Creationists go Open Access - Questions to match Pre-Ordained Answers.
(March 12th 2008) Fundamentalist Christian support for 'Creation Science' is currently enjoying a mini-boom with the recent opening of Answers in Genesis' 'Creation Museum' in Kentucky (over 250,000 visitors in 2007!) and now "Praise the Lord, a technical publication to go with it", the online, Open Access, Answers Research Journal (ARJ). However, as Jeremy Garwood reports, since this journal already knows the 'answers', perhaps a better alternative title might read: "Find the right questions to fit the answers".
It's not that the journal's editors are making any attempt to hide their meaning, "
ARJ is a journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework."
However, this does rather restrict the scope of 'professional peer reviews'. "Our journal will be reviewed by the best experts we have available to us through a network of well-qualified creationist researchers, scientists and theologians, who are the best thinkers in their fields of creationist research."
Furthermore, the research scope is rather focussed, "
ARJ will disseminate research that demonstrates the validity of the Young Earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of 'created kinds' and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins."
Just to jog your memory, the 'Young Earth model' is based on a literal chronological reading of the Bible, which, in 1658, allowed the Anglican Archbishop, James Ussher, to come up with the surprisingly exact date for creation of October 23, 4004 BC.
In the 'Instructions to Authors', the founding Editor-in-Chief, Andrew Snelling (PhD in geology and previously founding Editor of '
Journal of Creation'), sets out the rules that determine how the questions should be posed to find the desired answers:
" 1. Is the paper's topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
2. Does the paper's topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?
6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture?"
And reminds you that "The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of
Answers in Genesis, as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith."
Highlights of the first issue include two articles on that very thorny biological question: on what day did God create the microbes?
In the article: 'Microbes and the Days of Creation', we are asked to consider, "Where do microbes fit into the creation account? Were they created along with the rest of the plants and animals in the first week of creation, or were they created later, after the Fall? These are some questions that creation microbiologists have been asking in recent years. Very little has been written in Bible commentaries or in creation literature on the subject of when microbes were created. Some have postulated that microbes were created on a single day of Creation, such as Day Three - when the plants were made. This is partially due to the "seed-like" characteristics that bacteria and fungi have, therefore classifying microbes as plants" but then, "Where Do Viruses Fit into Creation?" Indeed!
Other articles deal with ways of reformulating geology to fit a 6,000 year-old earth and Noah's global flood. One, "An Apology and Unification Theory for the Reconciliation of Physical Matter and Metaphysical Cognizance", is considered to be so bad that sceptical bloggers are seriously rating it as a hoax!
After all, one of the dangers of Open Access is that everyone can join in the game, creating all sorts of original questions to fit the answers.
