[Junior]

In a large-enough group (and there are literally thousands of biologists alone), personal perceptions will run the entire spectrum. Hell, as can be seen from our Biblical discussions, personal perceptions run the entire gamut. No two people ever see the world in exactly the same way, but a fairly accurate view of reality can be gleaned from comparing each of those individual's perceptions. Hence, peer review.

[MitchellC]

M: I see. But is it possible, in your opinion, that the researcher could share with all of his or her peers a bias that is in error and that, instead of being spotted and ironed out, ends up being pushed blindly?

J: In a large-enough group (and there are literally thousands of biologists alone), personal perceptions will run the entire spectrum. Hell, as can be seen from our Biblical discussions, personal perceptions run the entire gamut. No two people ever see the world in exactly the same way, but a fairly accurate view of reality can be gleaned from comparing each of those individual's perceptions. Hence, peer review.

So IDer/creationist/etc. objections to purely naturalistic attempts at explaining origins are not discounted out-of-hand by 'the mainstream' with a belief that there can be no Creator relevent to the process?