Not sure I’d call this a proper journal just yet. International Journal of Anthropology and Ethnology was only started last year by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and has put out only 2 issues with 15 articles to date. I suspect they weren’t very choosy about finding something, anything, to publish.
Even the best of editorial and peer reviewing practices can occasion let some foolishness slip through.
There have been occasional creationist papers in real journals, though generally they haven’t been explicit about their creationism. In my own field, Siegfried Scherer has managed at least two stealth creationism publications:
Scherer S., Hilsberg T. Hybridisierung und Verwandtschaftsgrade innerhalb der Anatidae — eine systematische und evolutionstheoretische Betrachtung. Journal für Ornithologie 1982; 123:357-380.
Scherer S., Sontag C. Zur molekularen Taxonomie und Evolution der Anatidae. Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 1986; 24:1-19.
there would not be many subjects where creationism would kick in unless just enndless rejection f minor points in biology/geology etc.
they say there is a discrimination unrelated to merit. probably.
The only thing creationists need is freedom of thought/speech/ideas and this means being pubklished in the nations publications that claim dedicated to truth/science.
remember that up till the 1800’s all science research in the English world was founded on creationist presumptions in some way or another.
Even Darwin kept saying in his first evolution thing about how gOD didn’t wouldn’t do this or that.
yet saying this means its a option operative.
From the paper:
It’s the same failed creationist arguments we have seen before. They would claim that dogs didn’t descend from wolves because dogs and wolves exist at the same time. When an author gets the basics wrong it’s hard to take the paper seriously.
Freedom of speech applies to government action. Journals have the freedom if discretion, and they have the right to decide what is worthy of being published in their pages. Acceptance in science is not something you have a right to. it is something you earn.
Another whopper from the paper:
The image produced by human eyes is just as artificial as the one produced in an Imax theatre. Your eyes take images from slightly different perspectives (the distance between your pupils) and combine those pictures in your head to form an artificial map of your surroundings. There are numerous visual illusions that trick the mind into making a false map of the world which only highlights how artificial our 3D images are.
Next, you only have to to a Google search to find microphones that are several times more sensitive and detailed than the human ear.
This is just sloppy writing.
Thanks for taking the time to read through it for us. It’s too bad that really is the type of quality that is produced by certain brands of creationist. At least for ones like this, I don’t think its the imaginary persecution complex narrative that’s stopping publication.
Depends on what kind of reception it gets. Any critiques of this paper need to focus first and foremost on its low technical quality and its factual inaccuracies. On the other hand, if it gets hammered primarily for its creationist stance, and concerns about its technical shortcomings are forced into the back seat, that would just be proving their point.
There is a very peculiar about face in this article. For most of the paper, the author describe various transitional hominids, from A. afarensis to H. erecuts. Then, out of the blue, the author writes:
What? It’s as if the author was struck with sudden amnesia.
Then comes this rather eyebrow raising section:
Yep, you read it correctly. The author is citing Harun Yahya, and not as an example of anti-science, but as a trustworthy source. Just . . . WOW!!
From there, the author’s focus strays way off course as he panders in arguments from ignorance and incredulity. Overall, it is a really poor paper based on the content alone. I am not saying that it is poor because it is a creationist paper, but because it is a really bad attempt at addressing the topic.
Based on the fact that it allowed things like this to be published, I think it’s likely that it’s one of those predatory journals. Very odd that the Springer name is attached to it. What impresses me the most about the paper despite the substandard content is that the citation style is very consistent and well formatted.
I find this bit rather odd:
“The datasets generated or analyzed during the current study is not publicly available due [REASON WHY DATA ARE NOT PUBLIC] but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.”
Springer used to have some kind of standards.