The whole point of having one's work reviewed by peers is to convince them of one's authenticity. When somebody doest that, they are applauded and sometimes win awards. When their work does not hold up under scrutiny it is because the work is shabby. That is what has happened to this fella. He could NOT convince his colleagues of his opinion because after they looked at his work they saw flaws in it. That is why being reviewed by ones peers is important, because they are the most qualified to examine the work. More qualified than you or I.
Racmanaz wrote:
Again, many great minds were off the grid, you will find soon that Behe is right and has been proven to be right. It's funny, atheists\evolutionists used to always make a big deal about Peer Review and asked em to provide papers to support ID theories and when I did, they dismissed it as authentic and now they NEVER ask me for Peer review papers LOLOLOL