The Creation Science article contains, not to put a fine point on it, some laughable statements:
QUOTE
If there were credible scientific evidence against evolution, scientists would be the first to discover it, the first to publish it in peer-reviewed journals, and the first to debate its validity and importance. After all, discovering credible scientific evidence against evolution would be a revolutionary accomplishment, worthy of a Nobel Prize. That’s why accusations from creationists and intelligent design advocates that scientists are conspiring to suppress evidence against evolution are, to put it mildly, silly.
ORLY?
If some researcher did (for the sake of argument) discover some evidence that seemed to count against evolution, and tried to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, what would actually happen?
I mean, he'd be ostracised as cook, have every aspect of his research called into question, have journalists dredging through his past to "prove" he was motivated by religion, and then, even if his findings couldn't be dismissed they'd be put aside as an anomaly to be explained later, a freak result, or evolutionary theory would be tweaked by some complexities to explain the new data.
The notion that evolutionists are open minded here, and all they require is some proof for them to rethink is absurd. The notion that theory evolution is open to falsification is also absurd.
FWIW, I do not believe the existence of God can be "proved," because proof is always subjective - and, with enough will, another explanation can always be found. But the same is true of any number of deeply held beliefs - this is not a phenomenon restricted to religion. The problem with most scientists is they have studied too little epistemology - and therefore ignore their own subjectivity.