Ultimate Fraud: How evolution got accepted, why it matters to your health today
4th in the creation series exposing the greatest fraud, foundational to more recent frauds like the Covid Vaccine.
A tragically perfect example of the destruction and human misery caused by fraud in science is found in my prior post:
Please allow a moment for some important background:
My thesis? Why are these posts about evolution so crucially important?
Who cares whether we evolved or were created?
Why do I say evolution is foundational to the covid vaccine fraud, considered by Best Selling feminist author Naomi Wolf to be “the worst tragedy to ever befall civilization”. (compliance)
Because the government in the USA recognized that most of the evangelical church was resisting the vaccines, it asked the “popes” of evangelicalism who in turn were “flattered” to argue with their flock on behalf of the government. So they presented getting vaccinated as-
“Follow the Science. Love your neighbor. Get vaccinated” It worked.
If instead the church had done its Biblically mandated due diligence it would have recognized the already established medical alternatives to the vaccination like Ivermectin were working well and with inconsequential if any side effects.
The resistance instead of compliance of upwards of 40% of the population would have been sufficient to break the grip of the state induced, not science based, fearful narrative. (see compliance)
But why had Christians initially resisted?
The Bible teaches to be careful to evaluate what is being claimed as truth and to resist going with the crowd. But the world of science had been accepted, without any formal debate within the Christian community, as more trustworthy than the Bible after the Scopes Monkey trial. (see #4 below)
So the same pulpits that preached against body destroying smoking and drinking decades earlier- citing the Bible “Our bodies are the temple of God”, succumbed to “the science” and pushed, extremely hard, something far far worse.
During covid I drove by a church in my denomination which had exchanged their outdoor letterboard welcome sign to read “Vaccinated only”. One cannot overstate the anguish to a family and the internal division it causes when you are denied God mandated weekly connection with your church community.
So in our current day, evolution led to the collapse of ethics that permitted the Covid Vaccine fraud.
(If you are stilling struggling with claims of the covid vaccines being fraudulent Substack is a great place to explore- here is a recent post, covid )
In the past, the acceptance of evolution supported the mass democide of millions of citizens by their own tyrant led governments. Evolution supports Marxism and the fraudulent alternative to Christianity it proposes. “Marxism is best understood as a prime example of the Escalator Myth—of an effort by the modern mind to secularize the kingdom of God, to create a purely human heaven here on earth” (pg. 233, How Now Shall we Live, Charles Colson) In reality history shows repeatedly that attempts at freedom and civilization without God and the 10 commandments, fail.
“Marx’s counterpart to the Bible’s Garden of Eden…” (where creation began with a literal Adam and Eve) “is …communism” (pg. 234 ibid, Colson)
But based on the rallying cry that revolution leads to betterment for humankind, hundreds of millions have been killed. Incalculable suffering has occurred.
Racial Discrimination: Early illustrations of evolution (shown to be fraudulent, see #3 below) of mankind’s progression from apes depicted the black race as not as evolved as the Europeans. How much death, pain and destruction came from the discrimination against Blacks?
There are even more reasons to discuss evolution but this is already too long as a background note. Thanks for indulging me.
Series on creation posted so far:
1/ Something smells! Putrid (not fossilized) dinosaur bones is strong evidence the earth is not so old. The response from “science”? There must be undiscovered ways to preserve bones for millions of years.
2/ Genetics reveals unequivocally that we are DEVOLVING not evolving. Each generation has more mutations than the prior one.
3/ Darwin said to kill his theory If a certain type of complex molecular machine was found in nature . 40 were found by 1996.
Coming up in this post:
1/ Introduction: When you look under the hood for the engine driving the belief in evolution you realize there is nothing there. The engine compartment is empty- devoid of actual science. So what is propelling it forward?
2/ Marketing 101: VHS v. Betamax. What was pushed won the battle, not what was best. With evolution actual science was squashed by philosophy.
3/ The Power of the illustration: Fraudulent illustrations burned the so-called “truth” of evolution into our collective psyche. Acknowledging the illustrations as frauds long after they have crystalized in our minds, leaves the original fraud intact in our mind, carrying on supporting evolution .
4/ The Scopes “Monkey Trial” and its fraudulent “Exhibit A”, the Piltdown Man. The turning point for the Creation v. Evolution discussion in society came in the knock out blow to Creation in the Scopes Monkey Trial. But Exhibit A for evolution was later withdrawn as fraudulent and the trial shut down before Creation was given the opportunity to present its rebuttal.
5/ “Houston We have a Problem” In private conferences, evolution promoters admit the idea is bankrupt. They acknowledge that they don’t know how evolution works but emphasize that what we were all taught as truth is definitely false. But they refuse to allow the Bible’s creation or the secular, intelligent design, as options.
6/ How can we treat evolution promoters with the respect they think they deserve when they have no answer to the most basic, most fundamental question: How did life first start? They have no idea, but worse, they say figuring out how life started is not their problem. Huh?
7/ Conclusion, too many falsehoods in the research community- 62,425 studies retracted…One study found 94 cancer papers ‘likely’ contained manipulated data… arguments within the evolution believing community are “more like a culture war than a scientific disagreement”
1/ Introduction to #4, Evolution: Fraud, Fabrications, Falsehoods
I argue that the Great Fraud underlying all other science fraud is human evolution being taught through every media as a done deal- all figured out. That is simply fraudulent. But in addition, every aspect of evolution seems to be founded on one or another specific frauds.
Scientists are calling for the truth to emerge.
Do we need a new theory of evolution?
A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul. Their opponents have dismissed them as misguided careerists – and the conflict may determine the future of biology
Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved… This is the basic story of evolution, as recounted in countless textbooks and pop-science bestsellers. The problem, according to a growing number of scientists, is that it is absurdly crude and misleading. new-theory-of-evolution
Human evolution is very much like a human skeleton with its clothes on. It presents as having substance but it’s hollow.
We have been taught through every way imaginable that evolution is understood and that there is ample proof of it. In fact what is presented as proof fits historically fits one of two categories. Its fraudulent and has now been withdrawn (you don’t hear about the withdrawal, it’s buried deep somewhere) or it is actually an example of the God created DNA function called “Adaptation”.
Adaptation results in a loss of DNA information. The dreamed of “Evolution” represents a gain of DNA information. selection-versus-evolution dawkins-v-darwin
Understanding adaptation v. evolution is important so let me digress for a moment:
Imagine you and your father often hiked together when you were a child. One day, now grown up, you announce you are going to do a hike alone. You insist on choosing the equipment and all the back up provisions you are confident you need.
But your loving and protective father, overriding your quest for complete independence contends that take one small additional sack of equipment and provisions. Sure enough, once on the trail and caught in an unexpected occurrence, you need what you don’t have. Your open your father’s sack and find the very item necessary.
In the same way, all DNA carries far more “information” than is needed by the organism at any given point in time. For example, someone who is dark skinned has the DNA to become a red head in terms of skin colour but the red head does not have the DNA to become dark skinned. That has been lost. skin-deep
The first-ever study on the skin colour of Africans has now been published, and the results are not what most people expected. It turns out that the genes that control both light and dark skin colours are found across the world. In other words, these variants were in the original human population before we spread across the globe…It means that all people on earth really are descended from a single source population…skin-colour-surprises
I use the example of “adaption” as taking out the rather useless back seat in my muscle car to open the area to the small trunk in preparation for a camping trip. I adapted the car. Nothing evolved. There was no new “information”, there was less information (no back seat) after the car was “adapted” for a camping trip.
(see my foundational post, scroll down to Section 7 if you don’t have the time to read down to it)
Some background to the fraud in science discussion.
As trusting humans we easily succumb to the fraud of “The Science”. How can the man or woman wearing the white lab coat, simply looking at numbers or images under the microscope, lead us astray? How is there room for fraud?
The answer is that numbers/images don’t talk. Humans must interpret and select the numbers to make a case.
But it is all too easy to select the numbers unethically by twisting and skewing them to support a particular point of view that when published will help the researcher get tenured as a full professor. As an assistant he is likely only contractual. Desperate to publish, a researcher will agree in advance that a study would support a particular point of view. Is this unethical? Of course but
…scientists ‘are not different from other people. In donning the white coat at the laboratory door, they do not step aside from the passions, ambitions, and failings that animate those in other walks of life.’ science-fraud-epidemic
This is not isolated to the academic backwaters:
‘… the dozen or so proven cases of falsification that have cropped up in the past five years have occurred in some of the world’s most distinguished research institutions—Cornell, Harvard, Sloan-Kettering, Yale and so on” science-fraud-epidemic
“…science is a ‘complex process in which the observer can see almost anything he wants provided he narrows his vision sufficiently” science-fraud-epidemic
The cigarette industry did this for 50 years. Year after year they hired researchers to create studies to obfuscate what was actually very clear: That smoking causes cancer. (see my foundational post, if you don’t have time to read it all scan down to section 1, 4-ways )
So the matter of fraud in science is not limited to the matter of Creation v. Evolution. You also need to know if you don’t already, that across the spectrum of research there is massive and growing problem with fraud and retracted studies. (More coming in section 7 below.)
2/ Marketing 101
To perhaps most of you the Betamax v. VHS battle of the 1970s is dry history. But to me it was an expensive life lesson: “Promotion, not quality wins”.
Before video streaming VHS tapes, the consumer was locked into the television broadcaster’s schedule. If your favorite show came on at 7 PM Thursday, that is the only time you got to watch it. Sony, already well entrenched in television broadcast recording brought out the consumer level dumbed down version of its broadcast units in 1975. (Betamax) In 1976 JVC introduced a cheaper alternative with inferior visual quality.
Being a photographer and “wanna-be” film maker I paid about 30 percent more for the superior image of the Sony Betamax recorder buying the top line consumer level for video editing purposes. Electronics were incredibly expensive in those days. So my investment needed to last at least a decade.
But in a few years the Betamax format was in the junk heap of the marketing world. My expensive video recorder was gathering dust.
In my mind the superior visual quality (call it the “truth” for this analogy) had lost to the aggressive promotion of VHS even though it was an inferior product. (I have simplified the battle to make a point, more depth is here: format-war )
Like VHS, the inferior product called Evolution won the day.
But in this case it wasn’t the consumer who drove the acceptance of Evolution. It was a handful of those in power who were committed to creating an explanation for all that was within the universe, without the need for God.
And so regardless of what the actual measurable observable (empirical) science said,
these people forced, squeezed, and twisted, the measurable until it “fit”--until it supported the idea of evolution, even if fraud was required.
The leader of that pack? Charles Lyell. (You expected me to say Charles Darwin- give me a moment)
Charles Lyell used his lawyer trained arguing skills to move the study of geology off its foundations based on the Biblical account of creation. Remember, the Bible continues to astound researchers in archelogy for it’s accuracy. So accepting the Biblical account of creation, its approximate time line, and historical events was and continues to be a scientifically defensible position.
But Lyell publicly stated that his goal was to “to free the science from Moses”. (Moses being a prominent Bible character)
And to accomplish that he “circumvent(ed) this literal appearance, (what was actually visible) (and)
imposed his imagination upon the evidence.” charles-lyell
but he set geology on a wrong path for over a century, as geologists now recognize:
“Lyell also sold geology some snake oil. He convinced geologists that … all past processes acted at essentially their current rates (that is, those observed in historical time). This extreme gradualism has led to numerous unfortunate consequences, including the rejection of sudden or catastrophic events in the face of positive evidence for them, for no reason other than that they were not gradual.” free-science
So the modern day study of what we see and observe came out of, not an open mind to explain, but a closed mind
forcing the evidence into its mold.
Charles Lyell gave Darwin the millions of years he needed to develop the idea of a slow and gradual evolution. charles-lyell
3/ Power of the illustration:
Recognizing the power of the illustration because it circumvents the brain’s logic processes, a very early illustration was created:
Ernst Henkel published this in 1868 showing that evolution is a fact because the human embryo among others goes through the “embryonic recapitulation” during its prebirth development. (it has gills)
Within months L. Rutimeyer, professor of biology showed it to be fraudulent, a claim supported by a 2nd professor.
Despite this immediate rejection and exposure as a fraud, the illustration was needed to promote the evolution idea so, the illustration enjoyed an ever broader circulation through textbooks into 1997 when a subsequent investigation revealed the “fraud to be far worse than anyone realized…This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud” (pg. 209, Refuting Evolution 2, J. Sarfati)
My point isn’t simply the fraud, its that it endured mainstream for,
1997 subtract 1868= 129 years.
Why? Because the pre-commitment to prove evolution requires fabricated “evidence”. The stages of embryonic development is not like the dark side of the moon which we never see or the deepest inaccessible troughs in the ocean. So why did scientists who want us to “trust the science” allow the fraud for 129 years? The Narrative of evolution reigns supreme.
Another example of pictorial fraud?
“Ascent of Man” by Time-Life, 1965. “…has been one of the most successful tools ever used to promote human evolution…powerful visual “proof”…that a child could grasp…a masterpiece of Madison Avenue promotion (author’s note- “Madison Avenue” refers to the head office area of America’s most prestigious PR and advertising firms)
And what were the actual elements in the hand of the artist as he created the chart? “… a jaw, some teeth”. And to fill in the massive amount of the unknown, “educated guessing”.
It also was known to be fake when first published. (Howell, F.C. Early Man, Time Life Books, New York, p.41, 1970) But again. That doesn’t appear to matter. It suits the narrative and so has spread around the world being made into a documentary series, a book, then an updated book. It has impacted billions of people who accepted it all as truth even though it is only based on a few fragments. (Lubenow, M., Bones of Contention, (Revised and updated): A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 39, 2004) jacob-bronowski-review /wiki/The_Ascent_of_Man
Another prominent fraud was the so-called missing link between dinosaurs and birds. phony-feathered-fossil National Geographics. After the high profile multi-page full colour introduction of it, a subsequent quiet retraction was buried in the small print as per typical propaganda techniques. national-geographic-recants
Am I saying everything evolution is based on is fraudulent? No. No scientist can make an absolute statement like that. I am just asking to show us the evidence and:
“if evolution is based on truth why do its proponents need and allow so much fraud and tolerate it for so long?
(And more if you wish—- the-greatest-hoax-on-earth and Haeckel: haeckel-evangelist-for-evolution-deceit )
4/ The “Scopes Monkey Trial” and its fraudulent “Exhibit A”, the Piltdown Man
The 1925 “Monkey trial” was about the State of Tennessee’s decision to forbid the teaching of human evolution as 19 other states had done. It did not restrict the teaching of an old earth or universe. John Scopes was simply a teacher who answered the call issued by the ACLU asking for a teacher who had broken this law. scopes-at-100
But once the court case was underway and before the presentation of evidence countering evolution, John Scopes was told by his lawyer to suddenly plead guilty— before the cross examination—thereby ending the trial. Consequently only the pro-evolution exhibits were presented (which later turned out to be frauds) with no courtroom time given to counter the claims. Those who believed in creation were “made to look like ignorant rubes”.
The key exhibit was the fraudulent “Piltdown man”, the “missing link” connecting man as we know him to prior apes.
Piltdown man was used as one of the key evidences against creation in the Scopes trial. It altered the education in the United States for a whole generation and found its way into major science textbooks and encyclopedias—and it was a hoax. There were over 250 publications on Piltdown man alone! The implications for evolutionary theory were tremendous. Entire evolutionary-developmental theories about hominid evolution were based on Piltdown and many of those were demolished when the fraud was exposed. 250 publications! It would be nothing short of historical revisionism to downplay its significance. evolution-fraud
5/ “Houston We have a Problem” Evolutionists themselves acknowledge their idea is bankrupt.
At a by-invitation-only conference in 2008 they (The Altenberg 16-Darwin supporters) agreed that a new book celebrating Darwin’s idea was “Perhaps the most egregious display of commercial dishonesty is this year’s celebration of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species—the so-called theory of evolution by natural selection…
“…In other words, the NAS book omitted the crescendo of controversy and painted a false picture of unity about evolutionary theory and origins.”
“The Altenberg 16 … recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today,
is inadequate in explaining our existence” (p. 19).
Other comments from the conference:
“There are people spouting off as if we know the answer. We don’t know the answer” (Stuart Kauffman, p. 54). “At that meeting [Francisco] Ayala agreed with me when I stated that this doctrinaire neo-Darwinism is dead. He was a practitioner of neo-Darwinism but advances in molecular genetics, evolution, ecology, biochemistry, and other news had led him to agree that neo-Darwinism’s now dead” (Lynn Margulis, p. 278).
“Look, when Sherman stresses that the sea urchin [which has no eyes] … how can we not agree with him that canonical neo-Darwinism cannot begin to explain such facts?” (Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, p. 321).
“Unless the discourse around evolution is opened up to scientific perspectives beyond Darwinism, the education of generations to come is at risk of being sacrificed for the benefit
of a dying theory” (Stuart Newman, p. 104).
“[P]eople are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of “truth”— scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders” (Lynn Margulis, p. 275).
… [P]eople are concerned that if they open up the door to non-Darwinian mechanisms, then they’re going to allow creationists to slip through the door as well” (Stuart Newman, pp. 131–132). altenberg-16 (and also see the already referenced, new-theory )
6/ How can we treat evolution promoters with the respect they think they deserve when they have no answer to the most basic, most fundamental question: How did life first start?
That’s right. They have no answer. Their response is “that’s not part of evolution”. Huh??? evolution-not-just-biology
Not part of evolution? Would a sales rep in an auto showroom take someone seriously if he said “I want to buy a car but I can’t begin to make the payments?”
The biological word is “abiogenesis”. Life somehow coming out of non-life.
You and I were taught that a lightning bolt hit the primordial swamp starting life. (Miller–Urey experiment) But in the decades since that was supposedly successfully demonstrated, it actually has never occurred in the lab and there are no known laws or principles of science that permit it to occur.
The Miller–Urey experiment is now an icon of evolution, presented in most all biology, zoology and evolution textbooks as…
clear evidence of abiogenesis, when it actually illustrates the many difficulties of chemical evolution. 22
My review of college textbooks found that most discussed the Miller–Urey experiments, ….Most implied that the research has conclusively shown how the building blocks of life spontaneously generated. In part, due to the common claims in textbooks and museum exhibits, many people assume that a good, if not excellent, case exists for the Miller–Urey thesis. Davies noted that when he set out to write a book on the origin of life, he ‘was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life’s origins’, but after spending ‘a year or two researching the field’, he is
‘… now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding …is not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major conceptual lacuna.’
Some excerpts below from the linked article.
Please follow the link if you have the desire to unpack the chemical/biological details miller-urey-research
Although widely heralded by the press as ‘proving’ that life could have originated on the early earth under natural conditions (i.e. without intelligence), we now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion.
For example, without all 20 amino acids as a set, most known protein types cannot be produced, and this critical step in abiogenesis could never have occurred...
…it became more and more evident that the problem of the origin of life is far from trivial. Various fundamental problems facing workers in this search gradually emerged, and new questions came into focus …Despite intensive research, most of these problems have remained unsolved.
We now also realize, after a century of research, that the eukaryote protozoa, believed in Darwin’s day to be as simple as a bowl of gelatin, are actually enormously complex…
A living eukaryotic cell contains many hundreds of thousands of different complex parts, including various motor proteins. These parts must be assembled correctly to produce a living cell, the most complex ‘machine’ in the universe—far more complex than a Cray supercomputer. (see my earlier post on this .40 )
Furthermore, molecular biology has demonstrated that the basic design of the cell is…essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. … In terms of their basic biochemical design … no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system,
“nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.”
…This finding poses major difficulties for abiogenesis because life at the cellular level generally does not reveal a gradual increase in complexity as it allegedly ascends the evolutionary ladder from protozoa to humans.
…Paul Davies reinforced the point that obtaining the building blocks would not explain their arrangement: ‘… just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function.’ miller-urey-research not-just-biology
This is why the idea of evolution has no justification to gain the status of being called a theory.
But regardless of the facts of science, we are told by the media and textbooks that evolution is all figured out. This lets us escape the age old human search for God because there is no need for God. We think we answered the fundamental question of life- how did it start- without God.
Consequently we can treat each other like slime because we evolved from the swamp.
7/ Conclusion
As introduced at the top of this post, the “everyday person’s” stereotype of a scientist as god-like in his ability to see the invisible, make sense of it and tell us without bias what it “says” is simply incorrect. May I say we have been abused?
We the public have been abused, our mental faculties abducted, because of our child like trust in the person who exhorts us to “follow the science” or claims to possess the “settled science”.
I have been working alongside researchers for 20 years-as a communicator- endeavoring to put their research and esoteric findings into language you and I can grasp. But they would sometimes need to “rein me in”.
Allow me a quick and too short recap of what I learned from them:
“The science” is not an entity that speaks or leads so that we can listen to it or follow it. It is images, numbers etc. that must be interpreted through the human mind of the scientist/researcher.
My honest scientists/researchers never let me say, “The Science Says…” Communicators like myself want to present in clear and crisp digital-- 1 or 0, black or white. It is more memorable and persuasive that way. But even when all the evidence points in the same directions my research friends pull me back and remind me that the science is never settled. The honest researcher remains open to new findings that could move the thinking a different direction. The key point here is remaining open to the evidence regardless of what it does to the theory the researcher is working with. Doing so demands integrity and since the collapse of ethics in the western world, that is increasingly rare, not just among scientists/researchers.
As the researcher interprets the data, his/her human needs, her biases filter the data, either at the conscious or unconscious level, thereby raising the risk of manipulation of the numbers/images. Publish or perish means she/he MUST figure out how to get things published in a world already overcrowded with information. It means the difference between working for virtually minimum wage as a contract based university teaching assistant v. professor with tenure (permanent job) earning 5 times more. (See my recent post about a foundational Alzheimer’s study where images were manipulated falsified, leading to 20 wasted years of research that could have found the cure. But researchers then built on a false premise. alzheimers-20-years-fraudulent
Her/his humanness means the researcher is vulnerable to the biases of foundations with the money to fund studies that support their bias. As noble as the noun “foundation” sounds, they are often funded by one or another of the world’s elites who believe that because they are 1000 times, indeed a million times wealthier than you and I, that they have an obligation to run the world. They believe their superior wealth means they can solve the worlds problems -using their definition of “problem”, better than our elected officials. (Yes I am referring to “Davos Man”, the WEF, the WHO , The UN, etc.)
The research system is supposed to have its own built in “checks and balances” but it has failed. The idea is that before a study is published it is “peer reviewed” to ensure it is accurate and then after it is published, other researchers in a similar field are supposed to review the study and its data verifying that the written information and images etc. justify the conclusions of the study. But in fact what happens is that the “peers” asked to review the article are hidden so such a peer might not be objective. . i.e. a relative of the author. As well, there is no mandate that other researchers engage/review the published study. Indeed, if the study goes against that researchers own bias he/she does not want to engage it so avoids doing so just like you and I avoid having difficult conversations. So tragically incorrect results can linger for decades. Why it took 20 years with the Alzheimer’s study when other researchers were finding problems with it far earlier, is a big question. alzheimers-20-years-fraudulent
The publishing journals/media have their own challenges. How can they run a study that exposes the shoddy product of an advertiser? They rely on advertising to keep the lights on. They are financially compelled to run an article that they know will boost subscriptions or viewers, even when they know the research is suspect. Would you find the courage as a publisher to run an article that disagrees with the investment firm that owns your company? What will happen when a publisher wants to release a study that is critical of a medical product owned by the same corporation that owns his company, like Blackrock. If you were the boss would you have the courage to run research that does not support Blackrock’s initiatives like DEI or carbon zero initiatives, 15 minute cities etc? Its easier and safer to publish something else. Very very few people facing university tuition for their children and mortgage payments have the courage to resist this systemic problem.
So what is the outcome of this broken system:
John Loannidis, professor of disease prevention at Stanford University warned in 2005 that
“most published research findings are false”.
Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings
may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.
PLoS / Medicine false )
Did accuracy improve after his warning? No. In 2010 the Center for Scientific Integrity said that 500 to 600 retractions of published false research per year was occurring. In 2012 the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences stated “67.4%” of the time it was due to “misconduct” and that
“fraud has increased tenfold since 1975. Do you see the trend? In 2016 LiveScience reported more than 650 scientific papers were retracted. fraud
Mass resignations of editors from scholarly journals aren’t new – the Open Access Directory has a list of some such actions going back to 1989. But the frequency appears to have picked up in recent years, as well as the attention some mass resignation events draw. retraction watch
Scientists have recently been forced by several events to recognize this problem and try to deal with it.
Most of the known cases of modern-day fraud are in the life sciences.
In the biomedical field alone, fully 127 new misconduct cases were lodged with the Office of Research Integrity (US Department of Health & Human Services) in the year 2001. This was the third consecutive rise in the number of cases since 1998. This concern is not of mere academic interest, but also profoundly affects human health and life. Much more than money and prestige are at stake—
the fact is, fraud is ‘potentially deadly’, and in the area of medicine, researchers are ‘playing with lives’. The problem is worldwide….
…‘that the dozen or so proven cases of falsification that have cropped up in the past five years have occurred in some of the world’s most
distinguished research institutions—Cornell, Harvard, Sloan-Kettering, Yale and so on
—and have been blamed on people who are acknowledged by their colleagues to have been intellectually outstanding. The pressure to publish may explain much dull literature, but cannot of itself account for fraud.’
Unfortunately, medicine and biology, especially, have been hit hard by fraud. One study found 94 cancer papers ‘likely’ contained manipulated data.
Two years later, many of the papers were still not retracted. This confirms the conclusion that ‘even when scientific misconduct is proven, no reliable mechanism exists to remove bad information from the literature’. fraud
Can human systems fix it? “ferniglabsays” responds to that suggestion at the Retraction Watch comment section:
August 29, 2012 at 6:23 pm
This (The Retraction Watch Transparency Index) doesn’t solve the problem of a journal investigating alleged misconduct and doing little or nothing about it. The issue is who is to judge the evidence? Journals cannot be entrusted with this task, since they have as much at stake in their metrics as authors. The commercial success of a journal depends on it flourishing and this is measured to a large extent by metrics. Regardless of the model (open access, learned society, commercial sector) the drive is identical. Dropping metric means dropping income. Authors are in the same boat, “poor” publication record means no tenure or promotion. Unfortunately it is difficult to see how science can extricate itself from this vicious cycle, since the selection pressure rewards corrupt practice. watch
62,425 retractions as of 2022, see downloaded csv document download list
This is the world we live in now.
½ or so of the general population (“left” leaning) have accepted that the mainstream media filters the news, to support all the laws and regulation around matters like carbon zero initiatives, 15 minute cities, banning natural gas for heat and eliminating gasoline cars etc. The other ½ (“right” leaning) are the ones who have been listening and watching researchers who are not dependent on the “mainstream” media. The tragic division we now have in the western world will only be healed as the full spectrum of truth is grasped by both 1/2s.
Wrapping up? Does this sound like science or philosophy?
(back to those struggling within the idea of evolution battling each other to explain how evolution works since apparently what the public has been told, does not work:
To release biology from the legacy of the modern synthesis, explains Massimo Pigliucci, a former professor of evolution at Stony Brook University in New York, you need a range of tactics to spark a reckoning:
“Persuasion, students taking up these ideas, funding, professorial positions.”
You need hearts as well as minds. During a Q&A with Pigliucci at a conference in 2017, one audience member commented that the disagreement between EES proponents and more conservative biologists sometimes looked
more like a culture war than a scientific disagreement.
According to one attender, “Pigliucci basically said: ‘Sure, it’s a culture war, and we’re going to win it,’ and half the room burst out cheering.” need-new-theory
“The issue at stake,” says Arlin Stoltzfus, an evolutionary theorist at the IBBR research institute in Maryland, “is who is going to write the grand narrative of biology.” And underneath all this lurks another, deeper question:
whether the idea of a grand story of biology is a fairytale we need to finally give up” need-new-theory
Exactly.
So why do we continue to grasp at fairytales when the Biblical timeline for the creation story has measurable observable science to validate it.
Ahh yes, so we can avoid God.
Why do we want to avoid the God of the Bible? He loves us, has a better plan for our life than we do, no matter how much we have messed it up so far, and will forgive our failures to love each other. Plus the Bible gives us the wisdom along with his divine help, to make better decisions. Life decisions. Business. psychology. investments. etc.
Thanks for reading to the end. Feel free to contact me.
END
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution
https://creation.com/en-ca/articles/origin-of-life
https://creation.com/en/articles/review-the-last-pillars-of-darwinian-evolution-falsified-bergman
https://creation.com/science-fraud
https://creation.com/science-biblical-presuppositions
https://creation.com/creationist-scientist-contributions
https://creation.com/fraud-rediscovered
https://creation.com/science-fraud-epidemic