On Jan 23, 3:04 pm, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktaylo...@getnet.net>
wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

JM20000...@hotmail.com wrote:

| I totally agree with this. Creation science women are excluded from
| science.
|
And creation science men are too.

That's because it ain't science McMoron.

Now, about that video, ISBN's and deleted postings.

Any thoughts?

- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor        http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

Hey Rev, is this a conspiracy?

A conspiracy is when two people or
more get together and conjure.

I notice that you're saying the same
thing that Ye Old One is saying.

JM

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:41:44 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

In article
<624309d7-f6eb-4a77-8b5f-a390570566a8@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
JM20000000@hotmail.com wrote:

I totally agree with this. Creation science women are excluded from
science.

Creation "science" is an oxymoron. You're just a moron.

It's no wonder that he has so many ZEROs to his name!

On Jan 24, 5:39 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"There is no reason why all journals should not move to double-blind
peer review," adds Terry Marsh of UK lobbying group Women into
Science, Engineering and Construction." "

I agree. There is no place for bias in science.

<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19726393.600-study-...
sex-bias-in-science.html>

--
John #1782

Amen. And if there was a move to double-blind peer reviews, then that
would totally deflate stupid creationists' claims of science anti-
creationism conspiracy. But I already notice that ID papers ahven't
been published through any of the publications that DO already use
double blind reviews.

Al

On Jan 24, 5:39 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"There is no reason why all journals should not move to double-blind
peer review," adds Terry Marsh of UK lobbying group Women into
Science, Engineering and Construction." "

I agree. There is no place for bias in science.

<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19726393.600-study-...
sex-bias-in-science.html>

--
John #1782

Amen. And if there was a move to double-blind peer reviews, then that
would totally deflate stupid creationists' claims of science anti-
creationism conspiracy. But I already notice that ID papers ahven't
been published through any of the publications that DO already use
double blind reviews.

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:39:42 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

In article <73mfp31oda47bvqpd0uh2g0c8sqes16slm@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:10:18 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
<budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:

Grrl Scientist at www.scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist
http://tinyurl.com/2qqnoe
"Since The Scientist is revisiting this issue on their blog, I decided
to poke around in the primary literature a bit and, as a result, I
have concluded that the general lack of female science blog writers is
clearly a reflection of scientific publishing and indeed, of the
scientific community in general. The fact is that female scientists do
not publish as often as male scientists. Why? Some people have told me
that women do not produce scientific results that are of the same high
quality as those produced by men (nor do they write life science blogs
as well as men, apparently) and that male reviewers can readily
recognize when a woman is the lead (or sole) author of a scientific
paper because "women do science differently from men" (whatever that
means). Basically, science is still a very sexist community where its
female practitioners publish less frequently than men at least
partially because of the peer-review system that is in place. I think
the commonly used single-blind peer review process is biased against
papers whose lead (or sole) author is female, just as the field of
science is biased against women in general."

Budikka

And...

Study reveals sex bias in science
18 January 2008
New Scientist

"If you thought the glass ceiling for female scientists had been
shattered, think again. Women are more likely to have their research
published if the referees who peer review their work are unaware of
their gender, a new study suggests.

It has long been suspected that "single-blind" peer review - in which
reviewers know a researcher's identity but not vice versa - can lead
to bias. Gender, nationality and nepotism have also been identified as
biasing factors in the application process for research fellowships.

Some suggest that double-blind peer review, in which neither side
knows the other's identity, would be a fairer system. To find out if
this is true, Amber Budden at the University of Toronto in Canada and
her colleagues looked at the gender of the authors of papers accepted
by Behavioural Ecology before and after it switched to double-blind
peer review in 2001.

In the four years following the switch, 8 per cent more female authors
had papers published compared to the previous four years (Trends in
Ecology and Evolution, DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008). While Budden
accepts that there may be other explanations, she believes the
findings should provoke wider discussion about the advantages of
double-blind peer review.

"There is no reason why all journals should not move to double-blind
peer review," adds Terry Marsh of UK lobbying group Women into
Science, Engineering and Construction." "

I agree. There is no place for bias in science.

Perhaps. Apart from magnetic material research, or fabric technology.