The premiere issue is billed as cutting-edge peer-reviewed research, but seems to be none of the three. I am not a believer in Creation, but I have a lot of respect for those that are, and I believe that you can be a good Christian and a good scientist too. That is why this issue is so remarkably disappointing to me. Not only is the science poor, of the quality of a failing undergraduate paper, but the religion is quite spotty as well. I would prefer to direct these comments to the journal itself, but it seems to offer no section for letters or responses, a major failing in a publication supposedly trying to open a new field of research. The article on microbes is especially farcical. God, whose acts have so long been argued to be outside of physical law, now needs three separate days to create microbes, because of modern research on symbiotic organisms? As I said, I am not a believer, and I have no intention of questioning others' beliefs, but I find the idea of an all-powerful God who can do anything actually more viable than that of a God who can create the universe in the blink of an eye, but then is so constrained by biology that corals and termites require separate days of creation. I think I liked the Bible stories more when they weren't trying to fit into science, and I honestly think that Creationists' better argument, logically speaking, is to stay outside of physical laws. That way, you can at least always count on a stalemate.

Ian:

Since I'm a journalist and not a scientist, what I can say about the technical aspects of ARJ is limited. However, I'll point out that this type of journal--especially in its opening stage--will encourage it authors to be speculative and creative regarding the subjects they cover. Modern creationism is in its toddler stage (at least as a scientific movement), and the point of ARJ is not so much to convince skeptics as to give working scientists who are also creationists an opportunity to share and challenge one another's ideas, eventually building some rigorous models that fit a Genesis framework, make predictions, and help us better understand the world around us. Many creationists have been unable to develop, much less publish, their ideas for fear of backlash at their places of profession. As a result some of the authors listed in ARJ are using pseudonyms.

I don't find the criticism about God creating microbes over three days especially powerful, Ian. If you have some truly scientific concerns with the content of the journal, I'd encourage you to send an email to AIG, where I'm sure they'd be willing to forward it to Dr. Snelling. I hope you understand that creationists are not trying to create scientific models so we can trust the Bible. We already trust the Bible, and we're not insecure about that. We just also want to understand how the world works in a richer way than Darwinism and methodological naturalism offer.

Ian, please don't wait on us to come up with a model that satisfies you before you consider the other claims of the Bible. The paramount thing is not whether you accept scientific creationism, but whether you accept Jesus Christ. Blessings, DJD