Well I could post a response to that. But seeing as how I have no way of knowing which scientists (even evolutionists) publish scientific papers (for sure), I have no idea. By the way, in a science culture dominated by evolutionists, how many creation papers do you suppose will get published? Evolutionists have a hard time publishing papers revealing lies about things like embryology, let alone a paper blantantly supporting creation.

I don't go to a church and ask, "How many atheists are there? None? Oh, well then atheism is worthless as a philosophy." I know that there are actual reasons not to be an atheist, and I don't need to use a veiled appeal to authority to support my position.

That said, the simple answer is that I don't know. I was going to list creation scientists, but I don't know which ones publish.

If a scientist doesn't (or isn't able to) publish, does that make them less of a scientist? Maybe Galileo should have just stopped after being thrown in jail. What's the point of going against 'majority rule.'

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."