Academic thought police (was Are developmental biologists irreducibly dense?)

Jonathan Clarke (jdac@alphalink.com.au)
Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:22:00 +1000

Glenn R. Morton wrote in part:

> I do get a bit tired of the constant claim by Christian apologists that
> there is some sort of 'establishment' that is out to sink any and all
> articles and arguments advanced by anyone who dares disagree with the
> establishment. It simply isn't so. This claim sounds whiny and like
> sour grapes. It also sound a bit paranoid. Often it is a complaint that
> hides sloppy work or work outside of one's area of expertise (note I
> didn't say outside of one's degree field).
> I would point to Art Chadwick who certainly doesn't hold to the standard
> view of geology yet he regularly presents papers and publishes papers in
> geology. I don't see people rejecting his articles because of his
> beliefs.

I would add to this that there are many other people who hold to YEC and
other unusual geological views who have had papers published in the open
scientific literature. Robert Gentry, Steve Austin, Andrew Snelling, Harold
Coffin and Kurt Wise have all had papers published in open journals. No
overt censorship here, although the associations of many of these authors
with YEC views are well known. Even Ken Ham managed to get an abstract
published in the proceedings of a geological conference here in Australia,
although he is not a geologist by any stretch of the imagination. In similar
fashion people like Sam Carey, even though his views on the expanding earth
are not mainstream and indeed, generally thought to be wrong, are still able
to get papers published.

I am not saying that there are no cases of papers not being published
because they disagree with "orthodoxy", but that such cases are few and far
between. I have been on editorial boards in the past, and the papers we
rejected were always because of poor science or similar reasons, not because
they disagreed with some orthodoxy, real or imagined. Even if a paper is
rejected from one journal, it can always be rewritten and resubmitted, or
taken to another journal. If it is only any value someone will eventually
publish it. I would say that if anything editors are too tolerant of
rubbish, and much of what gets published appears to be of little value.

God Bless

Jonathan