Have you ever even SEEN a peer-reviewed journal? Because, if not, I suspect your sources are leading you astray again. I posed this question to gore3000 back in post 1372.
In the absence of peer-reviewed journals, how should scientific knowledge, discoveries, and information be verified and disseminated?
I've seen a few of them. But how do we know the peer committee is open to critique? How do we know an assortment of peer reviewers isn't cobbled together to keep any dissenting points of view squelched or bamboozled? Open inquiry must allow for the publication of differing points of view.
Evolutionists are notorious for keeping their "peer review" groups closed to opposition. They're as emotionally and financially vested in their ideology as anyone else.
I don't know about you, but I would not trust a "scientific community" that would ipso facto discard the possibility of intelligent design.
And yet I must admit, the assumption of intelligent design is not essential to scientific progress. I don't need the scientist to tell me God made it. That's a given, and it's not a bad given to have on my side. It's not an excuse. It doesn't have to take on a mystical meaning. It's a reasonable side to take because the immensity of design that surrounds me is too great to be explained by purely natural causes.