[metmom]

A vibrant area of scientific study that's constantly being examined and revised by the peer review process is being examined and revised by the peer review process.

Answer: Because creationists don't perform peer-reviewed research and creationism isn't science.

So now peer review is the criteria for whether something is *science* now?

Too bad for Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, Curie, Pasteur, Mendel, who didn't get their work peer reviewed.

[tacticalogic]

I though peer review was all a joke anyway, along with all conventional scientific research methodology (including this one).

[Bosh Flimshaw]

So now peer review is the criteria for whether something is *science* now?

Let's examine my statement to demonstrate where you went wrong. I said "creationists don't perform peer-reviewed research and creationism isn't science." I did not say "creationists don't perform peer-reviewed research, therefore creationism isn't science." See the difference?

Of course peer review is not the definition of science. However, if a modern area of study wholly lacks a peer review process (as does creationism) it is a gigantic red flag that it probably is not producing work that fits any modern notion of "science."

I hope this clears things up for you.