Replies

They are fallible, opinionated and prejudiced just like the est of us. Their profession does not exempt them from the human race.

Hence the absolute necessity of peer review, helps keep 'em honest.

Sure, but peer review is not a cure-all. Neither is a non-peer reviewed document automatically erroneous. Galileo was peer-reviewed. I am not suggesting tht ICR is of that level of genius, but, let's face it, peer review can be used to swat down dissent.

I am always fascinated by the use of words like "absolute". I see you have used it in your response and related it to honesty. Either you mean it as a rhetorical device, or perhaps you believe in absolutes? Perhaps even absolute truth? If so, then what about evolution is absolutely true? I submit nothing. It really is a clever theory and nothing more. Evolution embarrasses me much more than does creationism. I have the sense that evolutionists are extremely embarassed by creationists. But let me ask why the laws of nature (presumably including the alleged evolutionary mechanisms) created at the time of the big bang can satisfy any search for, or explanantion of, origins when they cannot have preceded the "beginning"?