Piltdown Superman

The public seems to have a cognitive dissonance when it comes to science and the scientists that make science and technology happen. Many will blindly accept what scientists say (or what the science press claims what scientists say). Some go as far as to make man-made science philosophies the ultimate source of truth and knowledge. Then the disconnect. People are skeptical of what scientists say, while being enamored of science. Despite the claims of evolutionists, atheists, agnostics, and those tinhorns who go haywire alternating between atheism and agnosticism, it's not st00pid unedjamakated dumb Xtians who have doubts. Instead, there are people who think and are informed about science matters who have doubts. Can you blame anyone for having doubts? Scientists say things that are not exactly true, and the science press has the grace, dignity, and accuracy of a cattle stampede, making grandiose claims about "discoveries" that the scientists themselves do not reco

The realm of values and ethics is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview. Darwinists believe in survival of the fittest where the unfit are eliminated, so why should they care when a scientist actually displays the natural result of an evolutionary worldview? For that matter, when a disingenuous anti-creationist troll calls a creationist a "liar for Jesus" or an article a "lie fest", he or she is appealing to a non-Darwinian worldview. When atheists and evolutionists complain that something is wrong, and that there is a better way to live and act, they are actually showing that their own worldviews are incoherent, so they rustle the biblical Christian worldview and brand it as if it was their own. In addition, scientific methods are not just the stuff of using sterile, impersonal facts. Don't get me started on peer review fraud ... There are competing philosophies in the scientific community about what defines a law, "tacit knowledge"

Unlike operational science that we use every day, spores-to-special-agents evolution is forensic (historical) science . Crime scene investigation attempts to reconstruct the past by finding evidence, interviewing witnesses, and so on so they can have present it in court. Evolution speculates about the distant past with no witnesses and very little evidence. For that matter, creation science is also forensic in nature, but has the foundation in the Bible, not in naturalism like most evolutionists use. Image Credit: Bureau of Labor Statistics Peer review is a process where papers are submitted and, like the name says, reviewed by peers. Creationists have peer review along with their secular counterparts. However, secular peer review is loaded problems , including recalled papers, bias, bad science, and even fraud . The biggest problem seems to be that secular peer review is driven by agendas. An ostensibly good process can put a burr under everyone's saddle when human avaric

Critics of creationists will often complain that all we do is pick at flaws in evolutionary theories, so why don't creationists round up some research? Well, busting evolutionary broncos is often quite easy because Darwin's Cheerleaders frequently fail at critical thinking, and there are numerous flaws in what is considered evidence for evolution. They get ornery when we point out those things. But more than that, anti-creationists seldom do their homework, preferring prejudicial conjecture instead. If they did scout around the Web, they would learn some starting things that interfere with their biases. Creationary scientists actually do research, write papers, have jobs in scientific fields, publish in peer-reviewed journals and more. Although the Bible is their foundation, they still conduct "real" science, including life sciences . Here is an article by Dr. Jason Lisle from the Institute for Creation Research about activities in biology, DNA, stratigraphic c

This post has two featured articles on a related topic from the same source. Give a listen to the music at the end of this post, too. First, secular "peer review" process has some serious flaws , especially regarding origins science. Creationists often receive glib comments of the woefully uninformed that resemble: "Get your creationist nonsense peer reviewed and then maybe I'll read it". Although creationists do have peer review , people making comments like that are implying that creationists should subject their material refuting evolution to the secular process. Picture furnished by Michelle Studer Peer review is a good idea and many people work hard to keep up the standards, however, it is time-consuming and expensive. But there is also bad science, recalled papers, bias and fraud — especially when trying to prove evolution with the sacred cow of peer review. The first featured article discusses that some are saying that peer review as we know it

"Why don't you write a paper that refutes evolution, get it peer reviewed and get a Nobel Prize?", he smirked. Similarly, "Show me proof of creation, but only from peer reviewed sources", she insisted. Generally, there are some assumptions made with statements and questions like that: Creation science is not "real" science Creationist scientists are not "real" scientists Creationist scientists do not publish in scientific journals, nor have they had their work peer reviewed Peer review guarantees that the material is accurate Peer review us uncluttered with biases and personal views Also, people making such statements are showing ignorance of what really goes on in the peer review process, and that the Nobel Prize has been awarded to people who were rejected by the peer review process. It is a valid process, but peer review does have some serious drawbacks . And yes, creationist scientists do  publish in scientific journals . But

Scientists are not the dispassionate, objective paragons of virtue on pedestals that people imagine. They are human, and subject to the same selfish desires that other people have . (They may even appreciate it if they were not expected to live up to unrealistic ideals. Just a thought.) Some are greedy, some are noble. When it comes to origins science, however, I am convinced that the most important goal for many is to get people to believe in evolutionism. (But avarice is not limited to evolutionists by any means.) There is fraud in scientific papers , peer review is becoming pointless , fraud in evolutionary education , data manipulation , retractions and more. And it is growing. It would be bad enough if the epidemic was confined to evolutionism, but it also affects health care and life sciences. It's not all fraud. There is a generous amount of carelessness and incompetence, but never mind about that now. The Piltdown hoax is one of the most famous cases of fraud in

stock.xchng/ninci  It has been stated here several times before, but must be repeated: Scientists are not the impartial, objective bringers of knowledge that many people think. In reality, they are human.  As such, they are subject to the same ambitions, lusts, greed, dishonesty and other vices that the rest of us face. And the competition to produce something is fierce. "Why are you defaming scientists, Cowboy Bob?" No, dispelling false images is not defamatory. In fact, it's a public service. People do not need to be accepting something as truth just because a scientist  says so. We still have to use our minds. They might appreciate the chance to get off the pedestals, as they are not objects of worship — I doubt that many choose to be, either. The peer review process is biased, discriminatory and unreliable. Papers are being recalled for serious errors, and some are outright plagiarized. Academic fraud does exist, I hate to tell you. Being a scientist is a n

"Prove to me that creationism is scientifically valid with peer-reviewed papers!" First of all, creationists do  have peer-reviewed scientific journals, and are published in other scientific publications . But what of the secular peer-review process? It is seriously flawed and biased . We should not be surprised, really. Evolution is about the survival of the fittest, after all. If submitting a fraudulent paper will improve someone's life, then they are acting like a Darwinist should act; they do not have a consistent moral standard. Creationists, however, do have a consistent moral standard . Unfortunately, the problems are not confined to research on origins or other irrelevant, impractical matters. Rather, they involve real science that impacts people's lives. And the fraud is increasing. Ethicists are becoming alarmed at the explosive increase in scientific fraud cases – and those are just the ones that were caught. Fraud on the Rise It’s a tru

Many anti-creatonists embarrass themselves by making statements that show not only their ignorance, but their extreme biases and lack of honesty . One claim is that "creationists are not scientists", which is easily eliminated [ 1 , 2 ]. Another false claim is that creationists are not "peer reviewed" [3] . It makes absolutely no sense to submit evidence disproving evolution to a group of biased evolutionists! Would an evolutionist submit a paper attempting to disprove creation to creationist scientists? What an amusing concept. The fact is, however, that creationists do  have peer review [ 4 ]. The main item that I wish to present to you today discusses the insulting, libelous  claim of some owlhoots that "creationists do not contribute to science, nor do they publish". Although it is not a recent publication, the following article still manages to put down the lie. In his book The Monkey Business (1982) paleontologist Niles Eldredge wrote that no a

The biggest problem currently faced by evolutionary paleontologists is how to explain the fact that original soft tissue—which should decay in only thousands of years—still persists in fossils that are supposedly millions of years old. A recent scientific paper was titled "Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival," which implies some sort of solution to this colossal conundrum. But not only did the authors fail to address the titled topic, the "peer review" process also failed to detect this critical omission and block the study's publication.  Appearing in the online journal PLoS ONE , the paper was authored by six investigators from various institutions. It did a good job of firmly establishing that the soft tissues the researchers extracted from a T. rex and a hadrosaur were original to the dinosaurs and not contaminants. This part of the study demonstrated good scientific observation and detailed analysis of the partly decayed c

Critics have been quick to call into question either the scientific competence of creationist scientists, or the soundness and quality of their scientific work. The critics do this in order to effectively and pre-emptively dismiss or diminish the arguments creationists put forward in order to support the biblical teaching of a recent creation. Read the rest of the article here . Also, an article on peer review is here . Are Creationists published in the first place? Ummm...yeah! An article on the important practice of "publishing" is here .