Notice how I said "factual article". A discussion whether god exists or not is not a "factual article", as the question by tradition is not based on facts.
> The usual way of determining intelligence and knowledge is by popular consensus.
What does this even mean? Are you claiming the scientific method is nothing but popular opinion?
> If everyone else reading the article is an idiot and thinks that a post by an idiot is a work of genius, it doesn't matter if you disagree. This is the flaw of peer review.
This is why, in general, idiots are not selected for peer review.
> continental drift
Lack of evidence, and lack of a plausible mechanism prevented the theory from wide-spread acceptance. Once a proper amount of supporting evidence was found, the theory was accepted. This is the scientific method working properly.
> the decimal system
Is not a fact, only a convention, and has nothing to do with this discussion.
> the theory of evolution
Did not spring fully formed from Darwin's mind. Darwin's original theory had its faults and was incomplete. It took a long time to develop the theory to the point where it was sound and complete, and it's still being worked on. Scientific method working as intended, again.