Scientists will be the first to admit that the peer-review process is not perfect, but that it does, on the whole, keep the quality of papers submitted up. Many Creationist scientists do actually publish scientifically grounded papers, very few of them having much to do with Creation. I firmly believe that the main reason Creationists have problems getting Creationist-centric papers published is that they're of poor quality scientifically, not because they're Creationist.
The article compares the problems scientists had during the climate debacle with Creationists who had articles criticizing Evolution and the BBT. Of course, there is a vast gulf of difference in what each subject is covering and the political implications.
The other issue, especially on Creation.com, is the lack of Scientists who write articles in their chosen field. Can they not round up a hoard of biologists to write on the subject of Evolution instead of Veterinarians? I mean, really?
The issue with Creationists in regard to discovery is that in order to belong to the club, they must accept this predetermined conclusion. The evidence, the experiments, and the findings all
must point in one direction and one direction only. That is not free inquiry, nor is it good science. It also discounts the many Christians who work in the field of science, and accept findings based on the evidence and an open mind to allow that evidence to lead them where it may. Creationists cannot do that. They must accept a particular paradigm or not be Creationists, and it leads all of their conclusions.
As laypeople, we do not have the training and education that Scientists in these fields possess, so when we visit these sites for information, we submit to those we deem more experienced and that tend to represent our own views. The comparison of sites becomes a 'they say/we say' debate with no real ground covered or progress made. I have knowledge in Geology, so when I go to a young earth Creationist site or read articles that support a global flood, I can catch the errors because I've studied the strata, the mechanics and I understand what a young earth or strata laid down by a massive flood would resemble. I'm not trying to support a predefined conclusion, I am simply looking at the layers with a somewhat trained eye.
When you hit newsgroups that feature Scientists who are in these fields, you see that there is no such confusion among them when they read these articles or debate with Creationists. They know what is wrong and the errors in the Science presented. There you see how scientifically inept their arguments are and how much they lack in terms of evidence.
I don't necessarily support that a majority means credibility, but less that .15 percent of relevant Scientists support Creationism in the US alone. You would think that number would be much higher if Evolution had so many legitimate problems. You would think there would be no Christian Scientists who support the theory.
I would not bother to send a debate opponent to a site that features Veterinarians writing on genetics or mechanical engineers writing on Geology. If you can't post an article from a scientist relevant to the subject being discussed, why bother posting one at all?
