I do not know of any published peer review physical science that criticizes any theology.
I'm not sure WHY your limiting to Physical Science but:
Title:
Creationism & Climate Change
Affiliation:
AA(National Center for Science Education, Oakland, CA, United States
newton@ncseweb.org)
Publication:
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2009, abstract #ED31C-03
Abstract : Although creationists focus on the biological sciences, recently creationists have also expanded their attacks to include the earth sciences, especially on the topic of climate change. The creationist effort to deny climate change, in addition to evolution and radiometric dating, is part of a broader denial of the methodology and validity of science itself. Creationist misinformation can pose a serious problem for science educators, who are further hindered by the poor treatment of the earth sciences and climate change in state science standards. Recent changes to Texas’ science standards, for example, require that students learn “different views on the existence of global warming.” Because of Texas’ large influence on the national textbook market, textbooks presenting non-scientific “different views” about climate change—or simply omitting the subject entirely because of the alleged “controversy”—could become part of K-12 classrooms across the country.
Title:
The Postmodern Sin of Intelligent Design Creationism
Publication:
Science & Education, Volume 19, Issue 6-8, pp. 757-778
Abstract: That Intelligent Design Creationism rejects the methodological naturalism of modern science in favor of a premodern supernaturalist worldview is well documented and by now well known. An irony that has not been sufficiently appreciated, however, is the way that ID Creationists try to advance their premodern view by adopting (if only tactically) a radical postmodern perspective. This paper will reveal the deep threads of postmodernism that run through the ID Creationist movement’s arguments, as evidenced in the writings and interviews of its key leaders. Seeing their arguments and activities from this perspective highlights the danger to science posed by both ID Creationism and radical postmodernism.
Title:
Committees active against creationism
Publication:
Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 64, Issue 34, p. 514-514
Abstract: In 1981 in Federal District Court, Judge William R. Overton held that the Arkansas law mandating equal time for the teaching of “scientific creationism” in the state's public schools was unconstitutional.The Overton decision was the latest in a series of legislative and judicial setbacks suffered by fundamentalists who advocate the introduction of creationism into schools, libraries, museums, and other public institutions. But rather than giving up the ghost, creationists are now switching their campaign into a series of local confrontations. In California the teaching of creationism in San Jose high schools is defended while the use of an evolution-oriented high school biology text is attacked. In Iowa an ambitious effort to introduce shoddy creationist paperbacks into the schools of 60 communities has just bogged down. In Michigan an exhibit on plant development in a modest, county-run museum is characterized as “blasphemous” because of the exhibit's evolutionary tone. So it goes across the United States and Canada.
