Creationism Culture

What “Creationist Teaching” Was This Paper Used In?

Spread the love

The Scientist reported yesterday that a “Paper Used in Creationist Teaching [was] Retracted After 30 Years”.

Interestingly, despite the fact that the author was a creationist, the article gives no information that it was “used in Creationist teaching.” In fact, a Google search for the article title yields no results from Creationist websites. A google search for the author’s name, Dmitrii Kuznetsov, returns a few results, mostly just including his name in a list of people who are scientists who support creationism. The paper itself is mentioned nowhere I can find. Apparently he was interviewed for a Creation magazine a few decades ago, but I couldn’t find the interview itself on the web.

Additionally, part of the group that researched and discovered Kuznetsov’s malfeasance was a member of the Intelligent Design community, Paul Nelson, who discovered three additional unverifiable/unlocatable journals that Kuznetsov cited from.

So, while the title of the article acts like this should be some blow to the Creationists, the funny thing is that this is a guy whom the Creationists themselves have long distanced themselves from. Despite the claims in the article, this paper seems to be referenced nowhere by any creationist literature. A few obscure websites list the authors name, but that’s it.

Imagine a comparable situation. Let’s say that an evolutionary biologist that few had ever heard of before and no one had ever cited wrote a paper that cited some fake journal in a paper thirty years ago, and today it gets retracted. Would it be reasonable to run a headline that states “Paper Used in Defense of Evolutionary Biology Retracted After 30 Years”?

Of course not. That would be ridiculous. But that is the level of discourse occurring at The Scientist.

NOTE – one possible problem with my search mechanism could be that the anglicization of his Russian name could have alternate spellings – if there are important places where Kuznetsov’s work has been relied upon by either Creationists or ID’ers, please post them in the comments.

31 Replies to “What “Creationist Teaching” Was This Paper Used In?

  1. 1
    johnnyb says:

    Note – a friend has pointed out to me that some of the problems with the paper are actually do to the problem of locating journals in Iron Curtain Russia days. That is, small print runs by small scientific presses in other languages can cause finding journals more difficult than we are used to. Whether Kuznetsov is innocent or guilty, the fact remains that the level of discourse at institutions that we expect accurate dialog from is astoundingly low.

  2. 2
    johnnyb says:

    Additional note – some friends pointed out that creationists actually officially broke ties with Kuznetsov in 1995. In other words, creationists are better at revising and correcting the record than evolutionists, who took almost another 25 years to do so. Let that sink in – the creationists were the ones who actively (and immediately) corrected themselves and formally broke ties, while the rest of the scientific community let it sit for 25 years. But, of course, the headline from The Scientist pretends like it was the other way around.

  3. 3
    News says:

    Indeed, johnnyb at 2 above: Contacts have kindly written us to say that creationists disassociated from Kouznetsov and his 1989 paper back in 1995, quite soon after they discovered the problems. Yet The Scientist is claiming that the paper “has been touted by creationists as evidence of their beliefs,” without mentioning a disavowal of twenty-four years standing?

    Is The Scientist is trying to dredge up a long-ago scandal about a man long disavowed simply because they simply do not have much else to offer contra creationists? Otherwise, why would this even be newsworthy?

    Pity. We had no idea it was that bad.

  4. 4
    Mimus says:

    I don’t think it’s especially newsworthy that a bad old paper has been pulled. But, some of the comments above are a bit odd…

    The paper is cited as evidence that modern evolutionary biology is collapsing (the constant refrain of creationists since Darwin’s time…) in the second edition of Of Pandas and People, so it’s certainly been used in creationist teaching.

    As to the “disavowal” of the paper in 1995. That’s because of a an article in the Skeptical Inquirer . That article is the only citation to this paper recorded by google scholar, so it’s pretty fair to say the scientific community’s only engagement with this paper has been to poitn ot it’s flaws (which i guess creationists also recognised after publication of the Skeptical Inquirer article ?)

  5. 5
    johnnyb says:

    The paper is cited as evidence that modern evolutionary biology is collapsing (the constant refrain of creationists since Darwin’s time…) in the second edition of Of Pandas and People, so it’s certainly been used in creationist teaching.

    First, while I have not read it, I don’t think that Pandas is actually creationist. It’s ID. Nonetheless, we’ll let the point stand.

    But, more importantly, I looked it up, and here is where it is in the book:

    While that conclusion is still controversial, a growing minority of scientists see it as a plausible alternative to the blind watchmaker thesis. (23)

    Here is footnote 23:

    See, for example, W. H. Thorpe, Purpose in a World of Chance: A Biologist’s View. New York: Oxford University Press. F Hoyle, 1983. The Intelligent Universe. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. ****D.A. Kuznetsov, 1989. International Journal of Neuroscience 49:43-59.**** H. Yockey, 1992. The Mathematical Foundations of Molecular Biology. New York: Cambridge University Press. C. Thaxton, W. Bradley, and R. Olsen, 1984. The Mystery of Life’s Origin. Dallas: Lewis and Stanley. E.J. Ambrose, 1982, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World. New York: Wiley, Halsted. R Bohlin and L. Lester, 1984. The Natural Limits to Biological Change. Grand Rapids Zondervan

    I starred the relevant citation so that you could even find it in that footnote. What here is based on Kuznetsov? He’s just in a list of people that doubt Darwin and/or materialist theories of life’s origin. The rest of the list has held up quite well, and there is literally nothing that is specific about him.

    Again, this is like if someone had cited ten different people for a point, and one of them turns out to be a bad apple, does that invalidate any part of the project? Nope.

    As for the Skeptical Inquirer, you are correct. However, the Skeptical Inquirer is not the scientific community! They were the messengers of the fact. My point stands – the creationists fixed their issue 25 years faster than the scientific community did. Further evidence is by the fact that the creation community no longer had anything to do with him, but he still headed up TWO journals for almost 20 years after he was found out. Again, the creationist community was faster at calling out bad apples than the scientific community. It is true that the skeptics found him out first, but, as I pointed out, as soon as something amiss was noted, both the creation and ID communities further helped exposing the problem. It just took the scientific community 20-25 years to take the same steps that the creation and ID communities did immediately.

  6. 6
    Axel says:

    Sure, ID isn’t Creationsim, but it seems to me that it requires scant capacity for logical inference to conclude that the probability that the mind behind a design is that of an omniscient and omnipotent God is truly unavoidably indicated ; yet in their conflation of the two, they betray their Lewontinian phobia of the ultimate truth that underpins all other truths, and they will wriggle and dissemble endlessly to avoid what they know to be true.

    Like a dog that’s chewed up the upholsery of an armchair, and really doesn’t want to be seen anywhere near his handiwork/mandiblework, and would prefer the earth to swallow him up. Alas, the earth, even qua empirical science, will not do that, least of all in the form of their chosen scientism, for which ontological consideratons would be as inconceivable as the God they fear.

  7. 7
    DerekDiMarco says:

    I wonder how many of the commenters here think creationism isn’t true. I have a strange feeling it’s not many…

    (To be clear I’m not talking about the science-literate commenters, Ed, Hazel, Seversky, Bob, Pater, Mimus)

  8. 8
    ET says:

    All I will say is that Creationism has a better chance of being true than does materialism. And depending on which flavor of Creationism and how you are defining it, there most likely is a 100% chance that it is true.

    Only the scientifically illiterate, Ed, Hazel, Seversky, Bob, Pater, Mimus, DerekDiMarco, et al., adhere to the lost cause of materialism and its deformed child, evolutionism.

    Is there a scientific alternative to ID? Why hasn’t anyone had it published?

  9. 9
    johnnyb says:

    I am *definitely* both ID and Creationist. However, the distinction is important for a number of reasons. See “Intelligent Design Creationism” as a Label.

  10. 10
    Reapers Plague says:

    ET

    Only the scientifically illiterate, Ed, Hazel, Seversky, Bob, Pater, Mimus, DerekDiMarco, et al.,

    I often wonder about people who insist on placing people into the “us” or “them” categories. Does it say anything about the “us” and “them”, or does it say more about those who insist on the divisive characterizations? I suspect the latter.

  11. 11
    ET says:

    Wow, Reapers Plague, another hypocrite and quote-mining fool.

  12. 12
    Ed George says:

    According to Google Scholar, it has been cited once. My pitiful publication record (5 papers in 40 years) have been cited 131 times. I wonder if ET, KF or BA77 would be willing to post their citation record. Ads in Toaster Repairs Weekly don’t count.

  13. 13
    Reapers Plague says:

    ET

    Wow, Reapers Plague, another hypocrite and quote-mining fool.

    ET obviously has no concept of what a quote mine is. And, more importantly, it obviously relies on ad hominems rather than evidence and logic. This fool is not worth wasting time on. And I won’t do so until it can present a cogent argument. I’m in my 60’s, so I expect to die of old age before this happens.

  14. 14
    ET says:

    Oh my. Another ignorant troll who is full of BS accusations. Must be a full moon…

  15. 15
    ET says:

    Ed George- Your publication record is moot when we have your posts to go by. The thread in which hazel introduced the Matzke article is typical of your scientific literacy. And that isn’t something to be proud of.

  16. 16
    Ed George says:

    ET

    Ed George- Your publication record is moot when we have your posts to go by. The thread in which hazel introduced the Matzke article is typical of your scientific literacy. And that isn’t something to be proud of.

    Translation: “OK, I have zero science publications and zero citations.”

  17. 17
    ET says:

    Whatever, Ed. I understand biology and especially the bacterial flagellum, better than you. And that is just for starters.

    But a reference to your articles would be nice. That way we can see the relevance and if they demonstrate that you have some understanding of science- and what that may be.

  18. 18
    Ed George says:

    ET

    But a reference to your articles would be nice.

    Google is a wonderful thing. Start with the first name “Ed” and the last name “George”. A grade school kid could find them.

  19. 19
    ET says:

    A grade school kid understands science better than you.

  20. 20
    Reapers Plague says:

    ET

    Oh my. Another ignorant troll who is full of BS accusations. Must be a full moon…

    Actually, it is a full moon.

  21. 21
    Ed George says:

    ET

    A grade school kid understands science better than you.

    Translation: I don’t know how to use Google.

    Come on ET, my papers, even though sporadic, are easy to find. I’m sure Seversky, Hazel, Bob or DDM could find them with little effort. Are you saying that you don’t know how to do a literature search? That would call into question your claim about being more scientifically literate than me, Sev, Bob, Hazel, DDM and others. If you are not capable of finding published science papers, I question your ability to be able to discuss science.

  22. 22
    ET says:

    Wow. You have to be a desperate fool to compare scientific literacy with using a search engine. I seriously doubt “Ed George” is your real name.

    You are on record as saying that you used to have good discussion with “Nic” over on Dr. Hunter’s blog. That person posted under “William Spearshake”. And William Spearshake is Acartia bogart. William Spearshake thought that when an EM or sound wave entered the water it (somehow) stretched and became longer. Acartia bogart thought there was a molecular code that transformed water into ice.

    And just recently you, Ed George, choked on the bacterial flagellum. You run away from any and every discussion on science.

    Your record speaks for itself. And what it has to say isn’t good.

  23. 23
    ET says:

    Acartia bogart, an alleged marine biologist, didn’t even know that a whale’s fluke is a tail.

  24. 24
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    Are you saying that you don’t know how to do a literature search? That would call into question your claim about being more scientifically literate than me, Sev, Bob, Hazel, DDM and others. If you are not capable of finding published science papers, I question your ability to be able to discuss science.

    That bit of ignorant drivel is more than I need to prove that you are scientifically illiterate. Only a scientifically illiterate troll could think that somehow follows and is somehow an argument.

    Thank you

  25. 25
    Ed George says:

    ET@22,23,24

    I seem to have touched a nerve. You haven’t been able to find my papers yet? Hint. Ed is short for a Edward.

  26. 26
    ET says:

    No Ed, you are just touched. And you are a known liar. That means there is no way that I believe your real name is “Ed George”. That I have to keep repeating myself is a sure sign that you are willfully ignorant and as such, scientifically illiterate.

    Again, your posts speak for themselves.

  27. 27
    Reapers Plague says:

    Ed, is one of your papers about the interferences on the analysis of selenium by ICP-MS? I looked at it, but I can’t say I understood anything of it. My bad ????

  28. 28
    Ed George says:

    RP@27, yes that is one of the more recent ones. 2015 or 2016, if my memory serves correct. I can’t say that it is my best work, but it has been cited numerous times. But I’m sure that it didn’t garner as many citations as ET’s paper(s). 🙂

  29. 29
    Bob O'H says:

    Reapers Plague – you’re doing better than me. It doesn’t help that there’s an Ed George who worked on Bayesian variable selection (something I’ve also dabbled in), so Google pushes me in his direction.

    Damn, I can’t even find Ed on Web of Science. Aaagh!

  30. 30
    DerekDiMarco says:

    (For the creationists here, ISI Web of Science is a service that gives you access to lots of science databases)

  31. 31
    ET says:

    Derek:

    (For the creationists here, ISI Web of Science is a service that gives you access to lots of science databases)

    I suggest that you and your fellow evos use it as you don’t know jack about science.

Leave a Reply