How come theists never get into peer-reviewed journals with their ideas and so called evidence?

How come theists never get into peer-reviewed journals with their ideas and so called evidence?

  • Follow publicly
  • Follow privately
  • Unfollow
Richard Dawkins still waits to give the million bucks to the theists that could prove the existence of God, what's taking so long?

If you disagree with me or my question, the most intelligent thing you could do, would be to answer it calm and rational, without ad hominems.
Best AnswerVoter's Choice
  • NDMA answered 5 months ago
They do, quite frequently in fact:

Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

David L. Abel, “Is Life Unique?,” Life, Vol. 2:106-134 (2012).

Douglas D. Axe, Philip Lu, and Stephanie Flatau, “A Stylus-Generated Artificial Genome with Analogy to Minimal Bacterial Genomes,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(3) (2011).

Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson, “Can the Origin of the Genetic Code Be Explained by Direct RNA Templating?,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(2) (2011).

Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).

Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).

Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

Douglas D. Axe, “The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010(4):1 (2010).

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some further research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology, 1-21 (2010).

George Montañez, Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “A Vivisection of the ev Computer Organism: Identifying Sources of Active Information,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010(3) (2010).

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

Douglas D. Axe, “The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (1) (2010).

Winston Ewert, George Montañez, William Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle,” 42nd South Eastern Symposium on System Theory, pp. 290-297 (March, 2010).

David L. Abel, “Constraints vs Controls,” The Open Cybernetics and Systemics Journal, Vol. 4:14-27 (January 20, 2010).

David L. Abel, “The GS (genetic selection) Principle,” Frontiers in Bioscience, Vol. 14:2959-2969 (January 1, 2010).

D. Halsmer, J. Asper, N. Roman, and T. Todd, “The Coherence of an Engineered World,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(1):47–65 (2009).

Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Bernoulli’s Principle of Insufficient Reason and Conservation of Information in Computer Search,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 2647 – 2652 (October, 2009).

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, Vol. 39(5):1051-1061 (September, 2009).

David L. Abel, “The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP),” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6(27) (2009).

David L. Abel, “The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, Vol. 10:247-291 (2009).

David L. Abel, “The biosemiosis of prescriptive information,” Semiotica, Vol. 174(1/4):1-19 (2009).

A. C. McIntosh, “Information and Entropy – Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(4):351-385 (2009).

A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).

David L. Abel, “The ‘Cybernetic Cut’: Progressing from Description to Prescription in Systems Theory,” The Open Cybernetics and Systemics Journal, Vol. 2:252-262 (2008).

Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).

Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).

Michael Sherman, “Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa: Thoughts About Evolution,” Cell Cycle, Vol. 6(15):1873-1877 (August 1, 2007).

There are many more - but Answers has a limit to post size!
  • 4
  • Comment

Other Answers (21)

  • Oldest
  • Newest
  • Rated Highest
  • Wicked Witch of the East answered 5 months ago
    Christians started science and scientific institutions live universities, they built countries like the U.K. (look at the cross in your flag).

    God made it possible for humans to do science. Science shows God's power.
    • 9
    • Comment
  • nobudE answered 5 months ago
    They feel court is the only forum worth competing in.


    ad hominehominehominem
    • 1
    • Comment
  • Red Dragon answered 5 months ago
    Because the burden of proof is upon you guys? There is no evidence for existence of any god, understand?

    Edit; sorry, I misread theists for atheists....
    • 1
    • Comment
  • JehobagNicholasm answered 5 months ago
    The jehovah cult utilizes classic mind control techniques to control its adherents. The cult begins by welcoming the target into the cult. It's all smiles and hugs at fist. The cult then forbids the target to associate with anyone that is not also a cult member, including family members. Once the cult has established itself as the target's only support network, the cult threatens expulsion from the group (the jehovah cult calls this disfellowshipping) if you disobey your cult handlers in any way.
    • 2
    • Comment
  • oli answered 5 months ago
    God wants to personally take his million bucks. Hope Dawkins manages to take the cash along on his trip down and out.
    • Rate
    • Comment
  • Marc Antoine Muret answered 5 months ago
    >Christians started science and scientific institutions live universities,

    World's first University was Islamic.

    >they built countries like the U.K. (look at the cross in your flag).

    The flag is Genoan. How typical of Xtians to steal something from someone else and pass it off as their own.
    • 2
    • Comment
  • The Ghost of Christmas Past answered 5 months ago
    If Richard Dawkins had a million bucks, I might take the old windbag a little more seriously. God is what exists permanently and unconditionally. God exists by definition. Dawkins knows this as well as I do. The atheist position is that all existence is temporary and there's no proof of that.

    I offered Dawkins the million bucks for his prize if he could prove to me that 1 + 1 = 2 Or that a large animal with a trunk is an elephant. Both are true by definition but there's no proof of either. Why do you believe this rubbish?
    • 3
    • Comment
  • John answered 5 months ago
    God exists apart from time and space, How could He be proven?

    Yours is a typical atheist tactic. Demand something that is impossible, or that you refuse to acknowledge exists, then feel all self-satisfied watching people try to provide the impossible.

    God is good, an' I ain't worried about the ridiculous garbage poor pitiful self-deluded atheist psychopaths come up with, the illogical games they play or questions they ask. [:-)
    • 2
    • Comment
  • Matthew T answered 5 months ago
    Who gets to decide whether a given proof is sufficient?

    Dawkins lives his life in the unproved belief that God does not exist. He has no proof yet he devotes his life to his belief.
    • 1
    • Comment
  • Sign In 

    to add your answer

  • username_hidden answered 5 months ago
    Theologians are not going to publish in scientific journals, because they do not write about the natural properties and behaviour of the physical universe. But they do publish in relevent, peer reviewed academic journals concerning theology, philosophy, history and other relevent subjects..
    • 3
    • Comment
  • Liam answered 5 months ago
    Journal of Scientific Exploration, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, Journal of Parapsychology, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Psychological Reports, Annals of Botany, Planta, New Phytologist, Journal of Experimental Botany, Nature, Biological Reviews, Physiologia Plantarum, Annals of Applied Biology, Theoria to Theory, Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge).

    You can find these papers at sheldrake[dot]org
    • 1
    • Comment
  • omarta1 answered 5 months ago
    'For those with faith, no evidence is necessary; for those without it, no evidence will suffice.' - St. Thomas Aquinas
    • Rate
    • Comment
  • Charles Veidt answered 5 months ago
    Dawkins is particularly intelligent and has a keen mind, though his wager is of little meaningfulness. It's no more possible for someone to prove God's existence than it is for someone to disprove it.
    • Rate
    • Comment
  • Cheshire reloaded answered 5 months ago
    So now Richard Dawkins has appointed himself the god detective to prove the existence of a god he doesn't believe in. :o

    The 'science' that makes it through 'peer' reviews is usually materialist, mechanistic and reductionist, it is based on current assumptions and it is usually attributed to 'intelligent' minds. If it deviates from this, the less likely it is to succeed, regardless of it's value. It's those 'peers' that decide who their peers are and consequently filter the information the world receives. Phenomena or facts that are not consistent with current scientific theories usually don't recieve a 'peer' slap on the back, instead their theories are supressed, they are no longer considered 'peers' and their work is ridiculed.

    IF anyone ever did find evidence, it would not take place within the current paradigms. It would most likely to be an anomalie, possibly challenge current paradigms and be ignored, over looked, rejected or ridiculed.

    I find it odd that any scientist today doesn't know this !!!
    • 3
    • Comment
  • Old Man Dirt answered 5 months ago
    We are publishing in Peer-viewed journals.
    I don't think any of us take Richard Dawkins seriously when it comes to religion. He is not my peer in spiritual maters. I am not his peer in physics.
    So I doubt you will find me seeking publication in journals for his peers and you will not find his articles in journals for my peers.
    Big deal!
    • 2
    • Comment
  • Mr E answered 5 months ago
    your so-called science journals are anything but open and objective, and turn away what doesn't fit their agenda.
    • Rate
    • Comment
  • Someone who cares answered 5 months ago
    Proof of God cannot be bought. There will be no proof. It is belief.
    • 1
    • Comment
  • ? answered 5 months ago
    It's all a conspiracy man to take god out of everything man. These crazy illuminati, atheist, satanist, militant, antitheists don't want god to be a part of our lives man. They want to take away our faith in the true god, put microchips in us, and make us bow down to satan man. It is all an illuminati, athiest, satanist, militant, antitheist plot to hide the truth man.

    My above comments are in no way indicative of how I actually see the world and are intended to be purely for the purpose of entertainment. Viewer discretion is advised.
    • 1
    • Comment
  • River Euphrates answered 5 months ago
    It's OBVIOUSLY because peer-reviewed science journals are biased against religion...


    • Rate
    • Comment
  • Doctor answered 5 months ago
    "How come theists never get into peer-reviewed journals with their ideas and so called evidence?"
    What makes you think they don't?

    "Richard Dawkins still waits to give the million bucks to the theists that could prove the existence of God, what's taking so long?"
    Richard Dawkins' whole way of thinking, every argument that he makes, is based on the assumption that God doesn't exist. Every argument that he makes against God is circular, because you will always find that hidden assumption in his argument somewhere. No argument would seem reasonable to him unless it was also based on that assumption. He is willing to accept any conclusion, no matter how improbable or unreasonable, if it is necessary in order to support his assumption, so a reductio ad absurdum is useless on him. As indeed are all forms of proof, since there is no way he would ever accept the facts no matter how clear the proof.
    • Rate
    • Comment

Ask a Question

Today on Yahoo

Sharpton: I never considered myself an informant

The reverend says reports that he passed information about the mafia to the FBI are nothing new.

Who is following this question?

    Member Since:
    Points: Points: Level
    Total Answers:
    Points this week:
    Sorry, we can't find who you were looking for. The account appears to be suspended
    Yahoo Answers
    Privacy - About Our Ads - Terms - Community Guidelines
    Yahoo Answers is not optimized for your browser

    Please note that Yahoo Answers is not optimized for this browser. Some features may not be available or work well.