, or even ************, but it was far worse: the "C word". That's right, someone dared to say "Creator" — and they did it more than once. Researchers said that the human hand was the product of the Creator's design. Katie, bar the door, our propaganda mills are threatened by truth!
Evolutionist owlhoots are showing their blatant bigotry when a paper in PLoS One used a bad word four times! No, it wasn't ****, ****, or even ************, but it was far worse: the "C word". That's right, someone dared to say "Creator" — and they did it more than once. Researchers said that the human hand was the product of the Creator's design. Katie, bar the door, our propaganda mills are threatened by truth!
 |
| Image credit: morgueFile / GaborfromHungary |
The use of the word "Creator" was not done to prove the existence of God or creation. That was not the reason for the paper, which was written from a naturalistic perspective. The Evo Sith were outraged, throwing down on PLoS One, demanding a retraction.
So they got one. Here is the retraction, which is mighty strange, since the article is still there.
This is a blatant illustration of what creationists have been saying for a long time, that secular science journals operate from an atheistic materialist worldview. Some people say, "Get something written and peer reviewed for creation science, and win a Nobel Prize." That'll be the day! Aside from the fact that the secular peer review process is very unreliable and is a good ol' boys' club, it's very difficult for a creationist to be published. Oh, creationists do publish in major refereed journals, but just try to give evidence refuting evolution or for a young Earth. Two chances of publication then: slim, and none.
What is peer review, but review by peers? Creation scientists do have their own peer reviewed publications, so there is no threat of atheists' censorship. Three that come to mind are the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Journal of Creation, and the Answers Research Journal.
As far as the article retracted for "inappropriate language", I have some reading for you if you want more details:
So they got one. Here is the retraction, which is mighty strange, since the article is still there.
This is a blatant illustration of what creationists have been saying for a long time, that secular science journals operate from an atheistic materialist worldview. Some people say, "Get something written and peer reviewed for creation science, and win a Nobel Prize." That'll be the day! Aside from the fact that the secular peer review process is very unreliable and is a good ol' boys' club, it's very difficult for a creationist to be published. Oh, creationists do publish in major refereed journals, but just try to give evidence refuting evolution or for a young Earth. Two chances of publication then: slim, and none.
What is peer review, but review by peers? Creation scientists do have their own peer reviewed publications, so there is no threat of atheists' censorship. Three that come to mind are the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Journal of Creation, and the Answers Research Journal.
As far as the article retracted for "inappropriate language", I have some reading for you if you want more details:
- “Creator” Becomes Cussword
- Scientific paper credits ‘the Creator’ for human hand design — Journal is forced to retract after outcry
- Secularist Intolerance Against Scientific Paper That Briefly Mentions Creator
- ADDENDUM: Ian Juby published his "Creatorgate" video on March 11, 2016
Now, tell me again that scientists are objective and will follow where the evidence leads. Can you do it without laughing?