New journal for aspiring creationists: International Journal of Creation Research

June 2, 2007 | By | 3 Replies More

It’s called the International Journal for Creation Research.  I would call it The-Draw-The-Curve-Then-Plot-The-Data-Journal.   After all, the end result is already guaranteed.  It’s just a matter of getting out into the field to drum up evidence to support this foregone conclusion, no matter how tenuous. 

The Journal is sponsored by the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School, where one can learn all about a special kind of biology. The school is careful to not tip its hand too much in the course descriptions, but things get wild when the president of the college weighs in:

Our world, our church, our schools, our society, need the truth of creation more than ever. We see the wrong thinking of evolution having produced devastating results in every realm. Our passion at the Institute for Creation Research is to see science return to its rightful God-glorifying position, and see creation recognized as a strength by the body of Christ; supporting Scripture, answering questions, satisfying doubts and removing road blocks to the Gospel. The Institute for Creation research Graduate School exists to train students in scientific research and teaching skills, preparing effective warriors for the faith.

But back to the new journal.  What exactly is the purpose?

The Institute for Creation Research is pleased to announce the inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR).

IJCR is a professional peer-reviewed journal of interdisciplinary scientific research that presents evidence for recent creation within a biblical framework.

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.

As you can see, the new creationist journal is “professional” and “peer-reviewed,” guaranteeing that it is first-rate creation science.  The Journal’s instructions to potential writers require papers to be formulated “within a young-earth, young-universe framework.”   The instructions also provide papers to “provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatico-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture.”So there you have it.   As long as your conclusions conform to ancient apocryphal Bible writings, you can do any science you want.   Hint: it will increase your chances of getting your paper accepted at this new journal if you don’t suggest that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old.   For extra credit, students might want to consider taking a field trip to Ken Ham’s new Creation Museum. And for God’s sake, don’t try to submit your dissertation on bristlecone pine trees.

I’m just imagining the first day of class at the Institute.  

Teacher: “All right, class.  How old is the Earth?”  

All students in unison:  “6,000 years old!”

Teacher: “Great! You all get an ‘A’ for this course.  Now let’s figure out the best way to prove that people walked with dinosaurs!”


Tags: , ,

Category: Education, Religion, Science

About the Author ()

Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on consumer law litigation and appellate practice. He is also a working musician and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in the Shaw Neighborhood of St. Louis, Missouri, where he lives half-time with his two extraordinary daughters.

Comments (3)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Ben says:

    It comes with a free readership to the MBJAMA (Magnetic Bracelet Journal of the American Medical Association).

    New research suggests that the earth is 12,000 years old. Scientific procedures were used. All of the ages of the people named in the bible were added together systematically, and the results were scrutinized under peer review. Thus, the true age of the earth is circa 12,000 years, which indeed fits much better with the dinosaur skeletons and time required to form mountains.

  2. Dan Klarmann says:

    The problem isn't one of picking a conclusion and looking for data to fit it. That is not too far from how research is done by real scientists. Particularly in applied science environments.

    The problem is their specifying up front that any data that doesn't match the theory will be disregarded! Science is about fitting theories to match all the data found, not the other way around.

    To theists: Man wrote a book called The Bible to explain God's wants. God made everything else. Scientists read the original God-given universe, not the interpretation. When very careful reading of God's own creation disagrees with man's book, then believers in the infallibility of the book get very upset.

  3. grumpypilgrim says:

    The "International Journal for Creation Research"…I'm amazed they didn't title it the "Scientific Journal for Creation Research." After all, if they're going to bastardize science, they might as well go all the way.

    We can only wonder what they mean by saying their journal is "peer-reviewed." Who are the "peers" to a bunch of blatant liars who want to destroy the reputation of science? I suppose they have a panel of Protestant evangelical preachers?

Leave a Reply