I agree with some of the previous responses to this. Most creationists are not scientists, and have never delved into scientific literature. Science and Nature are two of the toughest journals to publish in; others include Cell, JACS, PNAS, and PRL.
Science and Nature are general topic journals, which forces them to carry only the very most interesting of articles in each issue. They reject articles at about the rate Harvard rejects undergraduate applicants. These are not discussion forums! When they see an article which professes, or attempts to form a foundation for, unorthodox views, they do look very critically at it--although it's still not impossible to get over that barrier. When they see an article that is not only unorthodox but flies in the face of mountains of radiometric dating evidence (as the RATE group will eventually have to put forth in order to fulfill their mission), they'll just reject it flat out. As previous responders have mentioned, these journals are seeking articles that have the highest likelihood of leading to other important results. Anyone can come up with an unorthodox theory. It takes real skill to reduce a complicated problem to pieces that we're already familiar with.
I think getting rejected from Science and Nature is more of a publicity stunt for some of these creationists. They need to establish ideas in lower-level journals (as I'm sure many theories accepted nowadays got started). Once they've made it over that hurdle, and established consistent results to unambiguously support their conclusions, they'll have ground to stand on.
Science is not a democracy, although it thrives in democratic societies.
™ Version 4.2
