[Vision2020] NSA's accrediting agency is not recognized in Texas
jeffh at moscow.com
Fri Dec 21 20:55:23 PST 2007
If I were to dedicate myself to a search for a peer-reviewed article
that published an article rejecting evolution, I have every
confidence that I could find at least one. Again, one must be sure
to evaluate the reviewers and their credentials. There are numerous
"boutique journals" - peer reviewed, that are dedicated to
If you haven't read the work, I recommend that you take a look at
"Impostors in the Temple" by Martin Anderson. About 1992 as I
recall. It is a worthwhile read.
At 08:02 PM 12/21/2007, you wrote:
>On Dec 21, 2007 7:58 PM, Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
> > Joe Campbell leaps to the fringe again - thin ice for sure.
> > Gary Crabtree made two simple statements:
> > 1. "As if good scientists made up their own data in the laboratory!"
> > 2. "Why the very notion that data might be faked by Scientists must be
> > preposterous."
> > Neither statement could be reasonably argued that Crabtree was asserting
> > that all science was fudged. Nor can he be accused, legitimately, of
> > arguing for the hypothesis that given the 10 links provided as examples of
> > false science, he is making a claim that all science is fudged.
> > Cynical - yes; sarcastic - absolutely; skeptical - right on.
> > Another example of Joe Campbell arguing the straw man.
> > Gary Crabtree is right in the context of his post. Science can
> be trusted,
> > as long as it is verified. Replication upon replication is essential - and
> > the more a scientific result challenges a paradigm, the more necessary is
> > the verification.
> > An interesting point - note that Joe Campbell states:
> > The history of science is extensive and glorious. The case for evolution
> > theory is great, also, which is why the number of biologists working in the
> > area who reject it can be counted on one hand. It would take a billion
> > examples to prove Gary Crabtree's point, and I don't see that coming any
> > time soon. Anyone want to bet that more than 5 scientists (biologists) can
> > be found that reject evolution theory? I would have thought that Joe
> > Campbell would be more careful with his unfounded assertions.
>Sure. There're probably five. Could you find me a peer-reviewed
>article in a scientific journal that rejects the premise of evolution?
>(Hint: you won't find one, for the same reason you won't find a
>peer-reviewed article that rejects the premise of anthropogenic global
More information about the Vision2020