By Bob Thiel
Well if scientific means open to all truth and strives to always teaches the truth, then no, modern science is often not scientific.
Many scientists seem to make their views on evolution as a religious dogma, though they like to call it scientific. And they are becoming fairly ‘activist’ in their stifling of the views of people they do not agree with.
Is There Another Side to Evolution?
A free weekly paper in San Luis Obispo County, called New Times, ran an article in its May 1 – May 7, 2015 edition about a science teacher (Brandon Pettenger) at Arroyo Grande High School who received complaints that he was teaching creationism. The article reported that people who seemingly have studied into evolution less than the science teacher, disciplined him for having the courage to attempt to point out some of the scientific flaws of evolution. Then others who also seem to have studied the subject less scientifically than the science teacher condemned him as well.
The New Times followed up that printed article with the following, which I found online:
There’s no other side to evolution
Atheists United San Luis Obispo applauds the Lucia Mar Unified School District for pledging to ensure that their teachers understand that creationism and intelligent design are not allowed in science classes. We would like to explain why this policy is just as much in the interest of the religious as the non-religious.
After learning that their son was allegedly being taught creationism in science class, the parents of an Arroyo Grande High School student wrote an email to the teacher, asking him to stop. The teacher responded by saying: “I feel it would be a disservice to my students not to present both sides of the argument.” This prompted letters from Atheists United San Luis Obispo and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which got administrators to take notice.
In explaining the teacher’s actions, Assistant Superintendent Tom Fiorentino told the media: “It was the right intent; it was the wrong action,” and, “based on my investigation, it was just a way to motivate those 11th-graders into discussion.” The Tribune also weighed in, stating “Sorry, but there is no dispensation for teachers who feel it’s their duty [to] present both sides of the debate. … Teaching religious dogma in science class is prohibited—period.”
We very much appreciate the support and swift actions of our community to get creationism out of science classes, but we also feel compelled to point out that the justifications for doing so hint of the insidious misconception that there is a scientific controversy about evolution. There is not, and perpetuating this myth only undermines our children’s understanding of the scientific method.
The overwhelming majority of the scientific community endorses evolution and rejects creationism and its dressed-up child, intelligent design (ID). A 2015 Pew Research Center poll puts this number at 98 percent. Our federal courts came to the same conclusion in 2005. In the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover, the Discovery Institute, supporting intelligent design (ID), and the National Center for Science Education, supporting evolution, brought out their best experts for an exhaustive evaluation of the evidence. This is what the judge, John E. Jones III, a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush, concluded:
“Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science,” and, “The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” http://www.newtimesslo.com/commentary/12324/the-debate-evolution-vs-creationism/
So according to the above, science is partially defined as to whether certain groups hold to a view.
But that is not science. The view “There’s no other side to evolution” is not only improper censorship, it is scientifically flawed. The shutting down of legitimate inquiry is not science.
None of the then so-called ‘scientific groups’ of the 15th century thought the world was round. Group-think is not science nor should it be portrayed as such.
Furthermore, the acceptance of ‘evolution’ as the only scientific explanation of how life began is absurd. It is NOT EVEN POSSIBLE.
Science is supposed to be about observation and documentation of facts that are true. There is absolutely no science to demonstrate that life spontaneously began and then quickly evolved.
Getting back to New Times, it did also put a rebuttal article online to the original article in the same issue that had the ‘no other view of evolution’:
I am writing in response to a letter from the Freedom From Religious Foundation (FFRF) and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS). The letter was written at the behest of Atheists United SLO and the family of a student at Arroyo Grande High School (AGHS). It was addressed to Jim Hogeboom, superintendent of the Lucia Mar Unified School District, and urges the investigation of Brandon Pettenger, a science teacher at AGHS who the letter accuses of “inserting his personal religious beliefs into the public school classroom.” The letter has received attention in the local press and was circulated on the Internet. I write as a concerned citizen and as a parent of a Central Coast New Tech High School student as well as two recent graduates of AGHS.
It is indeed ironic that Atheists United SLO, which promotes itself as a “freethought” organization would lead a campaign to stifle classroom debate and limit academic inquiry. Yet in the letter written by RDFRS and FFRF, they say:
“Any attempt to teach that there is a controversy about evolution is similarly fraught with legal peril. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity. There are not two sides of the evolution argument for Penttenger to present. Teaching a controversy about evolution is like teaching about the controversy that exists between chemistry and alchemy, or astronomy and astrology, or voodoo and medicine. There exists only scientific fact and evidence, and a religious belief that rebels against such evidence. On can, indeed must, be taught in public schools. The other cannot.
“We request that you investigate this matter immediately. If these allegations are founded, Pettenger must be directed to refrain from promoting religion or attacking evolution in the public school. Courts have upheld the dismissal of teachers in cases like this. At the very least, appropriate disciplinary action should be taken, and the results of your investigation placed in the teacher’s file. Please promptly inform us in writing of the steps you are taking to protect the rights of your students.”
Threatening schools with legal action and good teachers with dismissal amounts to intimidation and bullying. It’s downright intolerant… They want to silence anyone else who might have the audacity to question their evolutionary dogma as well. Their strategy is censorship by intimidation.
The National Center for Science Education defines dogma as “a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation.” When an organization claims that “evolution is as much a fact as gravity” or that people must “refrain from attacking evolution in public school” they are treating the theory of biological evolution as if it is infallible dogma that is above critique or refutation. It is not, and should not be treated as such. http://www.newtimesslo.com/commentary/12324/the-debate-evolution-vs-creationism/
Schools, in the USA at least, were supposed to teach truth and encourage independent thought. Yet, more and more, the truth is stifled for various false agendas (the homosexual agenda is another that immediately comes to mind). Forcing the teaching of evolution, while stopping scientific explanations in conflict with it is a prelude to a type of the ‘famine of the word’ which is prophesied to come (Amos 8:11-12).
Do Any Scientists See Flaws of Science?
People who have seen the Ben Stein movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, realize that the academic community frequently hurts the careers of those who actually have scientific evidence against evolution. Most academics teach that, in violation of the law of biogenesis, primitive life somehow sprung up–it is a false teaching that facts disprove.
Even back in New Testament times, there were those who called error ‘science,’ which is what evolution as an explanation of the origin of life and the origin of the universe is. Notice:
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. (1 Timothy 6:20-21, KJV)
Various scientists know that the facts do not support that life could have spontaneously began on planet Earth, so they keep looking for other explanations that they hope are more plausible.
They like to point to random changes in DNA coding as explaining changes to all life and randomness getting like to start.
The Gravity of the Situation
A 2014 television series titled Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey claimed to be a scientific documentary. Yet its science spokesperson, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson had the audacity to claim that evolution was just as much of a scientific fact as gravity. That is absolute rubbish.
The effects of gravity can be measured, gravitational pull can be calculated, gravity can be directly observed, and gravity is clearly repeatable. Yet, none of that is true of evolution.
While evolution is an opinion of how to view aspects of life and the fossil record, evolution cannot truly be measured, evolution cannot truly be mathematically calculated, evolution cannot be directly observed, and evolution is clearly not repeatable the way modern evolutionist explain it.
Gravity is not random, but some scientists foolishly claim it is equally scientific with evolution that many of them claim IS often the result of randomness.
True science is compatible with the Bible–it is only that which is falsely called science that is not:
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:20-22).
Many calling themselves scientists have intentionally overlooked what should be obvious. The Bible tells of those that are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7).
As far as how trustworthy modern science is, consider the following:
Editors of World’s Most Prestigious Medical Journals: “Much of the Scientific Literature, Perhaps HALF, May Simply Be Untrue”
Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine are the two most prestigious medical journals in the world. It is therefore striking that their chief editors have both publicly written that corruption is undermining science.
The editor in chief of Lancet, Richard Horton, wrote…:
Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity [i.e. pervasiveness within the scientific culture] of bad research behavior is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviors… We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivize bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct…Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivized [to offer incentives] to be right.
Similarly, the editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, wrote in 2009:
It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.
In her must-read essay, Dr. Angell skewers drug companies, university medical departments, and medical groups which set the criteria for diagnosis and treatment as being rotten with corruption and conflicts of interest…
Postscript: Corruption is not limited to the medical or scientific fields. Instead, corruption has become systemic throughout every profession … and is so pervasive that it is destroying the very fabric of America.
Those who think science is the measure of all truth might want to check the data first.
Here’s a quote for you: “A lot of what is published [in scientific journals] is incorrect.” Care to guess where those words appeared? Not on a website that questions the “consensus of experts on climate change.” Nor do they appear in a publication associated with intelligent design or other critiques of Neo-Darwinism.
They appeared in the April 11, 2015, issue of the Lancet, the prestigious British medical journal.
The writer, Richard Horton, was quoting a participant at a recent symposium on the “reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research.”…
He continues, “In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world.”
We recently saw an example of this in a story about a much-publicized study purporting to show that voters were likely to change their minds about same-sex marriage if they were visited by gay pollsters who shared their stories with them.
Researchers seeking to reproduce the findings found discrepancies in the data and asked the original researcher for the original data. The researcher was unable to produce the original data. This led the lead researcher to request that the study be withdrawn. Even supporters of same-sex marriage acknowledged that the study and the conclusions drawn from it were fraudulent.
The actual percentage of errors in published scientific studies is probably more than half. There are many contradictions, and those that contradict the Bible are in error. Here is another translation of something that the Bible warns about:
20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge — 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. (1 Timothy 6:20-21, NKJV)
Problems of contradictions of what is called ‘knowledge/science’ exist to this day. If there ever is an apparent contradiction between the Bible and ‘science’ remember that the Bible teaches:
4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. (Romans 3:4)
The Bible is scientific and reliable. Not all ‘scientists’ are.
As a published scientist, I have seen first-hand how biases, money, ‘political correctness,’ and corruption have affected the scientific community. Researchers who do not promote the product/view that they are funded to research have a tendency to lose future funding.
There are anti-God biases, etc. that affect modern ‘science’ and this leads to false beliefs which are based on falsehoods that many push to the public as facts.
Do not believe any that blatantly contradict the Bible, no matter how many ‘experts’ may agree with the contradiction.