Peer Reviewed Intelligent Design?

"Reported for missing that those peers would be other intelligent designers."

Just like the peers in most "scientific" journals would be other evolutionists?

I don't publish Logos arguments (Intelligent design) in the scientific literature because I try not to associate myself with the philosophy that gave us the Bomb and other means of destruction when talking in that particular arena.

Logos arguments concern the idea that G'd created the universe with a perfect thought -- The Word or Logos. From that single idea all the laws of life and science descended. Many scientists do not understand that knowledge is divine, and think, believe and suppose that knowledge is a man-made creation. This is the original sin. There were two significant trees in Eden, the other tree taught that knowledge was divine. To look to science as a validation of the Logos would support the belief that science holds authority over the truth, which it does not. The reality is science and those who practice science as a way of life have no such authority. The laws of physics and life answer only to G'd. Scientists have much to learn, first and foremost, that knowledge is a divine gift, and not a human creation. Once we see that knowledge is divine, we cannot and should not misuse that knowledge on the scale we have now.

The Dunce.

The priorities of intelligent design are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135,000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism.

Scientists themselves are prevented from publishing in peer-reviewed journals when their science is not up to par. The peer-review process prevents lots of substandard work from being published, even from non-creationists.

That list is as long as the table of contents in this weeks issue of Nature, and only a few are peer-reviewed research. None of them are in the least bit conclusive.

Why don't you post this in the Science section and see what kind of responses you get?

"Peer-reviewed Creationism" is a blatant oxymoron.