The great thing about the sciences is that whether one has use libraries or prefers to pay, it's all out there? Sure, there are bad studies an fraudulent studies, some of which no doubt don't get discovered. But somewhat like evolution, part of survival in academia is to contribute or critique (that is, either find something new or find a mistake nobody has). A lot of the time, people think that scientists regard peer-review as the sort of "gold standard" that, once a paper has passed, means it is now true until "proven" false. In reality, peer-review is more like the opportunity to have your work ripped to shreds. If I want funding for my lap, and you have conducted a study that I attempt to replicate, it's a likely win-win for me. If I can't replicate your work, I can publish my findings anyway as they contradict what's in "the literature". If I can replicate you findings, then I can publish because my work supports yours. All the studies are accessible. There's no underground network of scientists who simply release some document on what evolutionary theory is every year. It's been ~150 years since Darwin published his work. You really think thousands of scientists spend four years obtaining an undergrad degree plus another (hopefully) ~7 years for a PhD in some field so that they can then earn less than they could had they simply used the mathematical knowledge required and gone into independent consulting after 5-6 years instead of 10 all so that they can compete with one another to support the same lie?
You really think atheist organizations have more money than religious organizations? That there is enough of a cohesive atheist network to bankroll a disastrous business model of underpaid, over-educated, in-dept specialists pleading for grant money so much so that they'll fake a century of research you've never read just to support the great atheist cause?
