There are various sources to find out if something is a real journal, and how good of a journal it is. You can start with looking for this in Wikipedia (I seemingly can't post a url)
But not all "Proceedings" are the same! The two you cite with the articles from Steven Meyer are not good journals. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in a minor publication, and the other sounds like conference proceedings (i.e. conference abstracts).
Apologies, have been trying to reply for a while, the system didn't like the URL. Just look for "journal citations" online, Wikipedia is a good place to start, tells you where to find cites where you can check if a journal is real, and how good it is
@paleobarbie666 Perhaps that atheism isn't a belief system. Just not adding a god to the world view. Imagine one self there is a god takes a lot of time and money it seems.
Good video but please get a grip about the "Proceedings" issue for publications (as has already been mentioned here). "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" (PNAS--actually cited in the video) is the third most prestigious scientific journal in the world, only surpassed by "Science" and "Nature". (Actually, a standing joke is that "PNAS" stand for "passed by Nature and Science" -- but nevertheless, it's number 3 out of many.)
@paleobarbie666 Interesting observation. I had another look. There are two "proceedings" articles, both by Steve Meyer, both in Biology. One is in "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" and the other is in "Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature." So I should count them. I'll add an annotation.
Aren't Muslims also engaging in this crap when it comes to inventing peer reviewed papers? Or better still, where are Christian and Muslims working together on peer reviewed work when it comes to creationism?
They spent their first few years trying to find biological proof of Creationism, then decided to start working on a way to get them out of the States the minute their donors find out they got nothing XD
Very good video. But why remove the proceedings? For example, Proceedings of the Royal Society B is a one of the most reputable journals in Biology. I think that was unfair. Other than that, good deconstruction of the bullshit behind the DI.
@sinistar99 To be fair they have done more than one research paper. But only one in biology. For that amount of moneys I can do a lot of research in philosophy, engineering, and math.
I'd have to get a degree in something besides English, but let me know when you get that funding I'll be right there with you! :) Actually you know for that kind of organization maybe my non-science degree from a public state university should be enough.
@AtheismTV Could you do a video in which you review the credentials of the DI's "researchers"? I'd like to see how many graduated from real universities and how many from diploma mills.
Why spend money on researching intelligent design when you can easily just keep using the same old rubbish that helped serve the cause for it's many years?
All of this wealth of knowledge combating ID, The Discovery Institute, and other creationist organizations, and still we are loosing the battle. I am wondering if there is something we can do to publicly discredit them.
"The Discovery Institute doesn't understand what truth is."
"The truth defeated the Discovery Institute during the Dover trial."
"A Christian bias against truth as displayed by the Discovery Institute, if adopted on a wide scale, would regress our society to third-world status as has happened in most of the Middle East since the rise of Islam."
One the university profs who supervised my project coauthors at least 3-4 papers per year whilst releasing a couple of his own which could range 2-4 papers per year depending on the work. You also have to take into account that he spends a lot of his time giving lectures and marking work. He doesn't even have a budget of millions :P
It's not quite fair to claim that you can shrug off these one or two papers just because that's all they've done. Those papers could be a pretty big deal. Knowing the Discovery Institute, they almost certainly aren't... But still, it's not fair to deny those papers out of hand.
@ThinkingReality LOL well I will have a look at the papers content in a follow up video. But right now, I have to show that a MAJORITY of their funding is going towards a political agenda. Can you help me?
Oh yes they do promote the cause of "religious people" - but with a giant propaganda campaign, not with serious research. Now that matters a lot to me, but I suspect not to many people, especially when pr***s like Casey Luskin are wheeled onto Faux News (for example) as supposed "experts".
@stevehayes13 Yes, very famous. I'm waiting for Part 2 of this series to talk about that. But I have to gather better evidence against them. Basically I have to show that a MAJORITY of their funding is going towards a political agenda. Can you help me?
To be honest I would love to get a paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS)... But still a very nice piece of analysis, great work!
@opesam As I said to someone else, Proceedings and Reviews are second-class citizens in science. Proceedings usually precede actual research papers. You can quote a proceedings but you have to treat it as bleeding edge, unfinished studies.
Hmm... just for the sake of fairnes: "Proceedings" can be just okay. As long as they're decently reviewed, they might as well count. Still a pathetic performance by anyone's standards. You show very well where all the money goes in the DI: into propaganda and lobby work.
@KaroKoenich Proceedings and Reviews are second-class citizens in science. Proceedings usually precede actual research papers. You can quote a proceedings but you have to treat it as bleeding edge, unfinished studies.
I think what's really going on in there is lots and lots of group sex.
artman2oo3 6 months ago
@artman2oo3 LOL I want in!
AtheismTV 6 months ago
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is a real journal, if a minor one. The other "proceeding" looks like conference abstracts
paleobarbie666 8 months ago
There are various sources to find out if something is a real journal, and how good of a journal it is. You can start with looking for this in Wikipedia (I seemingly can't post a url)
paleobarbie666 8 months ago
@paleobarbie666 ok for next time I will do that. But what should I do about THIS video? Should I discard the two proceedings? And on which grounds?
AtheismTV 8 months ago
@paleobarbie666 To post a URL, replace the dot with (dot) including parenthesis just before the com.
example google (dot) com
AtheismTV 8 months ago
But not all "Proceedings" are the same! The two you cite with the articles from Steven Meyer are not good journals. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in a minor publication, and the other sounds like conference proceedings (i.e. conference abstracts).
paleobarbie666 8 months ago
@paleobarbie666 So you're saying that proceedings are sometimes really journals. So what do you suggest I do?
AtheismTV 8 months ago
@AtheismTV
Apologies, have been trying to reply for a while, the system didn't like the URL. Just look for "journal citations" online, Wikipedia is a good place to start, tells you where to find cites where you can check if a journal is real, and how good it is
paleobarbie666 8 months ago
Wow -- when I post on a creationist video it takes 2+ days to be "approved". This was instantaneous. What could this mean -----?
paleobarbie666 8 months ago
@paleobarbie666 Perhaps that atheism isn't a belief system. Just not adding a god to the world view. Imagine one self there is a god takes a lot of time and money it seems.
SaerdnaOoOoo 7 months ago
Good video but please get a grip about the "Proceedings" issue for publications (as has already been mentioned here). "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" (PNAS--actually cited in the video) is the third most prestigious scientific journal in the world, only surpassed by "Science" and "Nature". (Actually, a standing joke is that "PNAS" stand for "passed by Nature and Science" -- but nevertheless, it's number 3 out of many.)
paleobarbie666 8 months ago
@paleobarbie666 Interesting observation. I had another look. There are two "proceedings" articles, both by Steve Meyer, both in Biology. One is in "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" and the other is in "Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature." So I should count them. I'll add an annotation.
AtheismTV 8 months ago
Phew, I'm glad you didn't actually read those articles, you would only have gotten stupider.
biggingeryeti 8 months ago
@biggingeryeti I may read them one day. Wish me luck.
AtheismTV 8 months ago
I think the video is okay, but there aren't many people who don't know DI is a sham.
Skindoggiedog 8 months ago
08:33 What scientific journal misses out an apostrophe like that?
ajuk1 9 months ago
@ajuk1 I thought I was the only one who noticed.
Also "science and culture" are two fields. They're missing an "s" too.
AtheismTV 9 months ago
@AtheismTV I don't think so, the apostrophe should be after the S.
ajuk1 9 months ago
@ajuk1 No what I mean is they're missing an S on "field".
AtheismTV 9 months ago
Streisand Effect level: Yellow
mmmmmarcus 9 months ago
Aren't Muslims also engaging in this crap when it comes to inventing peer reviewed papers? Or better still, where are Christian and Muslims working together on peer reviewed work when it comes to creationism?
TurboDally 9 months ago
Good work.
deepashtray 9 months ago
They spent their first few years trying to find biological proof of Creationism, then decided to start working on a way to get them out of the States the minute their donors find out they got nothing XD
klutterkicker 9 months ago
I think you made a typo. They're not an "institute", they're a "mental institute" :-D
madeinquebec 9 months ago 4
Very good video. But why remove the proceedings? For example, Proceedings of the Royal Society B is a one of the most reputable journals in Biology. I think that was unfair. Other than that, good deconstruction of the bullshit behind the DI.
A4thinker 9 months ago
They're building a railroad?
They've been reading too much Ayn Rand.
pjs31416 9 months ago
Thank you for your research and exposition. Thumbs up!
FaganRoberts 9 months ago
what are they doing in there? counting the money.
CATMAHAT 9 months ago
damn 2.1 million dollars for ONE research paper? I have the wrong job! Where do I sign up for that? for 2.1 million dollars I'll believe anything!
sinistar99 9 months ago
damn 2.1 million dollars for ONE research paper? I have the wrong job! Where do I sign up for that? for 2.1 million dollars I'll beleave anything!
sinistar99 9 months ago 3
@sinistar99 To be fair they have done more than one research paper. But only one in biology. For that amount of moneys I can do a lot of research in philosophy, engineering, and math.
AtheismTV 9 months ago
I'd have to get a degree in something besides English, but let me know when you get that funding I'll be right there with you! :) Actually you know for that kind of organization maybe my non-science degree from a public state university should be enough.
sinistar99 9 months ago
@sinistar99 A science degree from a diploma mill seems to be the standard here.
AtheismTV 9 months ago
@AtheismTV Could you do a video in which you review the credentials of the DI's "researchers"? I'd like to see how many graduated from real universities and how many from diploma mills.
Puchicas9 9 months ago
@Puchicas9 Good question. At first glance, it looks like they're working with, or have been working with, real universities. But I'll look into that.
AtheismTV 9 months ago
Amazing
wowsdrawkcab 9 months ago
Why spend money on researching intelligent design when you can easily just keep using the same old rubbish that helped serve the cause for it's many years?
OMGSEASALT 9 months ago
They are importer/exporters for Vandelay Industries. They specialize in importing matches. Long matches.
suniseclipsed 9 months ago
Good analysis
calmreason 9 months ago
I live 3 hours away from the DI. You can see the big statue they are building of William Paley from here.
CosmicThinking 9 months ago
All of this wealth of knowledge combating ID, The Discovery Institute, and other creationist organizations, and still we are loosing the battle. I am wondering if there is something we can do to publicly discredit them.
peoplepowered1 9 months ago
@peoplepowered1 "still we are loosing"
It appears we are also losing the battle when it comes to English.
Skindoggiedog 8 months ago
Well done.
dUCHE55DUDE 9 months ago
Why doesn't the Discovery Institute ever discover anything ?.
NefariousVirtuoso88 9 months ago
Comment removed
NefariousVirtuoso88 9 months ago
The words "TRUTH" and "DISCOVERY INSTITUTE" used in the same sentence... bbbwwwhhahahahahahhahaha!!!!!!! ROFLMAO
th30r3m 9 months ago 4
@th30r3m
No reason to laugh at that. Behold!
"The Discovery Institute rejects the truth."
"The Discovery Institute cannot tell the truth."
"The Discovery Institute doesn't understand what truth is."
"The truth defeated the Discovery Institute during the Dover trial."
"A Christian bias against truth as displayed by the Discovery Institute, if adopted on a wide scale, would regress our society to third-world status as has happened in most of the Middle East since the rise of Islam."
rkyeun 9 months ago
Haha. flanger on the voice for the quotes.
travishein 9 months ago
Favorited.
C0nc0rdance 9 months ago 26
i LIVE in washington state....and the disc. inst. is involved in transportation here?doh...what the...well they CLAIM to be...and why?
practicalmagic9 9 months ago
One the university profs who supervised my project coauthors at least 3-4 papers per year whilst releasing a couple of his own which could range 2-4 papers per year depending on the work. You also have to take into account that he spends a lot of his time giving lectures and marking work. He doesn't even have a budget of millions :P
BioLogicalNerd 9 months ago
@BioLogicalNerd I'd love to hear what the DI would have to say about your prof.
no2religions 9 months ago
Comment removed
BioLogicalNerd 9 months ago
It's not quite fair to claim that you can shrug off these one or two papers just because that's all they've done. Those papers could be a pretty big deal. Knowing the Discovery Institute, they almost certainly aren't... But still, it's not fair to deny those papers out of hand.
ThinkingReality 9 months ago
@ThinkingReality LOL well I will have a look at the papers content in a follow up video. But right now, I have to show that a MAJORITY of their funding is going towards a political agenda. Can you help me?
AtheismTV 9 months ago 3
DI has a record for DMCAing things like this, so make sure you keep a copy safe. Let me know if you need a mirror.
Keep up the good work.
WildcardHatesYou 9 months ago
Oh yes they do promote the cause of "religious people" - but with a giant propaganda campaign, not with serious research. Now that matters a lot to me, but I suspect not to many people, especially when pr***s like Casey Luskin are wheeled onto Faux News (for example) as supposed "experts".
sincerity77 9 months ago
no surprise, but great to see it in actual numbers! hopefully someone will call them out on that in a public debate or on tv.
theheinzification 9 months ago
The voice almost sounds like somebody else I know on youtube. Could just be the accent though.
NoNamesLeft0102 9 months ago
@NoNamesLeft0102 Jean Claude Van Damme?
AtheismTV 9 months ago 14
@AtheismTV :D so THAT"S where you've been hiding, VDamme!!you little monkey you!!!
practicalmagic9 9 months ago
@AtheismTV No, his accent seems to be a very light french accent. I was thinking more along the lines of Cazadorperfect (username might be off).
NoNamesLeft0102 9 months ago
It is a propaganda organisation. Are you familiar with the Wedge Strategy? Or the co-founder Philip E Johnson?
stevehayes13 9 months ago 2
@stevehayes13 Yes, very famous. I'm waiting for Part 2 of this series to talk about that. But I have to gather better evidence against them. Basically I have to show that a MAJORITY of their funding is going towards a political agenda. Can you help me?
AtheismTV 9 months ago
To be honest I would love to get a paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS)... But still a very nice piece of analysis, great work!
opesam 9 months ago
@opesam As I said to someone else, Proceedings and Reviews are second-class citizens in science. Proceedings usually precede actual research papers. You can quote a proceedings but you have to treat it as bleeding edge, unfinished studies.
AtheismTV 9 months ago
Awesome job! This is really good information. Thanks for putting it together!
ReddAngry 9 months ago
good job!
Cid89R 9 months ago
Hmm... just for the sake of fairnes: "Proceedings" can be just okay. As long as they're decently reviewed, they might as well count. Still a pathetic performance by anyone's standards. You show very well where all the money goes in the DI: into propaganda and lobby work.
KaroKoenich 9 months ago
@KaroKoenich Proceedings and Reviews are second-class citizens in science. Proceedings usually precede actual research papers. You can quote a proceedings but you have to treat it as bleeding edge, unfinished studies.
AtheismTV 9 months ago