Replies

Darwinist postulate that it happens by blind chance yet the hard evidence says it can’t be done. Until they say exactly how it is done they are no better than the writers of children’s books.

Evidence also points to zero peer-reviewed papers supporting creationism and its descendant, intelligent design.

It could be true that mutation and natural selection are not the only two mechanisms. Since you believe that they aren't, write a paper arguing that a higher being is involved and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal.

If you could do it, you would benefit creationism immensely.

Evidence also points to zero peer-reviewed papers supporting creationism and its descendant, intelligent design.

Ahh yes, the same peer review canard that keeps circulating ( see the other canard that keeps circulating -- RE: Michael Behe believes in superstitious astrology ).

Notice how William Dembski observes how the peer review system works :

"Robert Pennock’s Nature article with Richard Lenski on the evolutionary program AVIDA does not mention Michael Behe, irreducible complexity, or intelligent design (for a critique of that article, go here). And yet, when Pennock criticizes ID, the first thing he does is point to that article as a refutation of ID and, in particular, Michael Behe’s claim that irreducible complexity poses an obstacle to conventional evolutionary mechanisms. So, peer-reviewed articles that do not cite ID or its literature nonetheless constitute refutations of it, and yet peer-reviewed articles by ID proponents that do not explicitly mention ID (to avoid censorship) may not count as confirmations of it. The double-standard here is palpable."

Look... no one can claim with a straight face that peer review is dependent on the peers themselves and what they allow in…and we have scores of examples of ID proponents being refused even a hearing… with many of them have actually being attacked with campaigns to get them removed from their positions. If Darwinists are out on a witch hunt to destroy anyone who dissents, then of course IDers have little chance of getting peer reviewed papers published or getting their ideas out on journals.

These arent conspiracy theories- they're clear fact. ask Richard Sternberg ( Evolutionary Biologist and Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington ) and look at his plight here :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html

Ask Guillermo Gonzalez, who is being attacked for his views and many are trying to stifle his right to speak on the issue…ask those who participated in the Smithsonian viewing of The Priveleged Planet when the Smithsonian suddenly attacked them and demanded they pay for the showing and cancelled other things related to it.

BTW, with respect to Guillermo Gonzalez, the man wrote 68 peer reviewed papers, most of them cited by his peers ( 300% more than required by the university tenure guidelines). When his tenure review at Iowa State came, there was a campaign mounted by atheistic professor Hector Avalos to derail his tenure. It succeeded.

Just goes to show how "easy" /sarc it is to get your views published if you even exhibit a smattering of doubt about Darwinism.

It could be true that mutation and natural selection are not the only two mechanisms. Since you believe that they aren't, write a paper arguing that a higher being is involved and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. If you could do it, you would benefit creationism immensely.

Please do not confuse creationism with Intelligent Design. Just because they have something in common does not mean that their views are the same. I advise you to read up on the wide swath ID literature so that you do not confuse the two.