Articles
I Lament That Science is No Longer the Search for Truth
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. Einsteins 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 doesnt 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 isnt 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 dont know the why behind these answers,
youre 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 dont 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 arent 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 havent 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 persons 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 Youd 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. Kahans 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 lawyers study that he understands what many scientists and
teachers do not - a belief in evolution does not measure a persons 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
Bibles 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, economist.com, 28 September 2013.
Problems
with scientific research - How science goes wrong,
economist.com, 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 Chinas 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, doesnt it?
Giovanni
Parmigiani, statistician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston recently
quipped: Were 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 cant. 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 doesnt 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 todays
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 Bangs Smoking Gun; Big Bangs
Smoking Gun Confirms Early Universes 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 theyre 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 cant 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 papers authors flat out got it wrong. Dr.
Steinhardts 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 Silvers 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
centers 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. Thats 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 dont 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 youve got a financial
interest in the idea or your career depends upon it. And thats 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 its 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.
|