| Should scientific creationism and macroevolution be presented as equally valid theories in our schools? |
|
|
|
Asked 2 years ago
by Scarecrow  United States |
|
About
Divorced 40-year-old military man. Geocaching addict!
|
| 6 Points |
Onlyif there is science in creationism
Creationism is a belief not a science. It can be presented in children's religion classes organised by churches but not in a public school.
This comment was deleted.
[7 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyQuite right Tanslate. (I hope that an expression of agreement from me does not spoil your day).
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyIt's what's known as an oxymoron (emphasis on the moron). ;o)
There is no such thing as scientific creationism. By definition.
It has to be disprovable, repeatable, quantifiable to be science. By definition. Creationism is none of those.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
By your definition, there is no such thing as macro-evolution.
Scientific creationism is the science of creation that assumes God is the primary mover. It presents evolution as a tool that God uses to create many beings.
Macro-evolution is the science of creation that assumes no God. There is only chance.
Neither is provable scientifically. They should not be taught in any science class. As science, they are equally invalid.
This comment was deleted.
[4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyI know that science is your religion, but you can stop jumping in "correcting" me when it doesn't fit your religious beliefs.
Yes, I know that calling you religious is offensive to you, but I have been unable to talk with you at all when I tried to tippy-toe around your prejudices.
My answer was as factual as it could be made without denying Christianity or Atheism.
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThen you don't agree with me. They Should be taught in school. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.
Nor is he trying to. Is slight-of-hand taught in physics class? Don't be any denser than you must.
So if my philosophy is different from his, it's slight of hand on my part. Now I get it. You are just as closed minded as translate on this issue.
"Close-minded"? This from someone who does not know the difference between religion and science?
If I'm so ill informed why don't you explain it to me. But I warn you, you will look silly trying to prove that!
Your comments are proof enough. You can't teach critical thinking to someone who has a hole in their thought processes any more than you can teach conscience to a sociopath.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
I won't use critical thinking thinking on this subject. It requires suspending judgment. These questions require us to make a judgment in order answer them.
This wasn't a call for critical thinking. It was an effort to call me a sociopath. And nothing I've written even fits that definition.
This comment was deleted.
[-4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyWe've had this discussion before. Science is not anybody's religion, JW. Science is a method for examining facts and evidence. Something religion is quite happy not to do.
Yes we have. But while developing his work on evolution, Darwin (and others) came up with a macro-evolution theory that has largely been discredited. It included his theory that evolution, specifically the origins of Man, occurred largely by chance. That was never a scientific fact like some of his other work. It was a quasi-religious theory that he himself rejected later in his life.
My original statement was that neither Scientific Creation or Macro-Evolution should be taught as Science. They are good subjects for study in a philosophy of science class like you might take as a Junior or Senior in college, but neither are hard science.
Sorry I get marked down so much. You have some good questions that I would be happy to answer if I weren't so heavily censored.
What I was trying to say is that science (or any other subject) comes with a whole set of values and beliefs. Translate, and to a lesser extent you have been belligerently positive that my beliefs about science are idiotic. To defend myself, I dared you'll to show me how your philosophy was any different from mine. I was vilified for even suggesting they you'll even HAD a philosophy. That's why I call him Blind Boy. Anything he doesn't want to see, he can't. Your questions show more a search for the truth and less grind Conservatives into the dust mentality. I hope I answer in kind.
I do wish you'd get off of the science comes with "beliefs" thing. Science is not a set of beliefs. It is a set of assumptions which are discarded when they don't hold up.
This is the exact OPPOSITE of religion where the beliefs are deemed sacrosanct and any new evidence is made to fit the beliefs.
Start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
to understand how very short sighted that statement is.
The Philosophy of Science is a bunch of philosophers... it has little to do with the scientific method or the willingness to abandon outdated assumptions vs. the unwillingness to abandon religious dogma.
Yes, but given that definition, not all of what is called "evolution" is pure science. Yes, evolution has been proved on a micro level, i.e., adaptation occurs within a species, and natural selection is a valid, working process. However, on a macro level, i.e., one species evolving into another, there is no solid scientific proof. Neither is there any solid scientific proof that everything appeared in a very short period. Both macro-evolution and creationism are philosophical beliefs. The same body of evidence can be interpreted two different ways and neither has been proven or disproven in a valid, repeatable manner.
This is why I worded my question that way: MACRO-evolution and creationism should be treated on equal ground - either both presented with both pro and con of each, or neither should.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis is the first time in this discussion that you got a verifiable fact wrong. From Google...
Scholarly articles for macroevolution
Macroevolution, pattern and process - Stanley - Cited by 753
Background and mass extinctions: the alternation of ... - Jablonski - Cited by 267
A neo-Darwinian commentary on macroevolution - Charlesworth - Cited by 347
Search Results
Results include your SearchWiki notes for macroevolution. Share these notes
Copy and paste this link into an email or IM:
See a preview of the shared page
1.
Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution - Cached - Similar -
2.
Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
Sep 23, 2006 ... In evolutionary biology today macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html - Cached - Similar -
3.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common ...
Jan 12, 2004 ... This article directly addresses the scientific evidences in favor of macroevolutionary theory and common descent.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ - Cached - Similar -
Show more results from www.talkorigins.org
4.
Evolution 101: Macroevolution
Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale—what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, ...
evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/.../VIMacroevolution.shtml - Cached - Similar -
Was quoting Darwin's work on Macro-evolution. I thought he was one of your major prophets. Don't recognize his work?
That's not science. By definition. Devise an experiment that tries to disprove god, is quantifiable and repeatable, and uses valid and good methods, and then MAYBE there's something to calling it science.
It is very interesting that the other profession trained in logic and proof and rigorous thinking (law) has, in every case, determined that creationism does not meet the criteria of science.
OTOH, Devise an experiment that tries to disprove macroevolution (i.e., a species can evolve into another species), is quantifiable and repeatable, and uses valid and good methods.
Creationism and evolutionary theory are both interpretations of the same body of evidence. Neither can be fully proven or disproven by the scientific method, since they are an interpretation of past events and no current, repeatable evidence has been found. Therefore they either both need to be presented or neither should be presented.
This comment was deleted.
[6 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-7 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyReally? You think people from the Stone Age used complex abstract language? Oh, wait... sorry BO... I forgot who I was talking to for a minute. Sorry. My bad.
We didn't say evolution is not a science. That's your deliberate misinterpretation of what we said. Get a clue. We are not the idiots that are used to dealing with. Your bluster and crudity just reminds us of how much growing up you still need to do.
Except that evolution is a theory that fits the available evidence and creationism is not (at least not without resorting to magical thinking).
Why should creationism get a special pleading over ghosts, astrology, alien abductions, free energy or any other of the host of pseudo-scientific claims?
We did not claim any such thing. (I know that some do.) Macro-evolution is a religious philosophy as is scientific creationism. No more. No less.
Now, now, now... you know perfectly well you are asking the impossible. Nobody can devise an experiment that disproves anything, be it God, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
To paraphrase Carl Sagan, "I have an invisible dragon in my garage. Prove that I don't!" Can't happen.
As I've demonstrated at great length, there are a number of ways to prove a negative. But the ONLY thing that the scientific method has proved is that a lot more people believe than would occur randomly.
My theory is that science will eventually come to a place where evidence can be measured. (like dark matter) But right now, we can't.
Sorry, but you have not demonstrated it at ANY length. There is no way to prove something "does not exist" anywhere in the universe.
Will come to a place where evidence of WHAT can be measured?
My belief is that god has attributes humans can not observe or experience. The hardest part is that my belief requires the belief in a life form far greater than humanity. His descriptions are like trying to see yellow if you've never seen anything. I believe that eventually our science will be so solid and our means of collecting evidence so improved, that we will prove God by proving that a being greater than ourselves are the only thing that could produce the observed evidence. Obviously, we are a long way from there, but give us a few hundred years and we can.
That's a lovely "belief" JW. Please get back to me when you have any sort of evidence whatsoever. ;o)
You are using an "Argument from ignorance"
The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:
1) Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.
2) Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.
Sound familiar? Religion can not be explained in scientific language so it must be false.
How about... I see no evidence for God, so no God is proven.
Not at all. I said there is no way to prove something does NOT exist. How is that an argument from ignorance?
I did not declare either hypothesis to be proven. Perhaps you think you are talking to waugs. ;o)
You said, "Now, now, now... you know perfectly well you are asking the impossible. Nobody can devise an experiment that disproves anything,"
Here are some negative statements that can be proven very easily:
Five is not equal to four
The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld
The tsetse fly is not native to North America
I said you can't prove a negative in the sense of "prove something does not exist," not in the sense of, "prove something is false."
dauguy said, "That's not science"
I said, "Neither is provable scientifically. They should not be taught in any science class. As science, they are equally invalid."
You didn't even bother to disagree with me. All you proved is that you hate religion.
So sorry. All that was proved here is that you don't know what science is. Macro-evolution is THE most evidentiarily supported theory--and let us not forget, 'theory' means and hypothesis supported by facts and evidence--of all time.
And I don't 'hate religion.' I simply object to what, in any other context, would be described as mental illness being the law of the land.
Macro-evolution speaks to the origin of mankind, not to changes in life forms. It is a belief system just like mine. It has NO scientific validity and was later reputed by it's author.
Just because Darwin was a great scientist doesn't make him a great theologian. Quotes to follow.
So you don't hate religion, we're crazy.
In a nutshell.
Nice try dauguy. Scientific Creation theory is a theory ABOUT science and the conclusions drawn by scientists. It does not dispute the science, just the conclusions. It has nothing to do with proving or disproving God.
This comment was deleted.
[6 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplySo would you also teach about voodoo, shamanism, ghosts, crop circles, cattle mutilation, remote viewing, using leeches and disease being caused by "ill humors" in science class?
Why should creationism get a special pleading?
This comment was deleted.
[6 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyWhy should ANY religious group get a special pleading in SCIENCE class? That's the point here. If you want to teach creationism in "Comparative Religion" class, knock yourself out... but it has no place in science class... any more than the Flat Earth or the Geocentric universe theory.
This comment was deleted.
[5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplySorry, you are correct. But the implication in the question is probably that in the U.S. there is a controversy over whether or not "Creationism" should be taught alongside evolution in science classes.
No, since they're not equally valid.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
No, they are equally invalid as hard science.
Fuck creationism!
I also could say, I farted and all the creatures on earth appeared...*rolleye*
creationism should be presented in history or mithology, not scientific classes.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
What about scientific creationism?
So, I assume no one wants to know.
Typical that Atheists are the most closed minded of all.
You really don't understand the meaning of "closed minded" do you.
As I attempted to explain to you already, religion starts with a set of beliefs which are sacrosanct and inviolate. Atheists start with a set of assumptions. Atheists are perfectly willing to discard assumptions which are proven false. Religious people are NOT willing to discard beliefs which are proven false... or even to admit that their core beliefs CAN EVER be proven false.
Are you getting the difference here?
Sure. I understand the difference. The thing YOU forget is that science does not conflict with my religion. (Core beliefs or otherwise)
The conflict is in the interpretation of science. To deny ANY belief system is involved is as closed minded as it gets. The test is not what Atheists believe about what is provable. The test is what anybody believes that is not provable.
I believe that people should wear clothes when they go out in public. Others believe in Nudism. Though I disagree, they at least don't try to tell us that we wear clothes because of an outmoded religion that's there to personally hurt us. Then deny that they believe anything. They are just nudists because they are superior. Then they define clothes wearers as crazy or dangerous and closed minded.
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyYour lack of belief in axioms (the scientific name for assumptions) does make you closed minded.
You said, "Atheists are perfectly willing to discard assumptions which are proven false." That is absolutely false on this site. Assumptions are about belief, not proof. No ones assumptions about values can be scientifically proven. That alone makes the statement false.
Absolutely false "on this site?" Does that mean it's not absolutely false somewhere else? Umm... not so much, no. Allow me to illustrate.
The God-fearing Christian cannot conceive of a world in which there is no God. The idea of the non-existence of God is completely unacceptable to them.
The atheist/agnostics have no problem conceiving of a world in which there is a God... they simply ask to see proof of His existence. The idea of the existence of God is completely acceptable to them.
Now please tell me who is open minded and who is closed minded?
Given those 2 statements, you would be correct. How about these two.
The God-fearing Christian tries to run his life by a pro-Christian philosophy.
The Atheist tries to run his life by a science at all costs philosophy. He then states that there is no such thing as philosophy. There is only fact or fiction. No good, no evil, no hypothetical, no intrinsic value to family, friends, or Love because the value of each of those thing can not be scientifically proved. They are neither fact nor fiction. He can not conceive of anything past fact or fiction. That is the most closed minded of all.
I agree with your first statement. I disagree with your second.
1. One does not have to know or care anything about science to be an atheist.
2. One can be an atheist and be a philosopher. Have you never heard of secular humanism?
3. The "value" of love, family friends etc. can be easily proved. It may be difficult to measure, but I can't think of any atheists i know who would say those things have no value.
Therefore your conclusion (based on three false contentions) that the atheist is "the most closed minded of all" does not stand.
Those very claims are what translate said. That is the very reason I say he is closed minded.
BTW/I don't mean to insinuate that all non-believers are like him or even all Atheists.
Sorry... I didn't see where tranlate said all atheists run their lives by science at all costs, atheist cannot be philosophical and atheists think love has no value. Could you please point out to me where he made those claims.
Show me proof. I'm totally open minded to proof. Mythology from dusty books - not so much.
You consider an unwillingness to believe in magic fairies as close minded. This is why you fail, Joyce. On all counts.
[1 point] 9 hours ago by United States translate Reply
"Scientific creationism"? What the fuck is that?
There is nothing scientific about creationism. Keep that crap out of school. You want to learn about that, go to church.
This is 2 in this discussion alone. I'm not going back and look up all the other times.
Sorry. Neither of those support that he said all atheists run their lives by science at all costs, atheists cannot be philosophical or atheists think love has no value.
I hope that "all the other times" are more evidence of your contention than these, because I'm afraid you'll have to offer something else. These do not support your assertion.
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThen why do you deny the assumptions implicit within that philosophy? (Which is another way of saying that I don't believe you.)
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyYou said, "The God-fearing Christian cannot conceive of a world in which there is no God"
Of course we can. We just don't think that we happen to live on one.
What? Are you saying that God is not the God of all worlds? That he is limited to this one? Really? That's what you are saying?
Oh my... you're going to get kicked out of the God-fearing Christian community on your behind if you keep this up, JW.
God unrevealed is not a God. God never said that we are his only creation. He only said that we are loved by Him and important to Him.
Stop dodging the question. Is God the god of everything, or just us? If he is the god of everything, then your contention falls... since you still cannot conceive of any place where God is not god.
You didn't say God of everything. You said God of the World.
If you meant God Creator of the universe, you are partially right. I can imagine a universe like Douglas Adams writes about. (Restaurant at the End of the Universe, Et al) Just because I believe no such universe exists doesn't mean I can't imagine it. If you mean that I could never believe in a universe without God, then no, I do not intend to ever go back to that belief system. I believe the belief system (as a whole) that I have adopted is superior to any belief system others hold. Otherwise, I would not hold it. You believe yours is superior or you would not hold it.
I was trying to not have to explain it this way because it sounds arrogant and exclusionary when it is in fact, no such thing.
The reason this makes such a big difference is that Atheists often believe that any conventional religion is a belief in the unbelievable. Therefore any religion is crazy at best, and psychotic at worst. The problem with the Atheist point of view is that they assume, or it's axiomatic that God does not exist. True Atheists can never admit that a Creator God or Savior God exists without destroying themselves in the process. An Agnostic can, if they want to, admit to the existence of God. (As you indicated, when you have proof) Agnostics don't lose anything in the process, because they have gained knowledge they didn't have before.
is the God of the World a different god from the God of everything?
The fact that you dogmatically accept alternative A means you cannot accept alternative B. The agnostic can accept either A or B which automatically makes you less "open-minded."
No difference in being closed minded can be inferred at all. What you call facts are Axioms or Assumptions or Opinions (depending on who you talk to) If I refused to accept a fact, then I would be closed minded. In this case, though you are Agnostic, you are defending an Atheist principle. (Which is a conclusion, not a fact.)
"atheist/agnostics" are two different belief systems connected only by lack of belief in God. Atheists can not conceive of a reality with God and ridicule anyone who can.
Agnostics can conceive of both. They just follow a different philosophy. (Secular Humanism etc)
Most people who call themselves atheists are in reality agnostic.
Since it is impossible to disprove the existence of God, no one can be absolutely certain some sort of god does not exist somewhere in the universe.
I can't speak for translate, of course... but most people I know who do not believe in God would happily change their position if shown incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
I think that you are absolutely right. I accept that translate may be an exception.
Stop putting words in my mouth.
I did not say that translate is an exception. I said that I can't speak for him.
If your original statement is correct, (and I accept it as true) then translate is the exception. translate said that no evidence is acceptable unless it is scientific evidence. Convenient for him to require the impossible.
Huh? I don't understand how his position is any different from mine, really. "Woo woo evidence" is not acceptable. By that I mean "scriptural evidence, spiritual evidence, feelings, paranormal experiences, etc."
He does not require the impossible at all. If God himself were to descend from Heaven, calling him by name and raise a few people from the dead, while walking on water, and turning water into wine and lead into gold under controlled test conditions (to make sure it wasn't a trick), I have little doubt that translate would accept that. Do you think those things are impossible for God?
Been there, done that. They crucified him, remember. What makes you think people are different today?
Yeah, see... that's the thing. We have no actual evidence that he did those things... just anecdotal evidence. Nice try, though.
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyYou require a very specific type of evidence that can not be provided without violating the nature of God. Historical evidence is abundant, but no history can be proven by science because we can not repeat it. History is a time constrained construct. You can also turn the statement around and say that any history of mankind that is repeated is simply history ignored, not evidence of no valid history.
Your insistence of scientific evidence for God makes exactly the same error. It assumes that any area of study not driven by the scientific method has no validity. If they have no validity, then something must be wrong with them. Every valid argument that I have ever seen comes down to the Atheist Axiom that no evidence except scientific evidence is valid.
What I keep screaming about is that you ONLY require that about religion. You don't require it about, Psychology, Sociology, Ecology, Paleontology, History, Economics, Linguistics, Music, Art or Education. And you don't require the scientific method be the only allowed evidence in those area because it would be silly to do so with a straight face. There are no valid reasons to dismiss God out of hand any more than there is a reason to dismiss any other line of inquiry because they have another way of acquiring information. Is history or music scientifically understood? No. Are there parts of it that are better understood because of science? Certainly.
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, some Archeologists that could read the original Aramaic were astounded by how few differences they could find between those first century manuscripts and what we see today. That science was helpful in our understanding of scripture. But it neither asked or demanded proof of the content of those scrolls. Why? Because science can not answer that question.
What I keep screaming about is that if God exists, he could come and show himself and prove his existence to translate at ANY time. No historical re-enactment required.
He does not do that. It is not the nature of God. He did things the other way. You either accept God on his terms or you don't. We are not equal to him. He has no need to prove himself. None of us know why.
According to you. What translate and I are asking for is evidence that works on anybody's terms... not just Gods. If you are saying that's not possible for God, then you don't have much of a God there.
I've gone to extraordinary lengths to explain why you are asking for the impossible then you keep drawing whatever conclusion you want. Your conclusion is that, either God doesn't exist or he is not omnipotent. I insist that Humankind can not yet come to the point where we can directly observe God, therefore evidence is found in other ways. Then you continue to insist there are no other valid ways. (in the face of several examples to the contrary) I don't understand why you cling to your arguement when it simply doesn't work.
You argument is not scriptural. God spoke with Moses "as a man speaketh with his friend." Adam and Eve walked and talked with God in the Garden of Eden. Obviously humankind has been at the point where they could "directly observe God" for millennia. Your lame excuses that God CAN'T do this or that just don't cut it here. But keep trying.
No, my argument is not scriptural. I think it's almost always wrong to argue scripture with non-believers.
You have already said that you would not accept historical evidence, so I saw no reason to bring it up.
I didn't say I wouldn't accept historical evidence. But it has to be ACTUAL evidence. Not just the after the fact musings of fanatical believers. ;o)
Instead of posting a long list, I thought I might go two different ways. There are a large number of references to Jesus and Christianity outside the Bible. You'll find the most generally accepted references here ----->
Extra-biblical references to Jesus and Christianity
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html
This is a book that looks at the New Testament from a historical premise.------>
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS
Are they Reliable?
By F. F. BRUCE,
M.A., D.D., F.B.A.
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyNo more than you do translate, no more than you.
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyIt's one of those "faith promoting rumors" trotted out by the faithful to reaffirm their faith. ;o)
Start here [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls ] and work back through the sources.
You see JW... I told you that translate would be willing to change his mind if he saw concrete evidence. Yet you are unwilling to change your mind under any circumstances... so who is REALLY closed-minded here?
And as I explained before, when you eliminate every way of understanding God except the scientific, it does not count.
Nice try... nobody said it has to be "scientific." It just has to be measurable and repeatable. If you can come up with some psychic mumbo jumbo that you can demonstrate to be measurable and repeatable, you're in like Flynn. Plus I have a cool $1,000,000 for you.
Measurable and repeatable is the essence of the scientific method. Without it, there is no scientific method. When you exclude all other, you are shutting off any chance for a valid discussion.
What other method IS there? Aside from the woo-woo methods like "feelings?"
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours...
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
I understand the thought process. You are just wrong.
Damn... there's that old closed-mindedness again rearing its ugly head.
Nope. What AnitaDick said just failed to answer any of the questions raised and does not fit the facts.
Regardless, the phrase, "you are just wrong" is a logical fallacy. ;o)
I was taught to "tailor your answer to the questioner."
Most people find critical thinking thinking to be of little value when defining values. So I didn't use logic. I used a declaration of belief.
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
You are the one that characterized yourself as an Anti-Theist. You have also allowed yourself to be characterized as an Atheist and even specified the difference. I have assumed any hard core Atheist would do something smiler to your actions.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThere is no such thing.
Google "intelligent design". or go to http://www.discovery.org/csc/ for peer reviewed articles.
When William Dembski says (on his own web site of his own "institute") that the papers are "peer reviewed" that does not really mean the same thing as when an actual scientist says, "peer reviewed."
You said that there is no such thing. What do I have to do? Buy you some glasses?
There is no such thing. Dembski is a charlatan who is making stuff up. You know... sort of like a creationist Glenn Beck.
I can tell you that everything I write is "peer reviewed" too... but what does that mean? Depending on who the "peers" are it might not mean much of anything.
If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.