Originally posted by RJHinds
Take a look at my links to the videos I have posted on the Post on starlight. Dr. Russell Humphreys has had published peer reviewed work, but you are probaly right as to why there is not more. There is a comment on that in the last linked video.

P.S. Also ask yourself why do creationist scientists generally not submit their work to peer review by scientists who do not accept scientific creationism?

Because existence is a precondition for being able to submit something.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Because existence is a precondition for being able to submit something.

I was thinKing along the lines of the bias and prejudices that have been shown toward creation scientists.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I was thinKing along the lines of the bias and prejudices that have been shown toward creation scientists.

Creation science is an oxymoron. Look it up in a reputable dictionary.

Originally posted by RJHinds
P.S. Also ask yourself why do creationist scientists generally not submit their work to peer review by scientists who do not accept scientific creationism?

It's actually quite simple. Scientists are supposed to gather evidence and then form a theory around it. They then gather more evidence to check the theory and, if necessary, change the theory to account for any phenomena observed. This is an ongoing process. That is how science works.

A creationist scientist has a theory before any evidence has been gathered that the scientist considers absolute truth (The Big Book of Fairy Tales by A. God), something a proper scientist would never do. His job is done until someone raises an objection at which point he will diligently bend the evidence to fit the theory, or even discard the evidence altogether if it cannot be made to fit. Once the creationist scientist has convinced himself that he has bent the evidence to fit the theory satisfactorily he stops. This is not science.

Even if a creationist scientist were to submit their work to peer review it could not make it past a cursory examination because it puts the cart (theory) before the horse (evidence) and then ignores all evidence that suggests the theory (Big Book of Fairy Tales) is wrong.

Originally posted by Kepler
It's actually quite simple. Scientists are supposed to gather evidence and then form a theory around it. They then gather more evidence to check the theory and, if necessary, change the theory to account for any phenomena observed. This is an ongoing process. That is how science works.

A creationist scientist has a theory before any evidence has been gath ...[text shortened]... nce) and then ignores all evidence that suggests the theory (Big Book of Fairy Tales) is wrong.

All scientist, regardless of whether they are creation or evolution scientist, have a hypothesis or theory and do experiments to test it. That is how scientific knowledge is gain. However, a conclusion has to be draw from the resulting data of the experiments. What those conclusion might be is often times determined by the worldview of those doing the experiments.

It has been pointed out that it is due to bias that the work of creation scientists are rejected from being published in scientific publications in another thread.