Science Journal Reveals Common Sense and Dishonesty

This may be a bit surprising even shocking to some readers, but Nature attacks the dogmatic practice of consensus within the scientific community. In an article written on October 5, 2011. The catchy headline reads, “The voice of science: let’s agree to disagree.” Have they come to their senses? Because over the years creationists and ID proponents have been critical of the practice of consensus dogma within the scientific community saying that it hurts science.

Author of the article, Daniel Sarewitz writes…

“When scientists wish to speak with one voice, they typically do so in a most unscientific way: the consensus report. The idea is to condense the knowledge of many experts into a single point of view that can settle disputes and aid policy-making. But the process of achieving such a consensus often acts against these goals, and can undermine the very authority it seeks to project.”

“Real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge.”

When scientific theories in Darwinian evolution are considered dogma, often times it is considered creationism to even question it. When it is found to be falsified it is generally up to consensus on whether or not a rescue mechanism should be invented or move on to another theory of it. Sometimes it has to do with the money involved in the research. Even though his science approach on origins is faulty as he believes in Darwinian evolution, but Daniel Sarewitz is right about challenging the progress of science.

But what about the progress of being a reviewer for science journals? It appears that when one is a rookie you get the most honest review on that particular paper. In an article in Nature the editor tells rookies that they are “they are politically naive enough to tell the truth” because they never receive enough training on how to do it within the closed club of seasoned reviewers. The editor also touches upon issues like bias, conflict of interest and politics that distort objectivity when reviewing a paper.

The bottom line, don’t assume consensus nor peer-review papers as the final authority about science. Scientists can be very intelligent on subjects like math, jargon and their specialized fields but when it comes to the conclusion of any paper, it’s up to the citizen to weigh evidence, evaluate reasoning, and consider influences that led to the conclusion!


9 thoughts on “Science Journal Reveals Common Sense and Dishonesty

  1. What a lot of nonsense about science, Michael. There is no ‘final authority’ in science !! Science does not work that way.

    The reason for a consensus report on for example global warming is that decisions need to be made, even though science can never tell you with certainty what the current status is. Nevertheless, the need to make decisions does not go away, so in order to make the best one a consensus report is of immense value, even though it does not, and will never do, give you a ‘final answer’.

    You again demonstrate not to understand how science works.

  2. “The voice of science: let’s agree to disagree.”

    That is the most boring headline ever. Disagreement is the norm in science, and nothing special. In fact, science thrives on disagreement, and is the normal state of play.

    Again, saying that this ‘shocking’ again demonstrates that Michael hasn’t got a clue how science works.

  3. People (scientists included) are often biased to their own views. 99% of scientists may agree in the concept called “gravity,” however there might be a number of different viewpoints on how it works and why it exists. Each person who holds a view will be biased to their position and will advocate it in the science community. If they don’t try to defend it, then why are they holding the view? When the general concept is considered, there are going to be many more voices that are advocates in agreement. So it is with evolution. There might be many differences of opinion within the community about the details (and I think that was the point of the article) but there is consensus in the greater community that evolution is a fact (regardless of whether that is truly the case or not). Thus there is consensus against ID in the greater community. Their greater view is to be defended if they believe it to be representative of or at least approaching the truth. A scientist should be open to their view being wrong, but often there is vested interest as well as reasons for their conviction and the views are hard to give up until the evidence is overwhelming. And that is not all bad since no view should be given up too quickly, especially ones that are more established. I personally might agree that science should be more open minded about seeing ID (which is not creationism in its proper academic position) as a legitimate and seeing that evolution has a number of contradictions that undermine it, but science is done by human beings who have agendas just as much as anybody else that affect their worldview and their thinking. In time, there are scientific revolutions, but it often takes just the right evidence and even the right individuals to make that happen.

  4. . . . . . . . . . . .Science Journal Reveals Common Sense and Dishonesty

    Michael, please tell us what dishonesty was revealed in the Nature article that you cited?

    Answer: None. The title of your post is thus an OUTRIGHT LIE.

    If you think this is charge of lying is mistaken, please cite any instance in the article where any scientist is claimed to have been dishonest in any research.[1]


    This is important because intellectual integrity is central to science. Nobel prizewinner David Baltimore almost lost his career when someone accused one of his lab assistants of suppressing data in a paper that Baltimore co-authored. Hwang Woo-suk was considered a leading expert until it was discovered that he had faked much iof his stem-cell data. Professor Hwang will never again so much as mop the floor of any research lab in the world. Closer to home, Catherine Verfaillie was hailed by adult-stem-cell proponents, until her breakthrough discovery could not be duplicated, and it was suspected—although never proven—that some of the data was “unreliable.” No one will ever trust her again.

    Michael does not realize how serious is a charge of dishonesty, because creationists are expected to distort evidence, to intentionally misinterpret results, and to lie whenever it advances their goals. This is why scientists give no credence to what creationists say. Not because they’re wrong, but because they have no credibility. Even creationists themselves do not build upon the work of other creationists, but start afresh—the work of those other creationists is simply not trustworthy.

    This is only one of the ways in which Michael displays his abysmal ignorance of how science operates and how scientists think. His readers have requested for several years that Michael set forth any background he might have to discuss science in general or any scientific field in particular. To date, all we have been able to learn is that he once looked through a microscope as a child, and watched a cousin do something sciency on TV. Apparently he has no other qualifications.

    Why should anyone trust anything that Michael says about science? He himself is the one who is dishonest.


    [1] Note that the one reference to “truth,” which was bolded in Michael’s quotation, does not concern any sort of honesty or dishonesty in their research. It refers only to whether a reviewer of someone else’s paper might be tempted to shade his opinion of the worth of the paper, based upon non-scientificl considerations. And the context of this statement remarked upon the honesty—not the dishonesty—of reviews, especially by the young post-docs who might be thought to be more easily swayed by these other considerations.

  5. This may be a bit surprising even shocking to some readers, but Nature attacks the dogmatic practice of consensus within the scientific community. In an article written on October 5, 2011. The catchy headline reads, “The voice of science: let’s agree to disagree.” Have they come to their senses? Because over the years creationists and ID proponents have been critical of the practice of consensus dogma within the scientific community saying that it hurts science

    Creationists are critical of consensus in science only because the consensus of astronomy, cosmology, biology, anthropology, paleontology, and geology are so strongly against them. Sort of like the exorcists’ union arguing against the biologists’ consensus in germ theory.

    When dealing with their own theories of special creation, however … well, when was the last time you heard a creationist question any tenet of creationism? Ever? Perhaps Michael can furnish us with an example, any example.

    I thought not.

    No, Creationists do not allow dissension in their own ranks at all. In fact, consensus—following the dogma—is the ideal. It is a requirement in the soi-disant “journals” that they publish. Answers Research Journal, published by Answers in Genesis is typical. Its authors’ instruction manual sets forth the review process for submitted papers in Section VIII. Among the requirements are—

    3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?

    4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very
    constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?

    6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation
    of Scripture? If necessary, refer to: R. E. Walsh, 1986. Biblical hermeneutics and creation. Proceedings
    First International Conference on Creationism, vol. 1, pp. 121–127. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation
    Science Fellowship


    Item #3 says not to bother showing up if your paper does not argue for a YEC viewpoint. Item #4 mandates that the mere mention of a non-YEC theory be immediately countered within the paper. Item #6 pertains to a specific 1986 biblical-literalist formulation that must be followed,

    And Michael accuses science of herd behavior. Can you say “hypocrisy”?

  6. And, speaking of consensus . .. .

    UC Berkekey physicist Richard Muller was the most prominent scientific skeptic of global warming. For the past two years, he conducted his own study of global temperatures. His work was funded by the Charles Koch Foundation, a major funder of climate-denialist groups. The Koch brothers’ privately held oil companies have been in the news recently as major generators of greenhouse gases. .

    Michael applauds. A scientific maverick who challenges the consensus.

    Until the evidence came in. A few days ago, Muller announced that his own independent survey came up with exactly the same conclusions as the mainstream climate scientists had: Global warming is real and significant. In fact, Muller used data from periods earlier than the mainstream report, and found warming throughout the entire interval.

    So Muller did exactly as Michael recommends: He disagreed with the consensus. Michael approves. He mounted his own investigation, with his own evidence. Michael cheers. But then he finds that that the experts had been correct all along. Will this change Michael’s views on global warming? I’m giving 10 to 1 odds it will not. Because Michael is not interested in truth at all. He cares only that his preconceived beliefs be vindicated.

    How about it, Michael? Does Richard Muller’s work alter your view of global warming?

  7. . . . . . . . . . . .Science Journal Reveals Common Sense and Dishonesty

    Michael, just in case you have decided to duck this issue, we’re still waiting for you to substantiate any scientific dishonesty that was set forth in the cited Nature article.

    If you cannot, then we have caught you in yet another OUTRIGHT LIE in promoting creationism. Your personal integrity is on the line here. And it seems to have failed.

    Did you really think this is insignificant? Did you really think we would forget?


    Why should anyone believe anything you say?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s