In case you haven't seen this on other reality-based blogs, the Institute of Creation Research is starting a peer-reviewed journal, and is putting out an initial call for contributions. See how many misused words you can find in this one paragraph:
Addressing the need to disseminate the vast field of research conducted by experts in geology, genetics, astronomy, and other disciplines of science, IJCR provides scientists and students hard data based on cutting-edge research that demonstrates the young earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of the species, and other evidences that correlate to the biblical accounts.
Well, there's the word "experts" in there, for one. And "scientists"! Hmmm, "data based", "research"... but my favorite is "young earth model". A model is a scientifically created idea that is testable, and represents a preliminary view of reality. As you test it, parts of it pass or fail the tests, and you modify (or dump) it as needed. Will creationists ever dump the young earth model?
Their intent gets more clear when you read the PDFs they have online about instructions to authors and editors. There's a section in one about what to do about conflicts of interest! Wow. I think anyone trying to fit facts to match their presuppositions would certainly count for that, so "scientific" creationism itself is one giant conflict of interest.
But my very very favorite is this bit in what the Editor in Chief will do to consider the paper for inclusion in the journal:
2. Review the Paper for possible inclusion into the IJCR review process. The following criteria are to be used in judging the papers: (a) Is the Paperâ€™s topic important to the development of the creation model? (b) Does the Paperâ€™s topic provide an original contribution to the creation model? (c) Is this Paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework? (d) If (c) above is not satisfied, does this Paper offer a very constructively-positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative? (e) If the Paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate? (f) Does this Paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatico-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture?
Lessee, what did they leave off? Oh yeah: is the paper scientific? How about, is the paper accurate?
Silly me. I forgot: it's a creationist paper. It can't be scientific, or accurate.
It would be fun to pull a Sokal on these guys. Of course, just mentioning it here means I can't, but it would be a fascinating test of the ability of the ICR to separate reality from fantasy...
Oh wait. Never mind.