Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, I think Richard Dawkins would vehemently disagree with you. He is adamant that science leads to truth.

Then perhaps you should take that up with him, why it came up in a conversation with me would be a mystery, no?

As I am sure you're aware, the whole scientific enterprise is ultimately governed by the scientific peer review process.

Incorrect, it's ultimately governed by demonstrable evidence and the reproduction thereof.

An example: a student quantum physicist demonstrates that he or she has discovered physical evidence that completely eliminates the possibility of wave function collapse (which is a fundamental postulate in the Copenhagen interpretation in quantum theory), and has the potential to completely invalidate the Copenhagen interpretation. At the very bottom line least, he or she needs to have peer reviewed scientific publications in order for the aforementioned discovery to be accepted as valid. So, the student quantum physicist has submitted his or her paper for peer review. Even if the content presented in the paper(s) is 100% accurate and valid (in terms of satisfying the perquisites required by the scientific method), there is a distinct possibility that the academic / professional reviewing the document will reject the idea that the evidence presented eliminates the possibility of wave function collapse.

And?

Does this mean that the evidence presented is invalid? Of course not. It is simply an example whereby the perceived credibility of the idea presented by the student is entirely dependent on the reviewer's subjective interpretation of the evidence, thereby invalidating the proposition that science is all about "investigation and testing".

b-mine

Wrong again -thereby demonstrating what we already knew about people and their willingness to cling to ideas already held. Thankfully there's a built in incentive to challenge the status quo. A career can be made in science without ever advancing a hypothesis of one's own - merely by picking apart the problems of another's. Some fields have such prodigious scientists in this regard that successfully floating a hypothesis past them has become a rite of passage. Meanwhile - we still have plenty of examples of "fringe" or "ridiculed" science becoming the accepted and "authoritative" explanations.

I shouldn't have to tell you any of this...you've made claims that would suggest to me that you should already know this...maybe I should look at floating a hypothesis in this regard?