Quote:

I you misundersatand what peer review is supposed to accomplish- it is to ensure that supposedly disinterested parties independently review a paper to check for accuracy, relavance, and so on. I actually believe that most "evolutionists" are going to be much more impartial and qualified to review papers than a creationist.




No one says it has to be a disinterested party. It just has to be someone who is an expert in the relevant field. There's nothing magical about it. The 'judges' are just supposed to check for mistakes (as you've said) and challenge the author to make the paper the best it can be. It doesn't mean that the peer-review process automatically makes the paper 100% correct. It just means its less likely to contain mistakes.

Quote:

Therefore the scientific credentials of the reviewer are important, and few creationsists are actually experts in a related scientic field. In other words, I'd be very suprised to find a geology PHD who was also a creationist.



Humpheys has a Ph.D. in both Geophysics and Space Physics. One of his other colleagues has a Ph.D. in Geology, and I can't remember what the other two had Ph.Ds in except that one of them I think is just regular old Physics.

These guys (outside of their YEC work) have done important secular work. Designing things for governments and whatnot. You can check out their biographies on AiG if you really want, not that you'd believe them anyway.

But they do have real Ph.Ds from real schools.


Edit: By the by, the evolutionist superstition is really showing its stripes. When they find 'soft tissue' in bones that are 10 million years old and older, they believe it managed not to decay for that long. I don't mind if you're going to have a superstitious belief, but don't get it mixed up with science.

(For instance, there's no evidence that any 'soft tissue' could last that long, and really I think the burden of proof is on evolutionists to show how it could happen instead of resorting to circular reasoning...."It survived for 10 million+ years because there it is".)

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/30/06 20:24.
"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."