Answers Research Journal

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Answers Research Journal
DisciplineCreation Science
LanguageEnglish
Edited byAndrew Snelling
Publication details
History2008–present
Publisher
Answers in Genesis (United States)
FrequencyAnnual
Yes
Standard abbreviations
ISO 4Answ. Res. J.
Indexing
ISSN1937-9056
LCCN2007212884
OCLC no.184738838
Links

Answers Research Journal (ARJ) is an open-access creation science journal published by Answers in Genesis (AiG), a fundamentalist Christian apologetics organization.[1] Founded in 2008, the online journal devotes itself to research on "recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework". Such research is not scientifically sound and the journal does not publish research contradicting its belief system.

The journal is subject to publication bias. While ARJ undergoes a peer-review process, the journals's reviewers are selected from a pool of people who only support the stances of the journal. Most of the journal's articles are written by a small group of authors, many without academic credentials, and authors are able to publish pseudonymously. ARJ's editorial board is not disclosed. The journal has been criticized by various geologists, biologists, and other academics.

Young Earth geologist Andrew Snelling serves as the journal's editor-in-chief and as the director of research at AiG.

History and overview[edit]

Background[edit]

Answers in Genesis (AiG) is one of the largest proponents of young earth creationism (YEC) in the United States. Publications aimed at YEC scholars have existed since the mid-1960s, though these publications typically relied upon organizational membership and fee-based subscriptions. The launch of ARJ in 2008 marked the first free, open-access YEC peer-reviewed journal.[2] ARJ was created because creationists argued biology journals would not publish their research because such journals were biased "against God in favor of Darwin".[3] ARJ frequently uses scientific language in an attempt to discredit scientific studies and its primary purpose is to encourage readers to doubt mainstream scientific evidence and conclusions.[4] ARJ visually resembles real scientific open-access journals such as PLOS Genetics.[5] YEC geologist Andrew Snelling serves as the journal's editor-in-chief and as the director of research at AiG.[6] According to Snelling, the journal's objective is to "publish the best research possible from a creationist perspective in the sciences, humanities and theology."[7] AiG founder Ken Ham expects both Christians and non-Christians to read the journal.[7]

ARJ's editorial board is not disclosed[8] and authors are not identified in the table of contents.[6] Most of the journal's articles are written by a small group of authors, many without academic credentials.[9] In 2012, Callie Joubert (credentials unknown) contributed to almost half of the journal's articles that year. Editor-in-chief Snelling, Joubert, and Danny Faulkner (a "young universe astronomer") contributed to 45 percent of the articles in the 2014 volume.[6] Authors are also able to publish under a pseudonym.[1]

Editorial policies and beliefs[edit]

Research published in ARJ is not scientifically sound.[5] The journal devotes itself to research on "recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework".[10] ARJ espouses a YEC interpretation of the Bible. Such beliefs include the age of the Earth is approximately 6000 years, the Genesis flood narrative, and the rejection of macroevolution. Such notions contradict mainstream science.[5] Using radioactive dating, scientists have learned the earth is around 4.5 billion years old.[7] ARJ primarily attempts to disprove radioactive dating or demonstrate the entirety of the rock record was the result of a great flood.[11]

In order to be published in the journal, one's views must be consistent with the Book of Genesis. According to AiG researcher Georgia Purdom, the journal starts with the viewpoint that the Bible is true whereas other journals will "start with human reasoning as the basis for truth". Additionally, anyone working with AiG must sign a statement of faith, including a declaration reading: "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."[7]

Due to its editorial policy, ARJ refuses to publish science that contradicts its belief system.[12] While the journal undergoes a peer-review process, it is subject to publication bias since the journals's reviewers are selected from a pool of individuals who "support the positions taken by the journal".[13][14] The concept of "faith-checking" is included in the peer-review process.[7] In the words of skeptic Steven Novella, the journal's peer-review process is "worthless" as it "serves only to give a false imprimatur of scientific legitimacy to a religious anti-scientific ideology."[15] As a result, the journal's research does not meet academic standards of scientific inquiry.[1]

Notable articles[edit]

Microbes[edit]

The inaugural article of the journal, written by Liberty University professor Alan Gillen, was titled "Microbes and the days of creation".[14] The article dealt with the history of microorganisms and Gillen argued they were created by God to act as "biological systems" with plants, animals, and humans.[16] Furthermore, Gillen argued the origins of HIV goes back to the biblical Fall (i.e., when Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden).[14]

Environment[edit]

An article written by Rod J. Martin, described only as an "independent researcher", gave a creationist interpretation of climate change.[17] According to Martin, climate change is essentially a hoax invented by "atheistic evolutionists".[18] His thesis, incorrectly, states: "There is no reason either biblically or scientifically to fear the exaggerated and misguided claims of catastrophe as a result of increasing levels of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2)."[19] A 2009 article argued God made oil shortly after creating the Earth and the author used Noah's Ark as "evidence for his theory." Scientists agree oil forms from biomass.[20]

Human—chimp DNA[edit]

In an attempt to disprove evolution, a 2013 article argued that humans and chimpanzees only shared 70% of DNA. While there is no objective method to determine the percent DNA similarities of two species, scientists have came up with a range of 95-98% similarity between humans and chimps (with 96% being the consensus). The study compares whole chromosomes to see how they match up instead of comparing point mutations in specific parts of the chromosomes.[21] The author of the study revised his estimate in 2015 to 88% after discovering a bug in his genome sequence algorithm.[22]

Reception[edit]

Biologist Paul Z. Myers refers to the journal as a “dishonest enterprise” and suggests “everything published in [ARJ] will be a crank paper”.[23] Novella describes the journal as an "insidious attack on science" and should be used as "a tool for exposing creationists for what they are."[15]

Keith Miller, a geologist and evangelical Christian, says publications like ARJ are largely ignored by the scientific community but those lacking a scientific background may not be able to differentiate ARJ from genuine scientific journals.[10]Anthropologist Eugenie Scott states ARJ is part of the "continued battle to excise science from local curricula".[10] Mocking ARJ as a "science journal", geneticist Adam Rutherford writes, "sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken", and posited the journal may be a prank.[24]

Describing the journal as "nonsense," philosopher Massimo Pigliucci contends the journal was created because "[creationists] seek respectability through fake museums and peer-reviewed journals because they know that the Middle Ages are over, and just shouting one's faith in a god is not going to cut it anymore."[8] While applauding the journal's use of a double-blind peer review system, an article in Discover lamented that "there won't be any actual science to evaluate."[12]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c Goldstein, Bonnie (February 13, 2008). "Peer-Reviewing the Bible". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Retrieved May 21, 2024.
  2. ^ Oberlin, Kathleen C. (December 15, 2020), "A Walk through the Creation Museum", Creating the Creation Museum, New York University Press, pp. 21–62, doi:10.18574/nyu/9781479881642.003.0002, ISBN 978-1-4798-9752-0, retrieved May 21, 2024
  3. ^ Dean, Cornelia (March 13, 2017). Making Sense of Science: Separating Substance from Spin. Harvard University Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-674-05969-6.
  4. ^ Mydla, Anne (March 4, 2021). "Demanding a Verdict: Science and the Apologetics of Biblical Literalism". Świat i Słowo. 36 (1). University of Bielsko-Biała: 69. doi:10.5604/01.3001.0014.7961. ISSN 1731-3317.
  5. ^ a b c Marquardt, Meg M. (April 3, 2022). "Creationist Science and the Rhetorical Capacity of the Scientific Method". Rhetoric Review. 41 (2). Routledge: 130–145. doi:10.1080/07350198.2022.2038508.
  6. ^ a b c Trollinger, Susan L.; Jr, William Vance Trollinger (May 15, 2016). Righting America at the Creation Museum. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 11–12. doi:10.1353/book.47466. ISBN 978-1-4214-1953-4.
  7. ^ a b c d e Liebers, Kate (June 13, 2008). "Science for Christians". Journal of Young Investigators. ISSN 1539-4026.
  8. ^ a b Pigliucci, Massimo (2008). "Creationist Peer Review" (PDF). Skeptical Inquirer. 32 (3). Committee for Skeptical Inquiry: 19–44. ISSN 0194-6730.
  9. ^ Trollinger, Susan L.; Trollinger, William Vance (November 20, 2023), Atherstone, Andrew; Ceri Jones, David (eds.), "Creationism", The Oxford Handbook of Christian Fundamentalism (1 ed.), Oxford University Press, pp. 236–253, doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198844594.013.14, ISBN 978-0-19-884459-4, retrieved May 21, 2024
  10. ^ a b c Brumfiel, Geoff (January 2008). "Creationists launch 'science' journal". Nature. 451 (7177): 382–383. doi:10.1038/451382b. ISSN 0028-0836.
  11. ^ Goldsmith, David (January 10, 2023). On Solid Ground: Why the Earth Isn't as Controversial as You May Think. Prometheus Books. p. 78. ISBN 978-1-63388-831-9.
  12. ^ a b Barone, Jennifer (April 11, 2008). "What Kind of Peer-Review Would Jesus Want?". Discover Magazine. ISSN 0274-7529. Retrieved May 22, 2024.
  13. ^ Rieppel, Olivier (2011), "Respectable Science: What Is It?", Evolutionary Theory and the Creation Controversy, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Nature, pp. 135–168, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14896-5_7, ISBN 978-3-642-14895-8, retrieved May 21, 2024
  14. ^ a b c Randerson, James (January 27, 2008). "God's journal". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved May 21, 2024.
  15. ^ a b Novella, Steven (January 24, 2008). "New Creation Research Journal". NeuroLogica Blog. New England Skeptical Society. Retrieved May 23, 2024.
  16. ^ Keim, Brandon (January 31, 2008). "Highlights From the New Peer-Reviewed Creation Science Journal". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved May 22, 2024.
  17. ^ Gerten, Dieter; Bergmann, Sigurd, eds. (November 17, 2011). Religion in Environmental and Climate Change: Suffering, Values, Lifestyles. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 126–127. ISBN 978-1-4411-6628-9.
  18. ^ Roller, Rachel M.; Huang, Louise Ko (March 2020). "Galileo and Global Warming: Parallels between the Geocentrism Debate and Current Evangelical Skepticism about Anthropogenic Climate Change" (PDF). Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 72 (1). American Scientific Affiliation: 7. ISSN 0892-2675.
  19. ^ Plait, Phil (March 24, 2014). "This Old Earth Is Warming Up". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Retrieved May 22, 2024.
  20. ^ Butler, Kiera (July 29, 2009). "Creationist Says Oil's From God". Mother Jones. ISSN 0362-8841. Retrieved May 22, 2024.
  21. ^ Novella, Steven (January 13, 2015). "Chimp and Human DNA". NeuroLogica Blog. New England Skeptical Society. Retrieved May 25, 2024.
  22. ^ Robbins, Martin. "Why are people who reject conventional science so in love with its trappings?". Little Atoms Magazine. Retrieved May 25, 2024.
  23. ^ Myers, Paul Z. (January 10, 2008). "A new source for fake science". Pharyngula – via ScienceBlogs.
  24. ^ Rutherford, Adam (January 18, 2008). "The creative sciences". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on February 12, 2008. Retrieved May 21, 2024.

External links[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_Research_Journal&oldid=1225575372"