Oh dear push.
Firstly, you didn’t cite me any specific scientific articles.
What you did was cite me an article stating that creationists published articles that didn’t have creationist conclusions, and that creationist conclusions were rejected from papers. So far, so standard, I have said that creationism is not science haven’t I? Fair enough this article did cite other articles, but none of these actually support creationism, despite the authors’ claims.
This is yet another common creationist canard; making it seem like there is some “evilutionist” conspiracy keeping creationism out of papers. The fact is, that creationism is not scientific because it starts from an unfalsifiable proposition; creationists themselves admit this, which is why they have started producing their own pseudo scientific “peer reviewed” papers, but with a stipulation; “Papers can be in any scientific, or social scientific, field, but must be from a young-earth perspective and aim to assist the development of the creation model of origins.” And the three or more people who reviewer each paper are advised that each paper must “provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatico-historical/normative interpretation of scripture.”
(http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9715114-7.html)
How on earth can you conduct rigorous science when your standpoint is blindly that the Bible is true? This ridiculous charade needs to stop, you are involved in an incredibly deep form of double-think and I can’t imagine how difficult that must be.
It has been shown by neuroscientists that suspension of disbelief is a far easier state for the mind to be in, so at least you have a scientific reason for it (discovered with help from, you guessed it, evolution, which I guess means you don’t believe it).
Again, please, any evidence you have for creationism greatly appreciated by the world. Even something as elegant simple and clear as human chromosome no. 2 would suffice.