[onedoug]

They´re not really what I had in mind as peer reviewed physical science.

Though on this same subject, have you ever read Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W Richards The Privileged Planet: How Our Place In The Cosmos Is Designed For Discovery? I think you´d enjoy it. And it has a one hour video companion piece that´s available on YouTube. Both of these guys are Christians and Gonzalez is a scientist of some note.

Again, All the Best....

[Quix]

THanks for the suggestions.

They´re not really what I had in mind as peer reviewed physical science.

I understand that.

Are you asserting that there was nothing interesting in what Ted Philips asserted?

I understand you have . . . seemingly . . . a fierce bias/preference to be bitten in the rear by a TYPE II ERROR in your intense avoidance of a TYPE I ERROR.

[Quix]

In a rapidly changing, over much a paradigm shifting context

where

critters and 'officials'

were determined to keep (and quite successful at keeping)

"peer reviewed" [you are aware of where most of the grant money comes from?]

and

"tangible evidence"

out of the VERY PUBLIC domain . . .

IF YOUR LIFE AND YOUR FAMILY'S LIVES DEPENDED ON IT . . .

HOW

would you go about determining in the least degree what was really going on?

I've read tons of peer reviewed journal articles on a wide ranging list of topics. Just my bent and one does tend to do that anyway when getting a high quality, very earned PhD.

Most of them were full of horse feathers in terms of anything useful of any significance available therein. A lot of them were hollow, empty and embarrassingly plain wrong, silly, stupid. Yet, they'd passed through the peer review process and met all the check list items for the priests of the Religion of Scientism.

[JoeProBono]

"They´re not really what I had in mind as peer reviewed physical science."

Publish and perish