> 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.
A few weeks ago, I drafted a short article on this subject - I'll
send it via separate mail. The title is "The two faces of
establishment science". I hope it is of interest.
> 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). If Christians are really
> going to deal with the issues, it is time to grow up, and answer to
> objectiions that caused an article or idea to be rejected. To always
> claim that the fault is the other guy's is childish. Often the fault is
> our own. We either didn't communicate well, didn't have enough evidence
> or made errors that a freshman in a field wouldn't make.
"Often" - I agree with this.
"To always claim .. .." is not my emphasis.
> I would point you to the gang of 6 article in the 1994 International
> conference on Creationism. You criticized their article because their
> model required that Cambrian strata be found offshore along the east
> coast of North America. It has never been found and there is good
> evidence that it doesn't exist. Should an article like that be published
> in a standard science journal when very simple observational data
> refutes their premise? And they admit that they can't handle the heat
> problem. At what point does rejection of such an article become
> persecution? Do we Christians have a right to publish junk? I don't
> think so.
At the time, I was willing for them to state their case. It was at a
conference - and since there was a refereeing process, some
reviewers must have thought it worth including in the conference.
Since that conference, I have not seen the model develop
significantly. The main objections to it have not been answered. An
honest reviewer would be looking for these criticisms to be addressed
if the auythors were to publish further on their model.
> 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. If he does something sloppy, it deserves to be rejected. But
> then if any of us do something sloppy it deserves to be rejected.
Agreed. I would add that there are many areas where paradigm
issues do not reach the surface. I would advise anyone "complaining"
about rejection to focus on those areas where challenging the
paradigm is not an issue. This at least allows the individual to
show that they can contribute to the world of scholarship.
> Lest one say that I am part of this 'establishment,' I would like to
> point out that I ran into difficulties getting my ideas published by the
> Christian press. For several years there was nowhere I could find that
> would publish anything written about my views. I perservered and
> finally got my articles published. It was frustrating during that time
> but eventually, I was able to overcome the objections of the Christian
> and theological editors and get things published.
In a way, you illustrate the point that "merit" is only one of the
considerations publishers bring. They look at "what will sell" and
"readership market", etc. Your difficulties were partly because you
were challenging all the paradigms held by the various publishers you
approached.
Best regards,
David J. Tyler.