Peer Review or BUST??

As time goes by, I think less and less of peer review: frankly, it doesn't work that well. Most peer reviewed findings are wrong, and many "peer reviewed" journals are utter rags. However, it does provide a minimum hurdle that keeps a certain portion of utter drivel out of the scientific press.That aside, it's simply not true that "Basically Creation Scientists are censored", if a Creation Scientist produced proper compelling research casting doubt on evolution they wouldn't just pass peer review they'd be published with fanfare in the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. The reason they're not is because they're not producing good science.In fact, there are very few Creation Scientists who are actually doing anything recognisable as science. And this is the reason they're not getting published.

That was pretty much what I was saying. Indeed, but that kind of peer review is not the kind of peer review that determines whether or not something is published in the peer reviewed press.