The Mysticism of Peer Review?

Creationists frequently encounter atheopaths and other Darwinistas who make inane demands resembling, "Show me just one peer-reviewed creationist paper!" You can tell up front that they don't want answers, otherwise, they'd be doing their own research and finding out that yes, creationists are indeed published in noted journals. (I recently gave one tinhorn a link to "Creationist Scientists and Journal Publication", but he preferred to make childish attacks and refused to click on it. I reckon some people don't want answers.) Many folks expect that peer review is a guarantee of accuracy, and that something is established science if it undergoes peer review. Not hardly!

Modified from an image at Clker clipart

Creationary scientists have their own peer review systems and seek to honor God as well as strive for excellence in the process. Although all scientists are human after all, secularists seem more prone to plagiarism, misconduct, fraud, bias, and other problems. Do we trust them to be ethical and have integrity? (Well, secular scientists are making chimeras with human embryos, that should give you a clue.) One scientist is adding his voice to the others who say that peer review is no good.

A reviewer of peer review says our reverence for the practice borders on mysticism, not science.

Drummond Rennie has had a lot of experience reviewing peer review. He has seen the seedy side: fraud, plagiarism, destroyed careers. In Nature, he calls to “make peer review scientific” — a startling appeal about a practice assumed to represent a hallmark of science.

To read the rest, click on "Peer Review Is Unscientific".