By Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, Theoarch: For the Glory of God, Peer Review is NOT Biblical, April 3, 2023
One of the reasons the people at ABR or Associates for Biblical Research do not like us is that we challenge so many of their conclusions. They have gone to the point of specifically telling us to leave them alone.
But we do that with many Christians as we feel they have strayed away from biblical guidelines and have accepted secular science’s guidelines. One is the key scientific process called peer review.
Here is what ABR said in a newsletter that we receive:
Many of you have asked about the peer-review article connected with ABR’s discovery of a curse-tablet from Mt. Ebal in Israel. ABR began the peer review process from the outset of the discovery by establishing a team of experts from the academic community.
That work culminated in an article that was submitted to a scientific journal for peer review and publication. We continue to await the final results of that review and the release of the article for publication.
Thank you to everyone who has prayed about this and have sent words of encouragement. As soon as news is available, and the article is released we will be in communication with the ABR family!
This may work for secular articles and conclusions but for Christian articles and content, the unbelieving world does not have the superior view. Nor do they have an objective view of the Christian content.
The bias against Christian content is very strong and the latter is easily recognized even though there are single and blind peer review processes. In other words,, and this will apply to secular science content as well, if a researcher has an opposing view of the content, it is not going to be reviewed objectively or fairly.
….
For the Christian, how would they expect the unbelieving peer reviewers to have any knowledge of Christian content and be able to review it correctly? The Bible says that Christians are not to walk in the counsel of the ungodly.
So if the peer reviewers in this case are not Christian and they make the recommendation that changes be made to the content, the Christian cannot comply.
The Christian is supposed to produce the truth, not theory, predictions, etc. and most reviewers do not have the truth to help the Christian writer succeed in producing better quality content.
If Christians make a discovery, as is the case for ABR, how can the unbelieving process shed light on that discovery?
….
What we are pointing out is that Christians should not use the peer review process because it is NOT biblical. It is a secular science construct that has no foundation in the truth nor has the goal of providing the truth.
….
In their work, especially archaeological, scientific, anthropological, and so on, should be guided first by the Holy Spirit. They should be in obedience to the Biblical instructions that set us apart in all fields of research.
No Christian should be advertising their work as peer-reviewed approved. We do not seek the approval of other humans. We need the approval of God and know we have published the truth.
That is our goal as Jesus is called ‘the truth’ not the theory or explanation. We go for the truth as guided by the Spirit of Truth. There is no such thing as the spirit of theory or interpretation or explanation.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
This is even more reason for us to know that Mr Tee has no academic qualifications, never mind a doctorate. Peer review is by no means perfect, and Tee would be better advised reading up on some of the recent publications on the subject which do explain its shortcomings, but it’s the best we’ve got by a long way, and the more important the subject the greater the scrutiny brought about by peer review.
Tee is frightened. He’s a lone voice, driven only by his severely inhibited intellect and emotions. Why on earth should Christian beliefs be free from scrutiny? Is he really so afraid of them being exposed to reason? If we applied his ‘reasoning’ to other aspects of life then we’d all think the world is flat, that demons explain disease better then germ theory, we’d have no antibiotics, and Tee himself would be unable to live in South Korea, or wherever, because the transport needed to get him there wouldn’t have been invented. If Christian beliefs aren’t worth holding up to scrutiny then, let’s face it, they’re not worth the paper they’re written on. Literally.
I love how Dr T thinks Christians should start with a belief…and then not challenge it. Peer review is unbiblical. Sure, so are scientific double-blind studies. But I would take those techniques over the Christian idea of starting with a fully formed belief, ie, the Bible is infallible, and then work to only accept those “facts” that confirm it. All kinds of scientists start with beliefs they put into a hypothesis, and then find out that the study contradicts it. But Dr T thinks only Christians should study their stuff, so that they can get the right, Biblical answer.
Bob and I watch a Youtube channel Anton Petrov called “What da Math?” And Petrov basically presents daily (and more) videos about science, largely about astronomy and cosmology. And in the one we watched yesterday, Petrov mentioned that sciences had made some discoveries that didn’t fit with current theories. AND…this happens probably weekly on these videos. Scientists find information that proves them wrong all the time.
Now, committed* scientists will find these anomalies something to understand, and will work to see how they fit. And those good scientists have and will need to update and change their scientific theories. It happens all the time. Wouldn’t it be nice if Christians believed the same…that new information changes their beliefs? But instead, they make those rickety beliefs the foundation of their beliefs (the Bible is infallible), and so can’t keep the wagon going as the wheels fall off.
*dedicated to truth…more so than Christians, who are dedicated to upholding their beliefs no matter what or how false.
A core part of the scientific process involves reproducibility, scrutiny, and peer review. When I was a research assistant in a biochemistry lab, I can’t tell you how many times I had to run the same experiment over and over so my researcher could examine the results. When we had run the experiment multiple times with similar results, the researcher would wrote a paper and submit it to a journal. The journal sent the proposed paper to several peer scientists for feedback and recommendation for whether the paper should proceed to publication or needed more work. When a paper was published in a journal, other scientists would repeat the experiments multiple times and then use the info to move forward with more research.
If Mr Tee wants to publish articles yet not be beholden to the scientific method, he should seek out nonscientific publications. If he wants to be considered a scientist and publish in scientific journals, he must adhere to the scientific method. It’s pretty simple, really.
Religious dogma and science are complete different things. Stay in your lane, Mr Tee.
thiessen uses the term “we” and “us” a lot… is he /REALLY/ part of a group of people who are challenging ABR’s scientific methods, or is he using the terms to make him sound more important than he actually is? does ABR even know who he is? 🤣
I think “Tee” shares, along with his Christian dogma, another roadblock to clear thinking: He, and they, confuse their unwillingness to examine, let alone revise, their belief in something with its immutability. As an example, creationists deny evolution or any other explanation of how life began that does not comport with Genesis because, well, Genesis is true, end of story.
Unless someone understands–or, I suspect in the case of “Tee”, willing to understand–that, there is simply no way to have a rational discussion.
Oh Doc T, you provide us with so much entertainment. I guess the only peers he (“He”?) needs is “me, myself, and I” (maybe those should be capitalized as well as reverence to the good Doctor who has perpetually communed with the almighty). And true to the etymology of “peers”, they are definitely “equals”.
At least with the Bible and “theology” he IS kind of correct. The only thing discussing the Bible gets you is a dialogue and criticism. It might be useful, at least for coming up with the tenets you believe in, and if you disagree just splinter off a new denomination. The classic example is the question, “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin.” After fist pumping and a spirited dialogue and maybe even a conclusion what have you and humanity actually gained?
In science peer review is necessary because otherwise it is very easy to believe your own delusions. The investigator can have his thumb on the scale and not even realize it. It also helps to eliminate fraud.
And what about morality and the rules we mutually support? The Bible would presume to be an impeccable morale guide. It is a book of the time it was written, and many of its edicts (implicit and explicit) are woefully out of date. On questions of morality there is no correct answer, it is what the plurality of people of any particular era decide is how they want to live and what behaviors they will tolerate from others in the group.
“Dr.” Tee has no clue about how scientific study and knowledge works. He’s far more interested in starting with an absolute belief and only paying attention to any phenomena that support his beliefs. For all the good that does, he could get the same “results” by doing what the ancient Etruscan and Roman haruspices did and read animal livers to determine omens!