This is the online edition of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
(7th Edition) by Dr. Walt Brown. The online version of the book is designed to be read online.
A PDF version or hardbound print version may be ordered.
Copyright © 1995–2008, Center for Scientific Creation. All rights reserved.
Click here to order the hardbound print edition of this online book.
Why Don’t Creationists Publish in Leading Science Journals?
Scientists should want their conclusions critiqued, or refereed, by their peers (peer review); researchers who believe their work is important should try to publish that work. However, leading science journals will not accept papers that have been published elsewhere. (That stipulation alone eliminates any portion of this book from consideration.) Seldom would a science journal publish a paper more than 6 pages in length. (That also prevents the hydroplate theory, pages 104–310, from being published in a journal.)
I certainly want my ideas tested and have frequently initiated and appreciated cordial, factual exchanges with scientists who are not creationists. But in a journal, who does the evaluation, and is there an unbiased process where a writer who advances creation or the flood can challenge an evolutionist reviewer’s disagreement? Leading science journals have a solid history of hostility toward creationists, so evolutionists are both judge and jury. Who would want to make his case in a court run by an opponent? Why would that opponent publish your case?
To level the playing field, I have had on the table, since 1980, a written-debate offer for any qualified evolutionist or team of evolutionists who disagree with what I have written. A neutral editor, acting as judge, would ensure the debate rules were followed; the jury would be all readers. Both sides would have the right to publish the complete debate if a large publisher chose not to.
Evolutionists have known of this offer for many years. It was published in the well-known anticreation journal, Creation/Evolution , in 1990. The offer was even placed on the worldwide web in 1995. So far, no evolutionist has accepted. (A few initially agreed but soon dropped out, because they were unwilling to limit the exchange to science; they wanted to include religious views.) Another debate offer is a telephone debate that could be heard (or read from a transcript) by the public over the Internet; it is explained on page 411. Can you find a taker for either debate? Until someone accepts the written debate and as long as my good health continues, both offers will remain.