Creationists, Secular Peer Review, and Guard Dogs

A common falsehood spread by those with atheism spectrum disorder and other anti-creationists is that biblical creationists do not publish in secular peer-reviewed journals. Sidewinders like that prefer to use prejudicial conjecture instead of doing their homework. The facts are quite complicated.

Original image by Pixabay / skeeze, modified with Pablo

The guard dogs protecting secular journals are vicious. While biblical creationists do indeed get published (as we have said before), the equivalent of throwing the guard dogs raw meat is to say that their material does not threaten Darwin (blessed be!) or support creation science. Naturalists become frenzied when the truth of the Creator receives even a hit, such as when someone let a paper go through that said "creator", even though it means something different in the author's native language.

My conclusion is that they are cowards and willfully ignorant
(Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes)

Atheopaths like this one demand evidence for creation, the Genesis Flood, and so on, they reject it because they want it from a peer-reviewed journal. (I lack belief that they have ever read, or would understand, such material. The ones who can afford to pay for, read, and understand them are unlikely to be the trolls encountered on social media.) When we point out that the secular peer review process is loaded with difficulties, even passing computer-generated nonsense, the waving of hands commences.

Also, we point out that creation scientists have their own peer-reviewed journals for matters pertaining to origins, the Genesis Flood, theology, and so on. 

On a side note, I have had articles published at Creation Ministries International, and it ain't easy. I've had submissions immediately rejected, and others are examined by editors. I was concerned about the red markup on one sent back for my review, and one scientist said about the other who marked it that they "spill a lot of red ink on each other's papers". This is at an entry level. Can you imagine how stringent they are among other scientists?

Ever notice the paucity of debates between creationists and evolutionists? Invitations are made by creationists. You'd think Darwin's handmaidens would want to shut us down for good. Ain't happenin', Zeke!

When misotheists are told about creation science journals, they impugn the integrity and insult the intelligence of the scientists. In fact, the claim is made that they are not really scientists. Tell that to them face to face, Poindexter! They didn't just send a few grotzits to Billy Bob's Jerkwater Town Bible School and Degree Mill. Instead, they are from credentialed colleges and universities. (You can hate, but drop the bigoted speech and misrepresentation.) It turns out that these angry atheists and evolutionists conveniently redefined scientist to mean atheistic evolutionist, variation is conflated with fish-to-fool evolution, the false war between "science" and "religion" is utilized, and more. Atheism and evolutionism are easy to believe — especially they can redefine words to confirm their biases.

The "great scientist" Charles Darwin had no formal scientific training. He did earn a degree in theology, but with mediocre grades.

One example of the failure of atheistic presuppositions is when one hatetheist made the claim that creationists are not scientists. He was challenged with a link to a peer-reviewed scientific article in a creation science publication and told to refute it. The answer was that he could not because he's not a scientist. In other words, he refuted himself and admitted that it was written by a scientist.

Peer review is considered the best standard in scientific publication. If a paper has passed peer-review, it is believed that the results are generally scientific, reliable, and accurate. On this basis, evolutionists love to claim that creation scientists cannot do science because they produce no peer-reviewed papers. This claim comes up repeatedly in any discussion with a moderately informed evolutionist. Peer review, they argue, demonstrates that creation science is not science at all but merely an outmoded faith without evidence to back it up.

To read the rest of this very informative article, saddle up and ride on over to "Peer Review in Creation Research".