Applaud Petes tendancy to seek such evidence,

Ed, pete does not seek "evidence"- he spouts dogma. He HAS no "evidence", nor IS there any for his nonsensical claims.

The issue is, in all cases, the statement may be based on the same information,

No its not, as pete's statements are based on preposterous nonsense and ignorance.

Why should we not logically subject notable scientists, and their opinions, to the same, or similar, litmus tests and caution?

Why should we not so subject Pete and his fellow fundagelical lunatics?