It seems so subjective across the board, that no one really is very clear, that its more about being right. Why would this be pushed so hard by some members of the scientific community, the public, and schools if it is so misunderstood? It makes no sense. I think that’s why there is so much push back from Christian conservatives – even those that don’t totally understand their own beliefs.

We share the same view. According to what your last post said, I am in agreement with you.

I am really confused as to your view. Peer reviewed articles may not all be completely correct, but they’re the best we have and it’s in our best interest to assume that they’re correct until shown otherwise, or no progress will ever be made.

Do you or anyone you love drive a car? I’m sure you are aware that the vehicle will go through some safety tests but obviously they are not 100% accurate, they’re just done to the best of the manufacturer’s ability. Do you wait until you are absolutely sure of the safety of the car or do you place your trust in the manufacturer and drive the car anyway?

You actually assumed correctly that I am a creationist, even though it’s not important to this debate or any that we label people. Because, you are also correct when you assume that I am debating the merits of evolution and peer review on a non-religious basis. I think its important that science should debate science.

To answer one of your questions: I don’t believe there is an alternative to the peer review process, except honest scientists. As I mentioned in earlier posts, I recognize the importance of the peer review process, its just that it does not necessarily make findings true or factual(because they are subject to bias and assumption).

I think you said it best; humans are imperfect. So too, our science and scientific experiments can be. We are subject to bias, and simple everyday mistakes. This is why I believe the peer review process is good and helpful, just not the end all be all of establishing scientific hypotheses theorems, etc. It IS the final stamp of approval to getting published though. And I agree that it is important that findings are published for the sake of the scientific community. So, to make a jump back then – The difference being that having a work published and being “true” are not necessarily one and the same. Again, how many tests and findings that have been published in the past have been thrown out as they have been disproven over time? Does that make sense?

Blah Blah was holding fast to the notion that peer review and publication in scientific journals is validation for holding truth value, and its just not necessarily so.I was sarcastically jabbing him to perform a field test and have his findings peer reviewed if he held it in such high regard. I cont care if he performs the test or not, if his findings are peer reviewed or not, just that should he perform such a test, or anyone for that matter, that whatever steps are taken, that reporting of findings would be done so honestly, and that we would let the truth of the findings speak for itself, and not have a bias interpretation of it by yourself or your “peers”.

As for your opinions on the peer review process; doubtless, it is an imperfect process. After all, humans are imperfect. You say that having something peer reviewed does not make it necessarily true, to which I would ask, what is your alternative? This is, as far as I know, the best method of reviewing new findings or claims or theories or what have you in the scientific community and thus the results of this rigorous process should be accepted until someone comes along with a radically different idea that is then peer reviewed and accepted as correct.

Again I ask, if peer reviewing is so flawed to the extent that it is your belief that the findings should not be made public and accepted by the scientific community, what then is the alternative?

Furthermore, you yourself ask Blah Blah to have his findings peer reviewed. Wouldn’t this be pointless since as you said, peer reviewed studies are not necessarily true?

You said “At least scientific journals are peer reviewed” Again, this still does not make them true. Why would the Bible need to be peer-reviewed? For one, it is not a science book, nor a collection of hypotheses and theories that needed to be presented before a “scientific community.” It is an account (testaments) of people and a nation who had relationship and interacted with God through time. It was written over a long period of time ending around the first century AD. Peer Review got going around the 17th century AD, quite a bit later.

You said, “Simply because something is peer reviewed does not necessarily make it true. It just makes it peer reviewed. It is still at the mercy of assumption and bias. And, as I hope it is readily obvious, there are strong biases that affect the scientific community.”

How much less true and more filled with assumption and bias then is the bible when it is not peer-reviewed? How much more readily obvious is it that there are strong biases that affect the creationism community?