Creation Worldview Ministries
  Upcoming Events Latest Articles
January 21 - January 24
Sarasota Christian Church
Sarasota, FL
January 28 - February 3
Mission Trip To The United…
Sarasota, FL
Education / History
Bill Nye, The Un-Science Guy
Education / History
500 Years LATER
More… More…
An Educational Missionary Organization



I Lament That Science is No Longer the Search for Truth

  Article Options
Back to ListBack to List
Print ArticlePrint Article

I Lament That Science is No Longer the Search for Truth 

I have, on occasion, been referred to as a “Jeremiah of Science.” The reason is simple. I lament things about the integrity and truthfulness of many scientists who are involved in the modern scientific endeavor. Some of the reasons for this include the following lamentations.

1) You will find what you are looking for.

2) Science is no longer the search for truth. Today, much of science has become the search for the next grant.

3) Government education no longer teaches students to use critical thinking; government education is all about teaching by memorization and the achievement of universal conformity. This is not education, it is indoctrination.

4) The world of science is being degraded through the acceptance of, teaching of, and promotion of evolutionary concepts.

The false concepts and promotions of man-made Global Warming, billions of years of age for the earth and universe, and micro-evolution supposedly leading to macro-evolution are just some of the beliefs that waste money, time and effort within corporations, universities and schools.

There are, of course, good, well-motivated and well-intentioned people working as research, operational and teaching scientists. I openly admit that. There is, however, a great deal of difference between those whose work motivation is based upon an evolutionary worldview versus those whose work is based upon a creationist worldview.

The word “Science” is derived from the Latin word “scientia,” which means “knowledge” and is sometimes used to represent “the body of knowledge.” Over thousands of years humans have worked out a methodology for discovering truths about our world, solar system, galaxy and universe. That is what the many fields of scientific endeavor are all about.

In the view of the general public, what is the accepted Modern Scientific Method (MSM)? The MSM follows these steps: define a problem or question; gather information and resources (make observations); develop a hypothesis; do controlled experimentation; analyze data into either a rejection, or into an accepted generalization or a “Law”; make reasonable future predictions; and check and verify the results or Law. These are indeed, the steps in the MSM.

The MSM, however, is not “Science,” it is a methodology followed by scientists supposedly to find out what is real and true.

Theorems, equations and products are not science. Einstein’s equation E = MC2 is a description, not a prescription. Scientists are not prescriptive. Scientists cannot speak things into existence within a vacuum. Scientists describe what already exists in the natural realm. Science is actually a process, it is a mental endeavor.

Evolutionists know that this is the case. These quotes are from major evolutionary believing scientists:

“Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. Its goal is to find out how the world works, to seek what regularities there may be, to penetrate to the connections of things - from subatomic particles, which may be the constituents of all matter, to living organisms, the human social community, and thence to the cosmos as a whole.”

Dr. Carl Sagan (Astro-physicist, Cornell University, NY)

“Science has its weaknesses and it doesn’t have a stranglehold on the truth, but it has a way of approaching technical issues that is a closer approximation of truth than any other method we have.”

Dr. Richard Muller (Physicist at the University of California, Berkeley) The Guardian, Sunday 27 February 2011

Science is a Process

Evolutionists want to incorrectly define science as being only that which is naturalistic, mechanistic, existential and random. This mind set leads to an ever increasing degradation of the educational system.

A study published in the January 30, 2009 issue of Science, Vol. 323 no. 5914 pp. 586-587, shows that learning more supposedly scientific “facts” does not seem to improve the ability of students to use proper scientific reasoning. Apparently this concept isn’t obvious to those who create science curriculums used in many schools around the world.

The researchers tested about 6,000 students majoring in science and engineering at seven universities (four in the US and three in China). Here are the results:

The first test, the Force Concept Inventory, measures students’ basic knowledge of mechanics - the action of forces on objects. Most Chinese students scored close to 90 percent, while the American scores varied widely from 25-75 percent, with an average of 50.

The second test, the Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment, measures students’ understanding of electric forces, circuits, and magnetism, which are often considered to be more abstract concepts and more difficult to learn than mechanics. The Chinese students averaged close to 70 percent while American students averaged around 25 percent - a little better than if they had simply picked their multiple-choice answers randomly.

The third test, the Lawson Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning, measures science skills beyond the facts. Students are asked to evaluate scientific hypotheses, and reason out solutions using skills such as proportional reasoning, control of variables, probability reasoning, correlation reasoning, and hypothetical-deductive reasoning. American and Chinese students averaged a 75 percent score.

The whole point of science is not to simply take things on faith, but rather to figure out how things work using evidence. Science is all about questions and how you answer them, not only about the answer themselves. Facts, numbers, techniques, equations, ways to look things up in databases/journals, etc. - all very useful to a point, but if you don’t know the “why” behind these answers, you’re still missing the bigger picture.

As physicist, John Droz, Jr., noted in Science Under Assault:

“Scientific ideas are developed through reasoning. Inferences are logical conclusions based on observable facts. Much of what we know from scientific study is based on inferences from data, whether the object of study is a star or an atom. No person has ever seen inside an atom, yet we know, by inference, what is there. Atoms have been disassembled and their components determined.”

“Scientific claims are based on testing explanations against observations of the natural world and rejecting the ones that fail the test.”

“Scientific explanations are evaluated using evidence from the natural world. That evidence may come from various sources: a controlled lab experiment, a study of anatomy, or recordings of radiation from outer space, to name just a few. Explanations that don’t fit the evidence are rejected or are modified and tested again.”

“Scientific claims are subject to peer review and replication. Peer review is an integral part of genuine scientific enterprise and goes on continuously in all areas of science. The process of peer review includes examination of other scientists’ data and logic. It attempts to identify alternative explanations, and attempts to replicate observations and experiments.”                                                                  [Emphasis added]

Various studies have shown that the general public believes that the Scientific Process is supposed to be a 100% honest, in depth, objective, unbiased (and some even think infallible) process. It is none these. Why? Because, scientists are human. Certainly there are those men and women who make a strong attempt at being objective and unbiased, but the concept of neutrality is only a laboratory ideal that is never really achieved.

Humans are biased; everybody has a bias. (At one time I was biased as an evolutionist; now I am biased as a Christian and creationist.) Therefore, humans cannot be totally objective. And, of course, because scientists are human, they are most certainly not infallible. I would never lie to you nor deceive you intentionally, but I am not infallible.

One proof of my prior comment that science is no longer the search for truth, but a search for the next grant comes from an article by Norman Rogers in the American Thinker dated June 29, 2013 entitled American Geophysical Union Scraps Science, Now Faith Based.

“I recently attended a 3-day science policy conference sponsored by the American Geophysical Union (AGU). The AGU is an association of 62,000 scientists who study the Earth. Although the conference was allegedly about science policy, it resembled a cross between a Scientology rally and a workshop for lobbyists from the Mohair Council of America.”

“The euphemisms for lobbying by people who aren’t supposed to be lobbying are ‘communication’ and ‘outreach.’ The AGU believes, in a secular way, that God is on their side and the reason why they are being ignored, and not being given enough money, is that they haven’t done enough communicating. They think that if only the government understood the importance of their work, things would change for the better. It absolutely never crosses their mind that if the government and the people understood what they are really doing, their money might be cut off.”

It really is all about “follow the money.”

Standing Against Pseudoscience

At Creation Worldview Ministries, we have always attempted to reintroduce fact and perspective into debates which have been dominated by pseudoscience. Those who are genuinely involved in using science to find truth have invited others to attempt to refute their findings. This is not what the anti-science evolutionists are attempting to achieve. On the contrary, as Karl Popper wrote their goal is “to silence dissent.”

Evolutionists promote their religious beliefs and claims without evidence, but insist upon calling it “science”. They believe what they believe in spite of the evidence to the contrary [Laws of Thermodynamics, chiral nature of amino acids in living organisms, polystrate fossils, irreducible complexity of natural processes, et al]

What do evolutionists do? How do they manipulate people into believing that evolution is true? Why can we legitimately call evolutionary philosophy pseudoscience?

There are certain “signs” that allow us to determine who is practicing pseudoscience.

First, evolutionists withhold any evidence that demonstrates that they are wrong. They only allow people to see what they believe supports their position, but will fight to the death to censure any evidence or interpretations that are contrary to evolutionary thought processes.

Second, they scream at the top of their lungs that people must trust them, because “they know what they are talking about.” See Romans 1:18

Third, evolutionists attempt to silence any and all dissenters. They resort to using the utterly false argument of “Consensus Science”, also known as “Groupthink”. Truth is never determined by voting, and “Consensus Science” is the worse practice possible within the scientific endeavor. Consensus not only stifles debate, it also dramatically slows down the advancement of science. It slows down the advancement of beneficial technology.

Fourth, evolutionists claim that when other, non-evolutionary believing, scientists point out the flaws in their evolutionary thinking and their false interpretations of evidence, the non-evolutionary believing scientists are “not real” scientists.

Fifth, evolutionists resort to ad hominem attacks against the character and credentials of any non-conforming scientists. In essence, as a last resort they go to name calling.

Perhaps the easiest and definitely one of the most current examples of this is the reaction of evolutionary believing Environmental Terrorists to those scientists who deny the supposed “truth” of Global Warming and Climate Change being the results of human activity.

It has been proven that Environmental Terrorists suppressed/manipulated the evidence. For example, the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK, not only withheld facts that refuted their position but even “made up stuff”. They discussed in emails that “deniers” should be killed. This goes a bit beyond an ad hominem attack on “non-believers.”

As has been chronicled in this newsletter before, there is absolutely no evidence to support, nor is there any consensus among scientists, that humans have generated any global warming or global cooling. This is why I am a proud Global Warming/Climate Change “Denier.”

Believing in Evolution and Understanding Science are not the Same Thing

Evolutionists want people to believe that a personal belief in the various theories of evolution is equivalent to measuring a person’s science literacy. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Dr. Dan Kahan, the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School, wrote an article published in the Cultural Cognition Project May 24, 2014. The article was entitled You’d have to be science illiterate to think “belief in evolution” measures science literacy. In that article Dr. Kahan strongly criticized those who think that people who do not accept evolution are ignorant of science and do not know what the various theories of evolution propose.

He made three specific assertions:

“First, there is zero correlation between saying one ‘believes’ in evolution and understanding the rudiments of modern evolutionary science.”                                     [Emphasis in the original]

“Second, ‘disbelief’ in evolution poses absolutely no barrier to comprehension of basic evolutionary science.”

“Third - and here we are getting to the point where the new data come in! - profession of ‘belief’ in evolution is simply not a valid measure of science comprehension.” [Emphasis in the original]

While Dr. Kahan gave references to back up all his statements, his evidence for the third point is worth sharing. He compared two surveys of science literacy that included questions about the origin of human beings. One survey presented the participant with the statement: “Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.” The other survey gave the participant the same statement but with an introductory clause in front of it: “According to the theory of evolution, ...”.

For the first survey 55% of the participants answered that the statement was true. In the second survey, 81% of the participants said that the statement was true. Dr. Kahan commented, “Wow! Who would have thought it would be so easy to improve the ‘science literacy’ of benighted Americans.”

After analyzing the data, one of Dr. Kahan’s conclusions was “that ‘belief’ in evolution is a measure of who people are and not what they know.” [Emphasis in the original]

We may conclude from this lawyer’s study that he understands what many scientists and teachers do not - a belief in evolution does not measure a person’s science literacy, it tells us what their worldview is.

The acceptance of evolution or creation is a faith position. Both are equally religious in nature. The real question in the origins debate is not religion versus science, but which is true and which is false. Our worldview should be based upon the truth, not of whim or fancy.

Creationists are not ignorant and stupid as many evolutionists claim. It is possible to know a great deal about a subject, idea, or philosophy without believing that it is true. Our belief in creation does not prevent us from intelligently evaluating evidence.

The creationist approach to studying the various mechanisms of the physical sciences and the complexities of the biological sciences is based in the Bible’s Book of Genesis. The Creation Mandate of Genesis One compels us to study the Who, what, where, when and how the Creator brought the creation into existence. The purpose of our studies is to discover things that are beneficial to all people, Christian or not.

In order to do this research we assume that the universe is orderly, stable, and rational because we believe that the Creator God Who created it all is an orderly, stable and rational Being. If these things are not true then the evolutionist has no basis for his study and findings. If, as many evolutionists propose, the universe came into being from chaos, it is by definition not orderly, stable nor rational. If that is the case, they cannot study it and get coherent results. The vary premise from which they work invalidates their work.

Christians should be consistent and clear in our work and conclusions. (2 Corinthians 1:18)

Evolutionary Scientists Just Make It Up

There is a lot of pressure in the academic world to “publish or perish.” This often pushes evolutionary researchers into just making it up in order to get funding and to get something written that will get them their next grant.

In 2013, two articles demonstrated this truth. The papers were entitled:

Looks good on paper - a flawed system for judging research is leading to academic fraud,, 28 September 2013.

Problems with scientific research - How science goes wrong,, 19 October 2013.

Looks good on paper, reported the arrest on September 1, 2014 of two men who were producing fake scholarly articles which they sold to academics, and counterfeit versions of medical journals in which they sold publication opportunities.

The criminals had seized on a flaw in China’s research system: in China, research grants and academic promotions are awarded on the basis of the number of articles published, not on the quality of the original research. This fact has led to an industry in which there is plagiarism, fictional research and faked journals. Wuhan University estimated that in 2009 this fraudulent industry was worth $150 million.

In 2010, Nature magazine (the single highest scientific journal in the world for evolutionists) reported that in China one third “of more than 6,000 scientific researchers at six leading institutions admitted to plagiarism, falsification or fabrication.”

In 2012, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, published a study of the retractions of medical research papers, listed by the nation of origin. The article reported that in medical journal articles published in PubMed, the database maintained by the National Institutes of Health, the most retractions due to plagiarism came from China and India. China also had the most “duplications”, articles written and posted in more than one journal; but, China ranked fourth for fraudulent articles behind the USA, Germany and Japan.

The same article, Looks good on paper, reported that in 2009, Acta Crystallographica Section E, a British journal on crystallography, was forced to retract 70 papers coauthored by two researchers at Jinggangshan University in southern China, because they had fabricated evidence described in the papers.

The article, Problems with scientific research, starts off with a quote by Ronald Reagan applying it to scientific research: “Trust, but verify.” Why? Because, it was found that over half of published research could not be replicated by other researchers - a necessary part of the Scientific Method used in the peer review process to verify a claim as true.

In 2012, researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found that they could only reproduce six out of 53 “landmark” studies in cancer research. Another group at the drug company Bayer, could only replicate 25% of 67 published research papers. A leading computer scientist has expressed his concerns that up to 75% of the papers published in his subfield are junk. From 2000 to 2010, roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later retracted because of mistakes or improprieties.

This really strikes confidence in evolutionary research scientists, doesn’t it?

Giovanni Parmigiani, statistician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston recently quipped: “We’re always in a gray area between perfect truth and complete falsehood.”

In January, 2015, Tina Hesman Saey wrote an article entitled Repeat Performance: Too many studies, when replicated fail to pass muster. She reported on the story of the development of a supposed anti-cancer drug nicknamed Epo (erythropoietin). The reported clinical trials on animals had indicated that the drug was beneficial. Initial trials on humans showed an increase in death rates and trials were stopped. Laboratory researchers could not replicate the original reported findings. Seven years later, they still can’t. While replicability is a cornerstone of the Scientific Method, far too many published studies are failing the verification tests.

One consequence of this problem is that to get around it, journals are simply shortening the sections devoted to describing the step-by-step method by which the supposed results were achieved. That way, no one else can try to replicate the reported finding, and thus no one can blow the whistle on these frauds.

Scientists are becoming less and less certain that what they read in professional scientific journals is reliable and true. While there are those who are calling for more and more independent labs to replicate research for verification (a presumed part of the MSM) others say that this is impractical when dealing with highly variable biological systems: people, animals and cells. Of course, there are the evolutionists that simply say that to repeat experiments for validation is a waste of money and time because it doesn’t add anything to the “knowledge base.” So, apparently, they would rather foster bad information in the medical field than try to wean it out.

In 2013, researchers at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, produced a study that was published in PLOS ONE. The study asked if any researchers had had difficulty in duplicating research from published papers. Of the 434 researchers who participated, 54.6 % said that they were unable to duplicate published research. Of the 54.6 %, only a third were able to determine what the original discrepancy was in the research method nor were they able to explain why they got different answers from the prescribed methodology.

This caused Elizabeth Iorns, University of Miami (Florida) to comment: “Those kinds of studies are sort of shocking and worrying.” Really? Who would have thought it?

Science is supposed to be a self-correcting enterprise. In the long term, these falsified results will eventually be found out and corrected, but what happens to those who are being affected in the short term?

This situation has caused serious reflections to be made about the current state of the art. Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the NIH commented in Nature, January, 2014: “In the shorter term, however, the checks and balances that once ensured scientific fidelity have been hobbled. This has comprised the ability of today’s researchers to reproduce others’ findings.” The failure to duplicate studies is becoming a name calling game rather than the purported beneficial search for truth.

One more recent indiscretion in the biological sciences is noteworthy. Many dollars have been spent on supposedly “easy-to-make” stem cells. The controversy is over what are called STAP [Stimulus-Triggered Acquisition of Pluripotency] cells. The researchers who claimed to have discovered them have pulled their two papers and apologized in the July 3, 2014 issue of Nature. They realized that their mistakes have cast doubt on whether such cells even exist. They wrote: “We apologize for the mistakes … These multiple errors impair the credibility of the study as a whole and we are unable to say without doubt whether the [STAP cell] phenomenon is real.”

Why was their research thrown out? Jeanne Loring at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, CA, observed: “Hundreds of postdocs and graduate students have tried to do this [replicate their findings] in their labs because it was supposed to be so easy. They have had zero successes.”

So, along with the wasted dollars in publication and the initial enthusiasm the publication gave others, we also have the added huge waste of money and time in attempting to duplicate the research in many universities by postdoc and graduate students.

The biological sciences are not the only place this situation is occurring. In chemistry, a study done at the University of Texas, Austin that reported a way to reverse a powerful reaction was retracted, and the investigation about it caused another paper to be withdrawn. What happened to the professor that made the claim? He left and got a job at the Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology in South Korea.

A South Pole experiment called BICEP2 supposedly found gravitational wave imprints in radiation from the “Big Bang.” The research was thrown out when it was discovered that dust had caused the misreading.

The original headlines had been: “Theory No More? Scientists Make ‘Big Bang’ Breakthrough Find”; “Space Ripples Reveal Big Bang’s Smoking Gun”; “Big Bang’s ’Smoking Gun’ Confirms Early Universe’s Exponential Growth”; and, “Scientists Find Cosmic Ripples from Birth of Universe”.

The Big Bang concept has been disproven once and for all. You may review the research on the CWM website. Even honest evolutionists have written that it is “as dead as a doornail.”

Indeed, even in the articles that were written in the first flurry of articles in the enthusiastic endorsements of the announcement you will find statements like: “if confirmed”; “The new results, assuming they’re verified...The new results do have to be verified”; “Some sort of confirmation is definitely needed.”; “Assuming this is confirmed”; “Such a potential breakthrough is in urgent need of corroboration, not least because as things stand not everything adds up.”; and, “[A]s a scientist, I have to be skeptical.” Nothing was proven!

Dr. Stuart Clark wrote an article in 2014 entitled “The End of the Beginning”. In that article he said: “we can’t even be sure there was a big bang, ... inflation effectively erases the details of what went before.” Even Albert Einstein commented that the concept of a big bang was “abominable.” After all, when was the last time you saw an explosion construct a building?

While the BICEP2 announcement of supposedly finding the “smoking gun” proving the “Big Bang” was met with great fanfare, the scientific community had to almost immediately back off their bold claims.

As the Christian creationist astronomer Dr. John Hartnett noted, the claimed conclusions were based upon unprovable assumptions.

The original BICEP2 paper was published by Princeton University, but when scientists looked at the data they found that the supposed “gravitational waves” were “mostly or entirely of foreground effects”. Writing in Nature (the single highest scientific journal in the world for evolutionists), Dr. Paul Steinhardt commented that the paper’s authors flat out got it wrong. Dr. Steinhardt’s article was entitled “Big bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble”. The sub-title of the article was “Premature hype over gravitational waves highlights gaping holes in models for the origins and evolution of the Universe”.

Dr. Steinhardt made a stinging observation in his article: “The sudden reversal [of the previous announcement] should make the scientific community contemplate the implications for the future of cosmology experimentation and theory.”

Scientists who are willing to compromise with the true spirit of science and the use of the MSM are also willing to commit criminal acts in conjunction with corrupt politicians. The following news item was published in Science in January 2015 [the second most respected scientific journal in the world for evolutionists].

Corruption Case Snares Scientist

A prominent cancer researcher has become entangled in a high-profile corruption case in New York State. [Dr.] Robert Taub, former director of the Columbia University Mesothelioma Center, has been named as the ‘Doctor-1’ described in a criminal complaint that accuses Democratic state Representative Sheldon Silver, the speaker of the New York State Assembly, of arranging bribes and kickbacks that netted Silver millions of dollars. The complaint alleges that Silver steered $500,000 from a state health care research fund to Taub; in exchange, Taub referred patients suffering from asbestos-related disease to Silver’s law firm, investigators allege. ‘Doctor-1’ is cooperating with federal investigators, according to the complaint, and will not be charged with any crime. However, Columbia University noted in a statement on 23 January that ‘Dr. Taub no longer serves as the center’s director.”

In a 2014 article in Nature entitled, “Publishing: The peer-review scam”, Drs. Ferguson, Marcus, and Oransky described the current problem in the scientific community dealing with what they called the peer review approval and disapproval scam. They were analyzing the peer-review rigging events that had happened in recent years. In essence, they were describing what the Apostle Paul wrote about in Romans Chapter One. They were writing about the “unrighteousness of men [and women] who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ...” (NAS95)

Selective Reporting and Bias in Publishing

When evolutionary believing scientist Professor Leigh Simmons of the University of Western Australia attempted to replicate a claimed effect proving evolution in birds, he was unable to duplicate the effect. When he submitted his results negating the claimed effect to respected, supposedly scientific journals, he had problems getting them to publish his article. He commented: “[They] only wanted confirming data ... It was too exciting an idea to disprove.”                                          [Emphasis added]

The following quotes are extracted from an article written by J. Lehrer entitled The truth wears off: is there something wrong with the scientific method? The New Yorker, 13 December 2010.

Concerning this situation, J. Lehrer wrote that it was: “... a clear example of a scientific paradigm, one of those intellectual fads that both guide and constrain research: after a new paradigm is proposed, the peer review process is tilted towards positive results.”            [Emphasis added]

Professor Michael Jennions, Australian National University, noted that in papers dealing with ecology and evolutionary biology many of the theories seemed to fade into irrelevance. He postulated that there were many reasons for this. Two of the reasons were a publication bias against non-significant results and paradigms generating “bandwagon effects.”

Concerning the same claim, Professor Richard Palmer, University of Alberta, wrote that a good deal of the claimed effect could be explained by the selective reporting of results. He wrote:

“We cannot escape the troubling conclusion that some - perhaps many - cherished generalities are at best exaggerated in their biological significance and at worst a collective illusion nurtured by strong a priori beliefs often repeated.” “Even the act of measurement is vulnerable to all sorts of perception biases.” “That’s just the way human beings work.”                                   [Emphasis added]

A classic example of selective reporting and the a priori bias of researchers may be found in the reporting of research concerning the efficacy of medical acupuncture. In China, Taiwan and Japan, 47 studies were conducted and all of the clinical trials concluded that acupuncture was an effective medical treatment. During the same period, in the United States, Sweden and the United Kingdom, 94 trials were conducted. Only 56% of these trials indicated that acupuncture was an effective technique.

Concerning these results, Professor Richard Palmer noted: “... this wide discrepancy suggests that scientists find ways to confirm their preferred hypothesis, disregarding what they don’t want to see. Our beliefs are a form of blindness.”  [Emphasis added]

Professor J. Ioannidis agreed and said that:

“It feels good to validate a hypothesis ... It feels better when you’ve got a financial interest in the idea or your career depends upon it. And that’s why, even after a claim has been systematically disproven, you still see some stubborn researchers citing the first few studies that show a strong effect. They really want to believe that it’s true.”                                                          [Emphasis added]

Finally, one study reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, of 34 tests that had been subjected to replication, the results of 41% of them had either been directly contradicted or had been shown to be significantly exaggerated.

If this is true for controlled experiments - where tests can be carefully replicated by others - how much more will it be true of evolutionary speculation? And if this is true of matters relating to daily work, how much more will it be true of issues that have profound implications for what people believe about themselves and how they may behave?

Many people do not want to believe in a creator as they dislike the idea that they will be held accountable for their actions. Believing in the theories of evolution, rather than in the biblical account of creation, enables them to justify their desire to live as they please.

Evolutionists understand that no scientist has been able to explain how life originated from inanimate rocks, but they choose to believe that further research will explain it. They understand that there are no transitional fossils, but they choose to believe that the transitions simply failed to be fossilized. When they observe obvious design in biological life forms, they choose to believe that it came about by random chance. Its self-deception!

The deist/mystic and theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli (1900 - 1958) was once asked to read a scientific paper and to then determine the validity of its content. He reviewed the paper which turned out to be written so incoherently that he is said to have quipped that not only was it not right, it was “not even wrong.” Today, the same situation is rampant in papers that are being submitted for publication around the world. Unfortunately, the phrase “publish or perish” has driven some researchers to new heights of fabrication.

What are some of the methods that evolutionists/secularists/atheists use to confuse, deceive and bamboozle the unsuspecting non-critical thinking public?

Their main tools are:

1. They use visuals in which there is no consistent scale. In essence, this means that they put the data on a chart anywhere they want it. Then, they use words to convince the reader that what they see is actually real when it is not.

2. They are experts at what is called the word meaning switch. They are equating words with concepts which do not, in fact, equate. As an example, since the initiation of the space program, they have said that where there is water, there is life. No, where there is water, there is water. While water is essential to living organisms, the mere existence of water does not indicate that there is anything alive in it. Yet, this word meaning switch has been used to get funding for evolutionary employment to study and engineer trips to Mars and the moon Ganymede, the largest moon orbiting Jupiter.

3. They use stage magic. They use illusion, sleight of hand, and distraction by doing things like placing the image of a handheld magnifying glass at the nodes of a branching “Family Tree of Life” chart in order to make people think that there is evidence at the nodes to support their evolutionary branching concepts. If the reader actually bothers to look carefully, they will notice that there is nothing to view within the empty lens because they have no proof of the transition that they are claiming is “proven.”

4. They just make it up. I have already given various examples of this truth.

5. They use invalid circular reasoning. The perfect evolutionary example is that they do not attach dates (ages) to fossils or rocks by using valid techniques, as they know that none exist. Instead, they attribute ages to fossils by the age of the rock that they are found in; then they attribute ages to the rocks by using the fossils contained in them. More to the point, they determine the age of the rocks by assuming that evolutionary time and process is how the rocks originated. They will not allow themselves to consider that the rocks may have formed, been created, recently.

6. They use misidentification to cover up physical findings that would otherwise contradict their evolutionary presuppositions. For example, in 2010 a perfect fossil human fourth metatarsal bone was found in Africa in a sedimentary layer in which the remains of Australopithecus afarensis, “Lucy”, had been previously found. Evolutionists had previously dated Lucy as living supposedly between 3.7 million and 2.9 million on the evolutionary time scale. Of course, if this find were true, it would prove that humans and Australopiths lived at the same time and did not evolve from one into the other. Evolutionists “know” (by faith) that humans did not live at the same time as Lucy, therefore, what did they do? They published that the bone was from a Lucy-like creature and that the bone was “proof” that Lucy-like creatures were “walking tall” 3.7 to 2.9 million supposed years ago.

7. They use storytelling, or as I often say, they use “fairy tales for adults.” For example:

“In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859), p. 184

The sum of all things previously mentioned has made me a Jeremiah of science. Hopefully you now know why I lament that Science is no longer the search for truth! The “game” is rigged to support a foregone conclusion. However, God demands truth.

Trusted Web Site VeriSign Identity Protection