Piltdown Superman

Somehow, the public has an image of scientists that are clever, dispassionate about facts, realistic about evidence and are above reproach. In last week's articles, we saw that they are indeed human, being prone to having ulterior motives and making mistakes [ 1 ,  2 ]. Here is some more information on scientific misconduct. Several recent articles by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) focused on the problem of unpublished clinical research trial data. University of Oxford's Richard Lehman and journal editor Elizabeth Loder wrote of "a current culture of haphazard publication and incomplete data disclosure [that] make the proper analysis of the harms and benefits of common interventions almost impossible for systematic reviewers."  Here's a sampling of recent issues that illustrate the problem: You can see the sampling and read "Is Scientific Misconduct on the Rise?" in its context, here .

Once again, I feel compelled to say this: If creation science and/or Intelligent Design did not have viable interpretations of the facts, then evolutionary theories would be able to put the competition away forever. But instead, "science" must be protected (such as banning the teaching of creation in British schools ). Perhaps evolutionists know that their system is intellectually and morally bankrupt, and have to keep the competition away? And then Dawkins gloats about educational censorship. Richard Dawkins and the British Humanist Association (BHA) are celebrating this week. Following the launch of their ‘Teach Evolution, not Creationism‘ campaign in September last year, the UK’s Department of Education has revised the regulations relating to teaching about origins in government funded schools. Those ‘free schools’ that teach creation or intelligent design (ID) in science lessons will, from now on, have their financial support withdrawn. Despite the media furore

To continue with our bad science education focus, today's article will discuss how the number of retractions has escalated dramatically. As I said before , people want the grants and prestige with being the one to discover or make up a new theory, so they rush their work to market. This results in some retractions. But even so, bad "science" is still in the textbooks. The number of retracted scientific papers has skyrocketed in the last decade. In 2010, two science editors started Retraction Watch, a blog dedicated to tracking science paper retractions. So far, the site has tracked about 200 papers. Retractions can occur for different reasons. About 73 percent of retracted papers in 2010 had errors, either in the research methods used or in the writing, and about 27 percent contained fraud, according to a recent presentation on the blog. But just because a retraction occurs doesn't mean that the flawed report goes away. Nature reported that 235

It seems that from the beginning of popular evolutionary theory, there has been a great desire to be the "next big thing". Darwin hurried to get his book published after he learned that Alfred Russell Wallace had a very similar idea. "Science" has subjected the public to Nebraska Man (built from the tooth of an extinct pig), Piltdown Man (a fake that fooled the scientific establishment for decades ) and many other spurious, suspicious, fraudulent "finds" in a relentless quest for self-promotion to be the next "discoverer" of nonexistent evolutionary proof. Since evolution is not observational science, but rather, a theory about past events using scientific methods ("historical science"); it is not testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable, verifiable and so on. But evolution is well funded, and people want that government grant money. (What happened to the alleged separation of church and state? Evolution is based on faith more

Any skilled revolutionary knows that one of the best ways to maintain power is to control the propaganda. For long-term power, control the education of children. "Scientific atheism", anti-religious propaganda and so on were standard operating procedure in the Soviet Union . Whether the old USSR or modern scientism, evolutionary propaganda is so blatant, it is downright arrogant. Misinformation, outdated material, bad science, cherry-picked "facts" — and any evidence contrary to evolutionism is strongly resisted. What chance does a student have to be able to think rationally and weigh the evidence if only pro-evolutionary propaganda is presented? A friend recently showed me a copy of his teenage son’s new science text book. He’s studying in a government high school in Queensland, Australia, and there’s a whole unit on evolution .  It made my blood boil. Kids have great text books these days—colourful, attractive, well laid out, and interesting.

When the cause is "right", then it does not matter how one goes about achieving a goal, yes? Misleading people, outright lying, shading the truth — those are acceptable, yes? For the most part, the philosophy of "the end justifies the means" is frowned upon. But apparently, indoctrination in evolutionism is an exception. In that case, go ahead and lie to students; they must be compelled to believe in evolution (and use the equivocation fallacy to refer to this philosophy about the past as "science") at all costs. Don't forget to leave the mistakes, frauds, errors and reclassifications in the textbooks! When these sidewinders lie, they are being consistent with their fundamentally flawed worldview. There have been many examples of evolutionary falsehoods used to indoctrinate students into evolution. The list includes Forged Haeckel embryo pictures, still used in many textbooks Staged photos of peppered moths whic

Despite the efforts of atheist and evolutionists to get religious celebrations in honor of Papa Darwin and to have their philosophies into the churches, "Darwin Day" (February 12), it seemed to go largely unnoticed. There were individuals who used the day as an excuse to assert their opinions as fact and to present bad science as conclusive proof of evolution, and there were those of us who stated that we have the right to disbelieve in the alleged "science" of evolution. People did not really care. Charles Darwin was born February 12, 1809, but not many people celebrated "Darwin Day" on February 12 this year. One Texas columnist lamented this lack of festivity, as well as polls showing that 40 percent of Americans believe in creationism and about a third of Texans believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. In an opinion piece for the San Marcos Mercury, Lamar Hankins wrote:  I look to the consensus among experts to decide what is true…

Another evolutionary myth to devastate is "chemical evolution". People still cling to the infamously bad "Miller-Urey Experiment" (which Chandra Wickramasinghe referred to as " cheating ") as "proof" of abiogenesis, and make other desperate attempts to cling to the fantasy that life originated by time, chance and random processes without a Creator — or a mechanism. The ancient Greeks believed in the spontaneous generation of life. More recently, Louis Pasteur showed that life did not arise from non-living material. Yet those who deny the Creator's existence must believe it happened once upon a time. Evolutionists estimate the earth to be 4.6 billion years old and the earliest fossils about 3.8 billion years old. An initially hot Earth might take, say, 0.3 billion years to become "user friendly," so the first life took only about half a billion years to arrive from abiotic (non-living) starting materials. If it is as ea

In the last post , we examined how evolution is the modern-day mythology of creation. Now, we'll see that the old Dobzhansky saying, " Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" is false. Sure, it's quoted ad nauseum by Darwin's cheerleaders like Nye, Tyson, Dawkins, and others, of course. But their constant assertions do not create reality. The following article effectively destroys that nonsense. Darwinists commonly claim that evolution is the foundation of all of the sciences, especially the life sciences and that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” To evaluate this claim I reviewed both the textbooks used for life science classes at the college where I teach and those that I used in my past university course work. I concluded from my survey that Darwinism was rarely mentioned. I also reviewed my course work and that of another researcher and came to the same conclusions. From this survey I c

What do you call a story that has historical underpinnings, believers, defenders, promoters, fanatical devotion — without any empirical evidence? I would be tempted to say that it sounds like a myth. In 1999 Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial , said on CNN: "I think we should teach a lot about evolution. In fact, I think we should teach more than the evolutionary science teachers want the students to know. The problem is what we're getting is a philosophy that's claimed to be scientific fact, a lot of distortion in the textbooks, and all the difficult problems left out, because they don't want people to ask tough questions." But in the ensuing dozen years, how much has really changed in science classrooms? What follows is a partial list of questions that could be used to critically examine and evaluate evolution. They would make good classroom discussions, initiated by either teacher or student, or research assignments. You can read the rest o