Evolution; Science Or Bias?

When people mention the word ‘science’ the thought being conveyed is often one of people in lab coats, steadfastly seeking knowledge and truth at whatever the cost and/or to whatever conclusions that knowledge may lead. Scientists themselves (for the most part) like to think of themselves as above any kind of biased mindset or slant which might influence, or even invalidate, their work. The textbook definition of the scientific method lends one to believe in the application of the impartial collection of data regarding a particular subject, hopefully leading to a solid and reproducible conclusion. That has been the basis for our current educational system, originating several centuries ago and seemingly culminating in the wealth of information we have today. But what if the science that is being presented is biased? What if the information being proclaimed is only part of the evidence, and not the whole of information available? Worse still, what if evidence that is contradictory to the currently accepted norm (evolution) is actively discouraged or even suppressed? Evolution; Science or Bias attempts to present some startling evidence of the current acceptability or rejection of scientific discovery and information.

To start with we need to agree on what the basic terms under discussion actually mean;

Scientist – a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems.

(from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientist)

Scientific method – Scientific inquiry is intended to be as objective as possible in order to minimize bias. Another basic expectation is the documentation, archiving and sharing of all data collected or produced and of the methodologies used so they may be available for careful scrutiny and attempts by other scientists to reproduce and verify them. This practice, known as full disclosure, also means that statistical measures of their reliability may be made.

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

We see from these definitions that a true scientist should be concerned with the uninfluenced gathering of real, concrete data. Extra pains are (or at least ought to be) taken to prevent – or at the least minimize – any untoward sway in findings by personal opinion or outlook. To do otherwise would bring any thoughts or conclusions by the perpetrator of misleading or suppressed information (yes, the correct term in perpetrator) into serious question (at best) or label the perpetrator as a liar or deceiver (at worst?). The fact that most people hold scientists in high regard due to supposed intellectual neutralism only makes a prejudiced scientist that much more of a radical and predisposed purveyor of falsehood. These are strong statements, but they are true nonetheless.

What then happens when a respected member of the scientific community finds some startling evidence that seems to refute the theory of evolution? You would expect heightened emotions to be sure, especially when you consider the radical nature of the discovery and the potential for disrupting the core beliefs of the theory of evolution. Even so, if people of science are supposed to accept (however reluctantly) new evidence as part of the sum of knowledge then the investigator in question should be heralded. That, however, appears to be far from what has happened.

Mark Armitage is a published scientist (formerly) employed at the California State University at Northridge (CSUN). I say formerly because it would seem that other scientists and/or the administrators at the university are only tolerant of those discoveries which corroborate an evolutionary view of life. The problem is that Armitage found INTACT TISSUE retrieved from a horn belonging to a triceratops discovered in a dig in the Hell Creek area of Montana. This is a physical impossibility if you believe in the theory of evolution, as animal proteins cannot last more than thousands, much less millions, of years. After his discovery was published (and who wouldn’t want to publish such a find, regardless of personal beliefs?) he was essentially fired from his post at the university. He has subsequently filed a lawsuit against the university for ‘termination based on religious belief’ (my paraphrase).

This presents a huge issue when you consider the level of academic distortion and deception such a political/religious decision would require, in order to act such a way by university officials. It also goes to point out the inherent bias many supposed ‘scientists’ have toward anyone (or any information) which contradicts their naturalistic/evolutionary world view. It goes against their religion and their religion is, of course, evolution. Evolution is a religion, but we don’t have time or space in this article to delve into that aspect of what is at play here.

This evolutionary bias is rampant throughout the educational system in the western world, as evidenced by the following quote;

“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenon of the world but, on the contrary, that we are FORCED (emphasis added) by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations (emphasis added), no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.”

Richard Lewontin, evolutionary biologist, geneticist and commentator.

The refusal of individuals to accept contrary or conflicting facts should eliminate them from a rational discourse regarding science (in general) and from any positions of scientific influence (in particular). This should especially be the case when those who hold such animus against true science and/or the facts are tenured educators or so-called professionals which represent the scientific community at-large. A charlatan is a charlatan, no matter what their position or standing is or how many letters they have behind their name.

This is yet one more reason why those who take higher education classes have to filter anything learned in a classroom, being aware of the potential for deception and corruption of the truth. If I were in college I would definitely take everything I hear with ‘a grain of salt.’ There are fascinating and awesome things to discover about the universe God has created, but we need to be discerning between what is truth, and what is error;

Prov 4:23-24

Keep your heart with all diligence,

For out of it spring the issues of life.

Put away from you a deceitful mouth,

And put perverse lips far from you.

From the article “Scientist Finds Dino Soft Tissue Then Fired for Religious Views.” Retrieved from http://lastresistance.com/6600/scientist-finds-dino-soft-tissue-fired-religious-views/