Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Are Scientists Objective and Honest?

It has been said here several times that scientists are people. They have biases, errors, carelessness, and are prone to avarice like other people. Perhaps more so, since they wish to promote their perceptions of truth from their worldview. Secular scientists have more pressures, because they are trying to get the "next big thing" to bolster evolutionism and get that funding money.

Pixabay / WikiImages
Many people have idealized and unfair concepts of scientists. They see them as working strictly from the facts and will "follow where the evidence leads. Sure, many try to be objective and seek scientific truth, but secularists start from fundamentally flawed presuppositions.

Not only incapable of logical thinking, but placing scientists on a ridiculous pedestal.
If people did their homework, they would learn that scientists have been reluctant to admit the truth, committed outright fraud, allowed false conclusions to run unchecked (then blame the science press), have falsehoods in textbooks, refuse to adjust their paradigms in the harsh light of reality, and more. This is one of the reasons biblical creationists emphasize that people should learn to think critically instead of taking the proclamations of scientists by faith.

Scientists who are Christians generally want to glorify God, and not just assert (as atheopaths falsely claim) "GodDidIt", they want to know how God did it, and do science stuff like other scientists.
In 2005, Dr Mary Schweitzer published in Science what could be described as the scientific discovery of the century. When interviewed by 60 Minutes she described her internal reaction to her amazing discovery, “I didn’t want to tell anyone.” The interviewer fed her a possible motivation for this unusual reaction, “… you would be ridiculed, right?” She responded, “Yes.”

A scientific breakthrough that one does not want to report … What is that all about?
To finish reading, click on "Science: The unreliable historian".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!