Peer Review or BUST??

Back circa 1984, I heard Fred Edwords on the radio (local atheist org had a 15-minute show once a week). That was when I first heard about the "Bunny Blunder" and about NCSE. That evening he was scheduled to be on another radio show squaring off with Duane Gish; I got a tape of that show. At one point, Edwords told of a peer-reviewed journal publisher friend who was dying to get a creationist to submit an article. Gish poo-pooed it, saying that no creationist article would ever be allowed to be published, while Edwords kept insisting that publishers are begging for such articles.27 years later, it sounds like nothing has changed. At the very least that creationists aren't even trying to get published.Recently, in the preface of Dalrymple's The Age of the Earth, I filled in a gap in my knowledge of creation science history. Actually, it was in Wikipedia that I learned of a 1975 court case that had thrown out creationism. Apparently, up to that point creation science did not try to hide its religious basis, so it was after and apparently because of this court case that they superficially scrubbed their materials of overtly religious references (eg, quoting Bible verses, identifying the "Creator" as their god). IOW, their game of "Hide the Bible" had started a half-decade later than I, having just come in the middle of the show in 1981, had thought.In his book's preface, Dalrymple told of his first exposure to creationism. In 1975, Henry Morris and Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) visited Menlo Park where Dalrymple worked to present their case for creationism to several hundred US Geological Survey scientists in an evening seminar. Since they were speaking to people whose wife work was studying the history of the earth, they persuaded no one that evening. The following day, they took a tour of the chronological laboratories, where Dalrymple and a colleague engaged them in private debate on isotropic dating methods and on their peculiar and unquestionably incorrect interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as applied to evolution.Gish and Morris and any creationist with some real-world experience discussing creationism with scientists and those with scientific backgrounds has to know that they need to be cagey. They have to know that they don't stand a chance in a one-to-one with a scientist. That is the obvious reason why they avoid peer review publishing. But what Dalrymple's little story told me was that at one time, circa 1975, Gish and Morris actually thought that they could convince the scientists. And then they learned better. Oh, I'm sure that they never realized that the problem was that their own stuff is crap, but they still learned better than to try to discuss or support it.