There were no peer-reviewed scientific journals extent in the mid-19th century.<quoted text> You did not answer my question. Was Origin of Species peer reviewed?
But Darwin's book WAS peer-reviewed in the sense that its principles were debated and researched by scientists all over the world and HAVE been for the past 150 years, and Darwin has been shown to be almost completely CORRECT in his original ideas.
And as Darwin's work was verified, the loser in all this, of course, was fundamentalist Christian Bible Creationism. It became clear early on, for example, that because of the evolution of species, there never could have been two distinct "first humans" Adam and Eve, as humanity gradually evolved out of earlier, proto-human species.
False. Your Jesus Freak scientists may have degrees, but they don't CONCLUDE anything. Instead they BEGIN with the a priori RELIGIOUS BELIEF that the Bible's Genesis creation myth is actual, factual history, then they try to shoehorn the scientific evidence into that little shoe box. Whatever doesn't fit into the box (99% of the data, actually) they just dismiss or ignore.<quoted text> They have the credentials and simply come to different conclusions.
You aren't doing science when you start with a conclusion then reject everything that doesn't fit it. You're doing RELIGIOUS APOLOGETICS.
Check out the Answers in Genesis "Statement of Faith" page:
Scroll to the very bottom, where you read:
"6. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
In other words, "our strict interpretation of the Bible trumps science, no matter what the scientific evidence says."
Like I said: NOT science, but religious apologetics.