I know you know bout John Sanford, and so only by his example it shows that your comment was much more smokes and screens rather than a factual statement.
Except that it doesn't. Like Behe Sanford prefers to put his creationist writings out as popular science books rather than produce actual publishable research actually supporting his contentions.
135 000 submitted papers from creationists (with only 18 that could be described as advocating scientific creationism)
I didn't say people who were creationists couldn't produce scientific papers, probably perfectly good ones, but don't you think that the fact that creationist scientists have produced 135000 papers and only 18 of them are actually supportive of creationism is suggestive? That is only 1 in every 7500 papers. Although I also note these were submitted papers, was there a figure for published papers? After all anyone can submit a paper and it doesn't have to meet any scientific standards.
In other words, creationist scientists publish just as much as any scientists, they just don't give an evolutionary explanation at the end of the paper.
I'll let that stand all though you certainly haven't shown any such thing. But surely the point is that they could be using their research to produce creationist explanations? Creationists doing science doesn't produce creationist science any more than jews working in science produce jewish science. I'm sure if we added up all the papers published by people who accept evolutionary theory regardless of the topic of the papers we would get a huge number, but it wouldn't say anything about the validity of, or evidence supporting, evolution. Similarly until they actually produce research supportive of creationism or ID theory all of those creationist researchers aren't doing anything for your argument.
TTFN,
WK