In general, from the standpoint of evolutionist a paper being peer reviewed and published by the right type of publication Has about the same effect as something being blessed by the Pope goes to a Roman Catholic. In the opinion of many of them it is the distinguishing factor between science and non-science regardless of well the scientific method is actually followed. It is frequently used as a way to excuse denying evidence that goes against the Big Bang to man evolutionary story.
The simple fact of the matter is the evolutionist perspective per-review from the appropriate journals is how they define science and evidence. In other words, you can follow the scientific method perfectly, and it is not considered science unless the right people approve of the results. On the flip side, you can invent an untestable patch to a popular theory with complete disregard for the scientific method, and if the right people approve of the results, it is considered science.
So in order for an evolutionist to consider an idea to be scientific, for something to be evidence, it not only has to be peer reviewed but peer reviewed by the right people. I even had a case where someone on social media who kept demanding that I submit something to peer review day after day in a discussion Claiming that he was waiting as if the process would only take a single day. Consequently, it shows that in some cases it is simply used as a way of dismissing something that's not yet been through the process upper review.
-----------------------
Help support these articles.
Donation: https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=YTU2FM3NTFR7Y
