Creationists often complain that due to the 'anti-creationist' bias in mainstream scientific journals, they can never get a fair shake and their amazing creation-supporting scientific research will not get published.
So, they start up their own journals - many of which are peer reviewed, even*.
Perusing a few samples from the creationist peer-reviewed scientific literature should be plenty of evidence for the explanation as to why such 'research does not make it into legitimate scientific outlets.
Then, along came the Intelligent Design movement. It was invented to make creation 'science' seem more palatable, scientifically and first amendment-wise, by not explicitly referring to God and cloaking itself ina veneer of legitimate sounding science.
The Intelligent Design advocates wanted to avoid all together the oppression of the Darwinian orthodoxy, and so started up their own peer-revierwed journal. It came out regularly when it first started up, filled primarily with pre-exisiting essays and articles or gussied-up versions of the same. This was 'proof' that ID was not just creationism with a new coat of paint, but alegitimate scientific movement and research paradigm.
Then, they ran out of pre-fabricated essays, and the new, original 'research' that they had promised was forthcoming never came.
This is the output of the Intelligent Design movement's scientific research wing.
Nothing worthy of publication - much less filling the electronic opages of a journal - since November, 2005.
And they want to have their 'science' pushed in public schools and universities?
*It appears that to a creation 'scientist', a peer is but another creationist, regardless of their actual areas of expertise
- ► 2008 (41)
- ▼ September (6)