Why are creationists science only found on websites?

Question

When an idea such as evolution or radioactive dating is brought forth, that hypothesis or idea is published in a scientifc journal subject to peer review--along with the supporting arguements,observations and data. Science not only encourages but almost demands other scientists to look at the work--look at the implications that perhaps even the author hadn't thought of--reproduce the data--and either confirm or invalidate the work. This peer review is done by submitting a paper to a scientific journal with the new data, new information etc. that would either confirm, expand, or refute the original idea. This new paper likewise is subject to the same scrutiny the original paper was. This ensures in the sciences that false ideas are soundly trounced, mis-information or poor research is thusly self correcting by science--it is an adversarial system to a point. Posting creationist ideas in a web site mean nothing--I've never seen one make it into a respected journal. False hypothesis.

Science is not out to get creationism--science would welcome such a discovery if it can be independently confirmed and verified by the scientific community. We search only for truth whatever that truth may be.

Answer 1

This is quite true. You never hear of these claims being submitted for peer review. Some people feel that religion overrides science and that any claim that religion makes should just be accepted. You know, kind of like they did in the dark ages.

Answer 2

I agree that creationism is religious dogma attempting to give itself a patina of respectability by impersonating science. However, I think I saw a paper by Duane T. Gish in a peer-reviewed science journal once. I don't recall the title of the article, the name of the magazine, or the year it was published. It's a vague memory, but I'm pretty sure that what you say has never happened, has. At least once.

Answer 3

That... wasn't a question?

At any rate, "creationist science" is a contradiction in terms. You can't do science by starting from the conclusion and then only looking for things that confirm it.