RE: An interesting case study

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Fri Sep 26 2003 - 13:39:26 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: An interesting case study"

    Allen wrote:

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: allenroy []
    >Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 11:55 AM

    >Glenn Morton wrote about his experience with CRS (Creation
    >Research Society)
    >concerning the publication of material that reflected his
    >understanding of a
    >certain matter dealing with the Mediterranean flood idea. His paper, which
    >apparently was published later by PSCF, was rejected by CRSQ (CRS
    >because it was not in line with the by-laws (or Statement of
    >Belief?) of the

    That is what the editor told me in his rejection letter, which I still have

    >Glenn then makes a most interesting and enlightening statement: "I tried to
    >publish my Mediterranean idea in PSCF and got it rejected. This
    >was a low point
    >for me because there was no one who would publish anything I
    >wrote." One must
    >ask, especially in light of the fact that the paper was indeed
    >later published
    >by PSCF, why was he first rejected? And, Why would the rejection
    >by PSCF mean
    >that "no one" would publish the paper? After all, there are
    >hundreds of other
    >scientific journals out there.

    Allen, you know darn good and well that I wasn't trying to get published in
    a scientific journal. I was trying to get published in PSCF which discusses
    theology and science. The paper wasn't a 'science' paper, it was a
    theological view of how to fit science and theology together.

    >May I suggest that the first rejection by PSCF (not to mention
    >other possible
    >scientific journals) was likely precipitated by the fact that
    >Glenn was a well
    >known YEC. His paper was likely rejected simply because his name
    >was on it,
    >with out review and regardless of the logical or scientific content of the

    This is silly because Jerry Bergman has published in PSCF and he is a well
    known YEC.

    Evolutionary Theory Misunderstood
    ... Specifically, both J. Bergman and M. C. Morris published papers critical
    of evolutionary
    biology in a recent issue (PSCF 52 [March 2000]: 18-30, 55-7). I ... - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

    Note, that ASA lets people criticise evolution. CRSQ doesn't allow people to
    criticise them at all. Who is more open???

    Bergman has been publishing in PSCF for 18-20 years

    Lubenow, Marvin L., On Bernard Ramm and Spradley [44.1 p. 2] PSCF
    44.3:218-218 (9/1992)

    This is much more consideration than CRSQ ever gave me after I changed. They
    let Lubenow criticise an article. CRSQ wouldn't let me do that.

    Ross Olson is another YEC Olson, Ross S., Midlife Crisis PSCF 43.3:212-212

    Sproul is a YEC-- Sproul, R. C., Providence, Science and the Sovereignty of
    God PSCF 41.2:67-68 (6/1989)

    I believe Byl is or was a YEC Byl, John, Instrumentalism: A Third Option
    JASA 37.1:11-18 (3/1985) I may be wrong though.

    Norman Geisler was a YEC Geisler, Norman L., A Response to Davis Young's
    Critique of Origin Science JASA 37.1:51-52 (3/1985)

    And my good friend George Howe has published in PSCF Howe, George F., The
    Raven Speaks JASA 21.1:22-25 (3/1969). Allen, he was better known than me.

    This is simply another example of what I said in a note the other day. YECs
    simply won't do their own research. They claim things about things which
    they have never, ever bothered to check out. This is why YECs have the
    problems and ridicule they do.

    You just don't check out your claims before making them do you?

    This is supported by how Glenn's paper finally did get
    >published, "When
    >I pointed out that Fischer's idea required water to flow up hill and they
    >published it, but wouldn't publish mine which didn't have that issue, they
    >finally relented." In other word, it was only after a debate where Glenn
    >demonstrated his change in position from a strict YEC that PSCF decided to
    >publish his paper. Glenn's paper was not anymore scientific after
    >the debate
    >than it was before the debate.

    Allen, when selling new ideas to the marketplace of ideas, what I
    experienced is not at all unusual. If you are presenting something novel
    (which if nothing else, my view was), one is going to have a hard time. If
    CRSQ had told me they were rejecting it because they didn't believe it, that
    would have been different from them saying that they wouldn't publish it
    because it advocated a local flood and thus would violate their by-laws. If
    God did create a local flood for Noah, then CRSQ will not publish the truth
    in that regard because the truth would violate their bylaws.

    >So, it appears that what we have is CRSQ which puts it's policies
    >up front in a
    >statement of belief, and, on the other hand, PSCF (and other journals) that
    >discriminate against YECs without benefit of a formal belief
    >statement. Which
    >is more ethical?

    BS, pure BS Allen (an acronym I won't define). Why don't you get your facts
    correct before you spout off. PSCF has published items by Bergman Howe, Byl,
    Sproul, Olson,and Lubenow and you are foaming about PSCF rejecting me for
    being a YEC. Good grief. That wasn't why I was rejected and I knew it at the


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 26 2003 - 13:39:35 EDT