Consensus Hinders Science

We have heard the claim that most scientists agree, take Darwinism as an example, if most scientists agree, that it is a fact.

“the scientific theory of evolution is accepted by mainstream scientists around the world as the cornerstone of biology and the single, unifying explanation for the diversity of life on earth and is, therefore, beyond question.”

When consensus talks, it’s like the Pope talking in regards to Scripture. But there is a major problem with this philosophy. In 1961, the American Heart Association came out with a study that suggested a low-fat diet prevents heart disease while a high-fat diet causes it.  Consensus spoke, it was “beyond question” so for a period of time no clinical trials were conducted to test its conclusion! It basically became the law of the land. 

However, there were attempts for clinical trials, but when the evidence from these trials was contrary to the consensus, researchers decided to put an end to the research! The researchers also made a decision to not publish their findings for 16 years! It would be like a creation scientist researching the Ica Stones and testing them for which have been complicating evolutionists for years because these rocks contain very clear dinosaurian representations. The reason why it complicates evolution is that these drawings from pre-Colombian cultures would falsify the belief that dinosaurs were not around when man roamed the earth. There is controversy because the stones were not discovered by the experts. However, one can test to know where or not the stones are what they are from the past or if they are some modern drawings.  So far no such test has been done on the stones, evolutionists would be hard press to conduct one, instead, some sit back and claim consensus. 

It was the same with soft tissue from ancient animals which evolutionist claim was impossible before 2007. While they are right about the preservation part of the organic material, they are anti-science when soft tissue from a dinosaur was discovered by accident by one of their experts so they eventually had to accept its existence but when it came to the reality that soft tissue is not millions of years old, like how they treated the human diet, and the drawings from the pre-Colombian cultures, they bury the evidence in order to keep their narrative. Because organic material degrades very quickly. This a fact. And if evolution couldn’t have happened slowly, there is no evolution. Therefore, the denial.

Consensus has done a better job of keeping most of the research in a box concerning evolution, but it hasn’t been as successful with the human diet. Last year in 2017 a study which has caught the attention of some people in the United States was published in an “open access” medical journal called, “The Lancet report” on the initial findings of the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology.” The largest of its kind across 18 countries which included 135,000 people total.  

Most mainstream nutritionists including one that I had a conversation with about my health a couple of years ago, suggested intake of more carbs while reducing meat, and dairy intake and so on. In other words a low-fat diet. However, this new study discovered that people with low-fat diets had a higher risk of heart disease than those with a lower carb diet confirming other studies that were buried during the late 60’s and early 70’s. 


“Benefits of fruit, vegetable and legume consumption appear to be at a maximum for both non-cardiovascular mortality and total mortality at three to four servings per day (equivalent to 375–500 g/day).”

Getting the human diet right is very critical because every 40 seconds someone in the United States has a heart attack! Of course, it is not the only component because heredity also plays a key role in heart disease along with lifestyles like smoking or not non-smoking.

Consensus has failed to follow standard science research protocol, strictly going by proper research procedures, and lack of replication. This mess is compounded by the fact that once an idea becomes popular within the mainstream, it becomes near impossible to overturn along with countless millions of dollars to preserve its narrative. There is a reason why consensus has failed science. Consensus protects certain beliefs in science by not allowing anyone to think outside the box.

It’s beyond question that consensus has hindered scientific research along with a need for change!  This will help improve science for the better!


Is Evolution Relevant For Medical Research?

It’s a question about naturalism impact on the medical field that I asked in yahoo once. It was part of the research I was doing for this post. I framed the question around the topic of human viruses and vaccines. And I got some interesting responses one of which was very hostile towards me claimed…

“If you think that microbes evolve unpredictably, then you’ve never taken a single decent course in evolution. Every year flu viruses are tracked, predictions are made based on their evolution, and vaccines are produced based on those predictions.

“Last I checked, they haven’t been wrong in a while…Genetic engineers use evolutionary principles to make new antibiotics, to design new drugs, and much more. Diagnostics uses evolution in identifying new pathogens and characterizing them quickly based on phylogeny. Evolution permeates through every discipline of biology, and is even used in physical sciences.”

This is a typical of example of someone at war with an issue and the person presenting the issue. As a result, he was trying to “smote” me with his explanation which is full of many holes. Does any really believe the predictions of a flu virus strains are perfect and it’s been awhile since they been wrong? Does anyone believe if you get a flu shot, that means you are protected from all strains or variants of the flu?

The answer is without question, no in fact if this person was a doctor he would be eventually sued for malpractice making such a claim as a result of some people still getting the flu even when they had the shot.

I do believe microbes can and do evolve unpredictably. While it’s true some strains can be predicted others are not. Mutations can change using less information, or pre-existing information from other sources. There is no way, scientist could predict all these patterns perfectly!

Not only that, what does evolutionary biology really have to do with the predictions of the viruses? Even this computer game of folding proteins is having more of an impact to help understand biochemistry, and I must point out, nothing of this game deals with evolution…

Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor also makes an outstanding point on this issue, he states…

“Evolutionary explanations are merely stories appended to the proximate (scientific) explanations. They contribute nothing to the scientific understanding of the disease beyond the contribution of the proximate explanations.”

“Evolutionary stories are ad-hoc and generally untestable guesses, and offer no meaningful framework for science. The proximate explanations (anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, microbiology, etc.) are the framework for science.

“Strategies for disease treatment and prevention depend on data from the relevant medical sciences, not on speculative stories about origins.”

Many Medical schools do not even teach evolution for medical practice. Some may say evolution is more like a history lesson than advancing science in medicine. So is evolution relevant for medical research? The answer is obviously, no!