Pranking Christian call show

[Bad Writer]

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,

They support creationism, and since it's an unproven claim, it's idiotic to perpetuate it. They are supporting creationism, a notion that proves itself to be 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.

You still haven't shown how they support creation science.

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.

It just sounds like you're butthurt that if you tried to do "creation science" that you would get shot down in the peer review because you happened to have a few presuppositions there not supported by already accepted scientific theories. I for one am glad they have implemented this system in order to keep the SWs out of real science.

I'm curious though. How does the developer of the scientific method being a creationist make any difference in your argument? If you could somehow prove that an atheist couldn't have come up with the method, then that would be impressive. I'm afraid that's an impossible feat, but maybe the Chosen One SW will come up with a way to mold the evidence to his view!

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.

I'm surprised (well, not really) that you haven't seen the obvious pitfalls in this proposed system. I'm not going to argue that this might be preferable due to perceived unfairness in the system, as politics arise in any field of work in this world, but I wonder if you can see why the system is the way it is right now?

For one thing, with anonymous submissions, there could be a dishonest fellow or two out there that could potentially steal another's work. Intellectual property is something taken very seriously, if I'm not mistaken.

As for preference over one person's affiliations as compared to others', this actually helps to sift through the potential heaps of garbage that might make its way into peer review (not that there's not a ton already).

I don't know if you realized this either, but censorship is not meant to keep people out of some secret club of those who are in-the-know, but rather to protect the individual(s) making the submission. Take National Security in the U.S. as an example: we classify things as Confidential, Secret, and Top-Secret not to keep people from knowing the information, but to protect the source of the information. If someone's work is compromised, then progress in the scientific community would not happen as fast as it currently is.