The Peer Review Process
The peer review process is used most notably by scientists to weed out any falsehoods that come about by either misrepresenting data (lieing), miscondutction experiments or misinterpreting information. This process is also used by the social sciences, historians and pretty well every other field including the study of literature. Many creationists, when told that if their "science" actually contained any facts then they should write an article, have it peer reviewed and if it is indeed true then next year's school curriculum will contain creation science and evolution will be ousted.
I was wondering how others deal with this. Also, for any creationists out there, what type of system do you propose that would have the same effects as peer review without the bias? and no "but God told me" won't cut it.
I've never been in a formal or informal debate on this topic but the other day a creationist started blathering on another forum that I go to and I basically told him this: "If the peer review process is so biased against certain ideas then please show me where other ideas, other than those from religious fundamentalism, that journals refuse to publish even though they are "credible" ideas." This shut him up pretty fast.