One claim that is commonly made against creation science is that it is not science unless it has been peer-reviewed by the proper journals. In other words, creationists doing their own peer review is not good enough; it has to be by the right journals. Naturally, by the right journals, they mean those that hold to philosophical naturalism and would never approve of an intelligent design or creationist paper. According to the people who make this claim, no matter how good the quality of the research, it does not qualify as science unless approved by the right people. This is a rather authoritarian view of science that is completely contrary to the entire idea of science and the scientific method.
What is peer review?
Peer review is the evaluation of a paper written about research for the purpose of deciding whether or not to publish that paper in a journal. The number of reviewers can be as few as one, but it is never a large number. Furthermore, with many journals, even getting a paper reviewed can be difficult.
One of the big problems with peer review is the fact that, because of the small number of reviewers, it is possible to have a paper rejected purely because it conflicts with the reviewer's own research. While peer review is a great process for deciding on the publication of a paper, it is not the be-all and end-all of science. In fact, sometimes you can actually hamper scientific progress by preventing the publication of novel research.
What is science?
Science is based on what is known as the scientific method. The scientific method involves studying a phenomenon, developing a hypothesis about what is happening, making predictions based on that hypothesis that can be tested to falsify the hypothesis, and then doing experiments to perform those tests. Successful predictions confirm the hypothesis, while failed Predictions would indicate the need to revise or even abandon a hypothesis. Whether the case is the case usually depends upon how close the hypothesis is to being accurate.
While reporting your results is an important part of the process, it does not have to be published within a peer-reviewed journal. Unfortunately, there are those who have the misunderstanding that publication within a peer-reviewed journal is what determines whether or not something is science or not. Even worse, people who take this position also require the peer-reviewed journals to be the right ones. The right journals are those that agree with certain theoretical and philosophical concepts.
Peer review does not define science.
The simple fact of the matter is that peer review does not in and of itself define science. Science is primarily a search for knowledge using the methodology of the scientific method. Unfortunately, within the scientific establishment, there is a desire to limit what qualifies as science to fit specific philosophical and even theoretical perspectives. For example, absolute naturalism is the primary philosophical perspective of the scientific establishment. This atheistic philosophy is associated with the entire Big Bang to man's evolutionary story.
Done properly, peer review can be a great benefit to science, but it does not define science. What defines science is the scientific method, and peer review is not a required part of that process. This is an important thing to understand. The danger, however, is the possibility of peer review holding back scientific research by improperly limiting what actually gets published.
Research does not magically become science following peer review.
Unfortunately, some people talk about peer review as if research magically becomes science once it has successfully passed peer review. This is not to say that the filter of peer review is worthless, but claiming that a line of research is not science because it is not past peer review or even failed it is going too far. A paper may not pass peer review simply because it has not been submitted yet, or the author cannot find a journal willing to even take a look at it. Now, if a paper actually fails peer review, that is a different issue. In such cases, it would depend on the reason for the failure. For example, if the reason for the failure is that the research seems to be a total piece of junk. However, there are many reasons why a paper may fail peer review that would have no effect on whether or not the actual research can still be considered scientific. One of these reasons would be a simple personal disagreement by the reviewer.
Science is science when the scientific method is followed.
The simple fact of the matter is that research does not need the approval of other scientists, let alone peer review, to qualify as science. All that is actually necessary Is to do research by way of the scientific method. This is the case, with a lot of research conducted on the high school and undergraduate levels. They are usually done for school projects, such as a senior project in college, but the results of these are hardly ever submitted for peer review beyond that of the teacher. The point is that science is science as long as the scientific method is being followed. This is regardless of whether or not those who do not like the results claim otherwise,
Conclusion
While the relationship between science and peer review is important, it is not the end-all and be-all of science. Science is not defined by peer review but by the scientific method. If someone is claiming that what they are doing or have done is science, take an honest look at their research rather than what detractors may be saying about them.
