(August 15, 2013 at 7:33 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: And this proves that Biologists who happen to believe in a creation story also support the idiotic notion of Creation Science how?
It doesn’t mean they support anything idiotic, but it does mean they support the current Creation model because every one of those Biologists has either worked for, currently works for, or pledged support for the major creation organizations.
Quote: How exactly is the scientific method not impressive?
The scientific method (which was first formulated by a creationist) is very useful and impressive- it’s the peer-review system that first became popular in the mid-twentieth Century that is not very impressive.
Quote: Do you actually have something better, or do you just believe that there's something better out there?
Make the articles submitted anonymous for one; there’s strong evidence suggesting certain people receive favoritism in the process due solely to their name or the University they work for rather than the actual merit of their work. Making the referees not legally anonymous so legal recourse can be taken for the rejection of perfectly valid work would be another good step. Hiring actual professional reviewers, rather than volunteers would be another step in the right direction. Allowing only for the methodology to be reviewed would also cut down on the gross level of censorship that occurs in the system.