It can be used that way. But a lot of what attempts to pass itself off as 'dissent' is simply sloppy reasoning and ignorance of relevant facts. It would save ICR a *lot* of embarassment if their articles were run thru a BS dectector. It doesn't have to be formal review by a journal, just people with different perspectives and expertises
Evolution embarrasses me much more than does creationism.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you speaking as a Republican? I'm not so much embarassed by the creations/ID-ers in the GOP trying to politicise the teaching of science as I am feaarful that it will cost us elections.
I am always fascinated by the use of words like "absolute". I see you have used it in your response and related it to honesty. Either you mean it as a rhetorical device, or perhaps you believe in absolutes? Perhaps even absolute truth?
What I said was "Hence the absolute necessity of peer review, helps keep 'em honest." It's meant to strengthen 'necessity', just aredundant adjective.
I have the sense that evolutionists are extremely embarassed by creationists
Why? what gives you that idea?
But let me ask why the laws of nature (presumably including the alleged evolutionary mechanisms) created at the time of the big bang can satisfy any search for, or explanantion of, origins when they cannot have preceded the "beginning"?
This doesn't make sense to me. You seem to be conflating 'origin of the universe' and 'origin of life', or something.