Creationists, by contrast, are not writing in scientific language, or even in science-translated-into-ordinary language. Instead they use a pseudo-scientific argumentation, which combines half-digested scientific ideas with outdated criticisms, which abruptly shift to: therefore God must have done it.
In my view, there’s nothing scientific about those types of argument.
Actually I’ve heard this over and over and over but when one actually goes and investigates what the scientists DO actually say, there’s nothing at all unscientific about what they’re saying, let alone that it MUST be God.
click on the “scientists” link:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org
And I do find it rather fascinating that the theologian Darwin can publish a scientific paper, but let “real” scientists refute it and they’re the ones injecting religion into science?
Every field of science has its own journals, where recognized scientists publish their peer-reviewed results. These journals act, in effect, as disciplinarians on scientists, forcing them to justify everything they say. Even so, occasionally a fraudulent report will slip through, causing a big scandal when it's later discovered false. So their system is not fool-proof, but it's the best they can do.
And there are lots of true scientific questions relating to evolution being researched and reported on. Whether any of this research has ever resulted in findings supporting "creationism," I don't know. But I've never heard of it.
Now what all goes on OUTSIDE the world of recognized science, I couldn't begin to guess, but we have to assume that every little social movement has its own journals. And occasionally, a really good radical idea, possibly modified will make the jump from "fringe-kook group" to mainstream science, but not very often.
You might even say that science imposes a process of "natural selection" intended to weed out ideas unfit for mainstream acceptance. ;-)