I saw this on Panda's Thumb.
Answers in Genesis have their own "peer reviewed" "journal".
I must admit though that their page with the articles in it looks nice, and at least it's free for people to make fun of.
This one caught my eye.
Entitled Microbes and the Days of Creation without proper stupid protection you will lose several IQ points.
The abstract alone makes me think immediately of this (as a side note, the owner of that site is apparently on Myspace, and although wrong at times isn't really that stupid).
Clearly though they are trying to reconcile the lack of microbes with a literalist interpretation of Genesis.
The argument is as follows.
It's simply that micro-organisms exist in symbiosis with plants and animals. So nitrogen fixing bacteria that are found with peanut plants for example were created on the third day, with the rest of the plants etc. etc.
We do get to an interesting position though.
You know how some people believe that humans were created in the image of God?
Well then either God is actually a giant E. coli bacterium, and that humans were created to house that which was made in his image, or E. coli are just as important to God as we are. I mean the neutral E. coli are quite useful to the body.
If God was supposed to have made his creations perfect to begin with, why have a bacterium in you that gives you Vitamin K2 but can also give you food poisoning if you have a specific strain?
Then there is the section on viruses.
It reads like the "good" viruses are there to help humans, when in fact they would be doing what they are doing to "survive". What exactly would you say for the undead or non-live?
For pathogens and "bad" viruses, well they are easily explained by the standard creation argument. Yep that's right. The "fall" was responsible.
I guess back in Eden HIV went about making people happy and immortal or something stupid like that.
For some reason I feel as if what I read is completely useless for science.
Wait a minute, no I don't.
It is completely useless for science.
Like everything in creationism there is no use for this "paper". It doesn't explain anything for science, it explains how creationists think, but not science.
Unless this AiG "peer reviewed journal" is actually an elaborate humour site it's rather pathetic to see them having to make their own journal, I guess they thought that proper journals wouldn't publish their stuff.
It's a creationist version of the Journal of 9/11 Studies.