I’d be very interested in learning more about “the often fickle and random nature of the peer review system upon which scientific fact is based” – “the chinks in science’s armor.” How DOES it work…and is it really indeed quite problematic?

I myself am particularly interested in the climate “debate,” and I feel this lesson can also shed light on why climate skeptic scientists continue to get a significant amount of credibility (though it is less than before, my impression is that it remains significant).

Don’t most, if not all, NH museums already do this? I think a better suggestion might be for them to address the Creationists’ model. Both AiG & ICR’s Creation museums address the Evolutionists’ model.

For the average Joe visiting a museum, this seems fair; whereas the deliberate snubbing of alternative views by NH museums may seem arrogant &/or closed-minded. The only time I’ve ever seen an NH museum address Creationism is with outdated sneers such as “There’s not enough water on Earth for a global flood.” This sort of simple-minded approach is no longer valid now that geologists are struggling to figure out what caused all the erosion on Mars.

It’s not sufficient to merely present evidence to support your view; to be thorough, you need to present reasons/evidence why no alternative is possible, rather than simply ignore/exclude or belittle it.

That’s true, unless your definition of science REQUIRES accepting millions of years and evolution, which requires a Bible-believing Christian to be very inconsistent with their beliefs about the foundational doctrines from that very text.

(Agnostic evolutionist and ‘Darwin’s bulldog’) Thomas H. Huxley, Science And Hebrew Tradition Essays, p. 236, 1897.
If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage
than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive ‘type,’ comparable to the profound Promethean myths, what value has Paul’s dialectic?

Thomas H. Huxley, Science And Hebrew Tradition
Essays, pp. 207, 208, 1897.
And what about the authority of the writers of the
books of the New Testament, who, on this theory,
have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid
truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?

Evolution absolutely requires death … millions of years of it, struggle for existence, survival of the fittest millions of years before man comes on the scene. In this scenario, death is not the enemy but the very means by which God created everything. But the Bible is very clear about this: the wages of sin is death. Death came into the world through Adam’s sin. Therefore there was no death prior to the fall of man and therefore there could be no evolution whatsoever before that time.

If death and evolution are what God used to create (or even if He simply permitted it to reign for billions of years before sin, as ‘progressive creationists’ teach) then death is not the ‘last enemy’ (1 Corinthians 15:26), nor is it the wages of sin. And if this is the case, then what becomes of Jesus Christ, whose very purpose in coming was to break the power of death and pay the penalty for our sins?

It is unfortunately true that peer review is much like the authority-based approach typically used by theologians and the basis for most of the “truth” promulgated. “It is true because the authorities say so.” Peer review has a bad reputation for putting the brakes on publication of new ideas, and won’t let certain ideas be discussed. The original discoverer of the Solar Wind mentioned the difficulty he had in publishing his findings and finally had to go it alone.

Similarly, natural history museums need to include the evolutionary history of the world, and include the details of DNA and the pattern of life, such as described in the novel “Coils of the Serpent” (See http://www.CoilsOfTheSerpent.com)
The mass media does little to educate the public except for the OJ Simpson trial.

Getting involved in governmental meetings where decisions are made is essential to putting a stop to underhanded promulgation.

Proponents of science need to be politically involved and they need to reach out to the public. Writing letters to school boards and legislators does a lot more than decorating your car with a Darwin fish.

I’m not a scientist, so perhaps I’m wrong, but aren’t the peer reviews (the ones prior to publishing) intended to validate the methods and conclusions used in experiments designed to test a hypothesis? Not so much to give thumbs up or down to the specific data, but to comment on the validity of the experimental design and conclusions drawn? If compared in that context, I don’t see how the two Journals can be compared…even if they are both ‘peer reviewed’.