Why aren't Intelligent Design and Creation Science research articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

Answer 1

Because there is no science to them.

Answer 2

Richard Dawkins wrote these words in a reply to a creationist who wanted him to engage in a public debate with a fellow creationist:
----------

"... science keeps its playing field level by the rather admirable system of anonymous peer-review. If you have evidence that evolution is false, you are entirely at liberty to submit a paper to the editor of Nature, or Science, or the Journal of Theoretical Biology, or the American Naturalist, or Biological Reviews, or the Quarterly Review of Biology, or any of hundreds of other reputable journals in which ordinary working scientists publish their research. Do not fear that editors will reject it simply because it opposes evolution. On the contrary, the journal that published a paper which really did discover a fallacy in evolution, or convincing evidence against it, would have the scoop of the century, in scientific terms. Editors would kill to get their hands on it. "

This challenge by me has-of course-- gone unanswered...."
----------

This text was taken from the page linked below, which explains why he refuses to debate creationists.

Answer 3

Intelligent Design scientists are open to both natural and intelligent causes. They are not opposed to continued research into natural explanation for the first life. They are simply observing that all known natural explanations fail, and ll empirically detectable evidence points to an Intelligent Designer.

Both Darwinists and Intelligent Design scientist are trying to discover what happened in the past. We cannot recreate in the laboratory something what happened in the beginning, so we cannot really claim that we know for sure what happened. The Bible is God's eyewitness account on what happened in the beginning.

Answer 4

I think the first question that would be asked by a peer, in a peer review, would be,"who created the creator?".

That's the biggest problem for Creation Theory.

Answer 5

Just give them time. Some day, when they have a critical mass of "peers", they'll have their OWN "peer-reviewed scientific journals", and they can say what they wanna say. Don't you laugh! It's a numbers game. Compare the birth rates of scientists and creationis-- I mean, what do they call them? ID-ots!

Answer 6

The obvious answer-they are scared to face the challenges of professional biologists. Even the much vaunted Michael Behe never once sent anything to a scientific journal or sought to explain his views to a scientific convention-they are suffering from moral cowardice. They are out to sell their views to the gullible not to make real challenges to science.

Answer 7

To defend the faith of evolution of course!

Just like those he criticizes for following myths, the evolutionist is practicing his faith. The evolutionist believes in the theory. They have their own scriptures, and apologea. And woe unto those who knowingly or unknowing tread on "holy" ground. They'll eat you alive. You'd think for all their vitriol, that you were in a church full of hypocrites.

Recently, Richard Sternberg, a Creation Scientist tried to get his article published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. As a reward for his efforts, his peers tried to have him fired, he was belittled, and an e-mail character assassination effort was underway by those he worked with at the Smithsonian.

So, he did try to be "intellectually honest," and they tried to can him. So much for fairness in a "peer-review."

Answer 8

They're rejected for the same reason antigravity research never makes peer review: Prejudice.

Answer 9

Well, let's assume they were. Do you realize the number of scientists, researchers, and others that would lose their jobs? Can you imagine the number of textbooks that would have to be rewritten? Atheism needs evolution. Most don't want to intrude religion into science.

Answer 10

ID is a poorly disguised version of Genesis, and none of that has ever been scientifically validated.

Answer 11

Because they would ripped to shreds by legitimate scientists. These topics have been discussed in the journals you discuss, and have been shown to be "religion" not "science".