What follows is the process used by IJNP  for Panel Selection with the initial participating authors which included:

            – Dr. John Baumgardner

            – Dr. Walt Brown

            – Dr. Larry Vardiman

            – Dr. Carl Baugh


In Jesus’ Name Productions, Inc. is conducting a peer review of the leading Flood and Pre-Flood world theories (the “Flood Models”).  This will consist of critical evaluations and rebuttals from selected panelists and participating authors of the scientific support for the pre-eminent Flood Theories (the “Review”).  The Review will include the following:

           – The Local Flood

           – Catastrophic Plate Tectonics

           –  Hydroplate Theory

           – Vapor Canopy

           – Solid Canopy

Additional models may be considered as part of the Review process if approved by the Panel.

Though each model is assumed to have Biblical support, this Review will be based on the merits of each theory based only on scientific evidence. It is IJNP’s basic assumption for this Review the correct Biblical interpretation will be supported by a preponderance of scientific evidence and any incorrect interpretations will likely be invalidated by the lack of supporting scientific evidence.

Roles and Responsibilities

The following participants will contribute to the Review.

IJNP Chairman – Will serve as Moderator for the Review.  The Moderator will oversee both the Panel Selection process and the Review itself.  The Moderator is responsible for the coordination of all participants’ input and for maintaining an atmosphere of mutual respect among the contributors.

Authors – Have agreed to submit their Flood Models for critical review.  The Authors are generally well-known for a specific model or position related to the Pre-Flood world or the Biblical Flood (defined either as a global or local flood).

Panelists – Will review all materials submitted by the Authors and assist in asking a series of questions that challenge, validate, or further illuminate the Author’s position and models.

The Panelists are recognized peers of the Authors, and have specialized knowledge in an area of science or are well-versed on Creation models and teaching.  Panelists will be selected based on:

1 – the strongest scientific qualifications,
2 – The greatest independence, and
3 – The most thorough understanding of the Flood Models.

Panelists may also consult with others during the Review to bring additional scientific knowledge and expertise to the discussion.  Part of the Panelist screening process will identify the Panelists network of experts that they intend to consult during the Review.

Panel Selection Process

Step 1 – Initial Call to Panelists

IJNP will release a “Call to Panelists” to Creation organizations around the country in order to notify interested parties of the Review and the process for becoming a Panelist. All potential candidates will be contacted by IJNP either by phone or by e-mail to help evaluate their suitability for the Review.  IJNP will narrow the number of candidates down to the 25–30 who have the greatest competence, independence, and breadth of relevant experience.  Each of the 25–30 candidates and the participating authors will then receive a complete set of reading material.

Step 2 – Narrowing the Field of Candidate Panelists

In order to narrow the number of candidates to the 15–20 individuals who best understand the theories, each candidate will be contacted by phone and/or e-mail to set up phone interviews.  During the phone interview, the Chairman and other IJNP staff will allow the candidates to ask questions and express their agreement or any disagreement with the procedures and time schedule.

Step 2a – Proficiency Testing

The Chairman and IJNP staff will administer proficiency tests to the 15-20 selected candidates.  These proficiency tests are comprised of sets of questions provided in advance by the Authors to test the knowledge and understanding of the potential candidates of their Flood Models.  Candidates who show a weak understanding of the material will be encouraged to restudy the theories and reschedule another phone interview.

Step 2b – Verification of Credentials

The Chairman and IJNP staff will verify the candidate’s stated credentials, and try to learn the extent of the candidate’s scientific contacts—people he or she might consult during the panel’s deliberations.  These will include experts in such fields as orbital mechanics, heat transfer, medicine, geology, physics, fluid mechanics, and nuclear physics.

Step 3 – Interview by Authors

Once the panelists are narrowed down to 15-20, an Author may request a 5–10 minute conference call with the Chairman and each candidate, if they so choose.  The call will allow each author to assess each candidate’s comprehension of their own theory. During this interview, Candidates should not express their opinions on the merits of the theories.  Authors should not seek agreement, but only ask questions to assess the level of understanding.  The authors may also inquire about a candidate’s independence.  Authors cannot disqualify a potential candidate on quality or basis of understanding unless the author has conducted a personal interview with the Candidate.

Step 4 – Author Ranking of Candidates

After interviews are conducted, Authors will then rank order these 15-20 candidates according to the Author’s assessment of the Candidate’s understanding of the Author’s theory.  This rank ordering will be a factor in IJNP’s final selection of panelists, along with a candidate’s qualifications and independence.  Qualifications, independence, and understanding of competing ideas are the keys to “true peer review.”

Step 4a – Challenges to Candidate Selection

All participating authors will receive the names of these 15-20 candidates.  If a participating author feels that any candidate cannot serve on the panel in an unbiased way, he should explain his concerns in a written letter to the Chairman.  Participating authors may also invoke one peremptory challenge that would remove one candidate from further consideration without having to explain what may be a complex, but justifiable, rationale.  Candidates removed by peremptory challenges will be made known to all the Authors.

Step 5 – Final Review of Candidates

Step 5a – Proposed List of Candidates

IJNP will use all of the information gleaned from the previous three steps to propose a panel of 7-10 scientists to conduct the peer review. At this point, IJNP will release the names and qualifications of the proposed panel to each of the Authors for their review.

Step 5b – Agreed List of Candidates

Each author must agree, in writing, they believe the proposed panel is qualified to conduct a fair peer review of their Flood Model.  If any author disagrees with the proposed panel, they must state their reasons in writing to the Chairman, who will then distribute the Author’s written concerns to all of the other Authors.  The Chairman may, at his discretion, adjust the proposed panel, conduct discussions of concerns or initiate changes in order to arrive at a panel that is acceptable to all authors.  The Chairman will work with each of the authors until all have provided written agreement that the proposed panel can conduct a fair peer review.

Step 6 Final Selections of Panelists

IJNP will notify the 7-10 panelists and mail each a $1,000 check.  Alternates will also be selected in case a panelist needs to drop out of the process for any reason.  All candidates will be notified whether they were selected or not.  The Chairman will email his congratulations to the panelists and alternates and ask them to begin sending him their first question or criticism of each of the Flood Models.