Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution. Evidence refuting evolution is suppressed by the scientific establishment, which is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented so people can obtain evidence that is not materialistic propaganda. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Saturday, April 8, 2017

Making Zombies with Evolutionary Research

The concept of minerals-to-millwright evolution has grown quite a bit. Yes, it certainly gruesome.

"Not funny, Cowboy Bob!"

Well, sorta. Anyway, the situation for science itself, especially historical science like evolution, is quite grave. One way for a researcher to give the impression that research has credibility is to give references to other research. Unfortunately, this give an impression of life for something that should have remained buried.

Evolutionary science research makes its own de facto zombies
Image from Clker clipart
New papers are being presented, reviewed, and passed that perpetuate myths. They reference outdated and even bad research that has gone before, keeping the mythology alive — it makes de facto zombies. Part of the problem is in academic and research environments that require publishing. In addition, there are many papers to be reviewed that include numerous references, and those can go without scrutiny. It also helps the unscrupulous gain personal advantages.These factors can help perpetuate evolutionary mythology and reinforce false naturalistic views that deny the work of the Creator.
Most scientific papers contain numerous references. Rather than enhancing scholarship, careless referencing can sometimes advance zombie science.

Some theories deserve a quiet death. Unfortunately, they are kept on life support by the common practice of referencing in journal papers. Dead ideas re-emerge as zombies, parading around as if they never really died.

A typical paper contains dozens—sometimes hundreds—of references. It’s doubtful any one author or co-author takes the time to read them all. Perhaps that boring task gets delegated to grad students or contributing authors. Is it possible, too, under the pressure of publish-or-perish deadlines, that scientists pad the references to impress editors? It can work like name-dropping, giving the appearance of reputation without the reality.
You can dig the rest of the article by clicking on "Scientific Referencing Perpetuates Myths". Also, check out "Scientists Blind to Their Failings".