from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
We've been discussing quite a bit here on Evolution Science vs Creation Science and the differences in interpretation and free speech for those who have a diff take on this interpretation of evidence. Recently I came across this article which gives a realistic view of what kind of politics a Creationist Scientist is up against in the Science field. When you read this keep in mind that the journals Science and Nature are considered the two best journals in the world to publish in.
Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, a physicist working for the prestigious Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico (who is involved with the laboratory's particle beam fusion project, concerning thermonuclear fusion energy research) is a board member of the Creation Research Society. He has about 30 published articles in mainstream technical journals from 1968 to the present. In the last eight years a lot of his work has been classified, so there has been less of it in the open literature.
Russell Humphreys said in a 1993 interview: "I'm part of a fairly large scientific community in New Mexico, and a good number of these are Creationists. Many don't actively belong to any creationist organization. Based on those proportions and knowing the membership of the Creation Research Society, it's probably a conservative estimate that there are in the US alone around 10,000 practicing scientists who are biblical creationists." ("Creation in the Physics Lab", Creation Ex Nihilo Magazine, Vol. 15, No. 3, pages 20-23).
Creationists such as Humphreys have extensive publications in mainstream journals on non-creationist topics. Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications.
In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had "a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters." Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, "It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters." This admission is particularly significant since Science's official letters policy is that they represent "the range of opinions received." e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.
Humphrey's letter and Ms. Gilbert's reply are reprinted in the book, Creation's Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)
On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article * "Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps" to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn't want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn't even want to send it through official peer review.
Creationists such as Humphreys have extensive publications in mainstream journals on non-creationist topics. Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications.
In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had "a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters." Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, "It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters." This admission is particularly significant since Science's official letters policy is that they represent "the range of opinions received." e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.
Humphrey's letter and Ms. Gilbert's reply are reprinted in the book, Creation's Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)
On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article * "Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps" to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn't want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn't even want to send it through official peer review.
Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a "slight bias" exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.
* The Institute for Creation Research published a laymanized version of Humphrey's article in their Impact series [No. 233, "Bumps in the Big Bang", November 1992]. Reference 5 of that article contains information about the Nature submission.
* The Institute for Creation Research published a laymanized version of Humphrey's article in their Impact series [No. 233, "Bumps in the Big Bang", November 1992]. Reference 5 of that article contains information about the Nature submission.
Stardock Forums