Replies

A peer review by a community of experts in the relevant field is beneficial but not necessarily a valid test for truth or validity.

It's the best test there is for scientific truth or validity. Anyone deliberately dodging it to the extent Wells does is almost definitely doing a snow job.

There have been studies/articles/theories/books which have been peer reviewed by a community of experts in the relevant field which are/turn out to be invalid.

Of course. The process isn't perfect. If peer review can still admit errors, then any sweeping statement or study that hasn't been peer reviewed is almost sure to contain a huge number of errors, if not outright falsehoods.

There have been studies/articles/theories/books which have not been peer reviewed by a community of experts in the relevant field which are/turn out to be valid

And had such studies been peer reviewed, they would surely have met muster. If not, well, then they're probably lacking in accuracy.

Peer review is the best tool we have for discerning accuracy in the technically complex realm science has become, but obviously, you seem unsatisfied with it. With what mechanism would you suggest it be replaced?

"It's [peer review is] the best test there is for scientific truth or validity"

I strongly disagree. The best test for scientific truth and validity are repeatable experiments which we observe.

"Anyone deliberately dodging it to the extent Wells does is almost definitely doing a snow job."

Dr. Wells and Dr. Denton and anyone else who writes that homologous structures fail to provide evidence for evolution are not doing a snow job just because all of their books/articles are not always peer reviewed by evolutionists. Perhaps it is worth noting that the articles/books they write get both a hostile and friendly peer review nearly every day.

"Peer review is the best tool we have for discerning accuracy in the technically complex realm science has become, but obviously, you seem unsatisfied with it. With what mechanism would you suggest it be replaced?"

Peer reviews are very beneficial in many areas of study and I don't think they should be replaced. The book "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins" is an example of a work (although originally intended for the high school level) which the quality has improved as the result of a very extensive peer review. The peer review for this book is as impressive as any.

Although the reviews on amazon are not always strictly 'scientific' reviews, it is interesting looking at the reviews on amazon for "Of Pandas and Of People". Nearly all of the reviews are either the very highest rating or the very lowest rating. I suspect that if the reviewer held a presupposition that the world evolved via chance and natural process that most of the time the reviewer gave the very lowest rating. Conversely, I suspect that if the reviewer held a presupposition that the world was created via an Intelligent Designer that most of the time they gave the very highest rating.