You asked me if I was a working scientist; it is obvious from this statement
that you are not (or if you are you work with a very weird group of people).
Most scientific journals would not care if the author was a creationist;
they would only care if he did good work. Most mainstream creationists
cannot get published because their work is trash, not because they are
creationists. There are exceptions, and they get published, even though it
is known that they are creationists.
>The only reason that we know how a painter painted by observing his
>work is that we are painters ourselves. Such is not the case with humans
>a vis God and His creation. We truly will never know how God created. We
>speculate, but that is all we can do.
Oh please. Don't depend on your ignorance or the ignorance of others; read
the scientific literature for a change.
>The question of origins is a very difficult one. We do not know in physics
>why the fundamental constants have the values they do.
Patience, friend, we'll figure it out.
>How can we then solve
>problems that are astronomically more difficult that these fundamental
>question in physics?
Because in fact they are not; they only seem so at first glance. Read the
Kevin L. O'Brien