Almeyda,
I think of myself as a pretty fair person (my username is really a misnomer, I promise). What people on here are trying to do is get you to support your assertions. So, for the sake of getting things on track, lets pretend that evolution is false, just as you claim.
Now that we have gotten this out of the way, please show us how creationist science meets the requirements of accepted science, and how these papers have been unjustly rejected. If you can show that creationist theories are testable, falsifiable, and explain all the data then I will agree that these papers were unjustly rejected.
Also, I myself have submitted papers through peer review. Some are rejected and some are accepted. Rejection in itself is not an indication of whether or not the theory being put forth is accepted by the mainstream or not. Rather, peer review is a process that rejects papers on the grounds of incomplete support, or or data found in other papers that falsifies the theory being put forth.
So, for you to support your assertion that creationist papers are being unjustly rejected you must show how these papers avoid the following pitfalls:
1. The theory has to be testable and potentially falsifiable.
2. Is not contradicted by other observations.
3. If there is a contradiction, explain how the falsifying data is actually in error.
4. The theory has to be supported by evidence that is repeatable, regardless of religion or ideology held by other scientists.
5. Makes predictions about future observations.
If you can do this, then I will agree that there is an unjust bias.
PS: There is no need to bring up falsifications of evolution. The evidence that you claim is there should be enough to refute evolution. However, we can't examine the claims unless you bring them forward, in your own words.
™ Version 4.2