Secular Science Industry Needs Damage Control
The public has an odd mixture of admiration and suspicion for secular science. You can often hear or read the expression, "Scientists say...", and people happily accept the statement as truth. On the other hand, there is more public awareness of bad science, character flaws in scientists (they are human and not monoliths of objectivity, after all), and even outright fraud.
The secular science industry is losing credibility, especially in areas regarding molecules-to-machinist evolution — and they need to do something about it. One major difficulty is that many scientists have a materialistic mindset based on an evolutionary worldview. That means morality is subjective, and if doing dirty deeds helps them prosper and survive, so be it. Meanwhile, biblical creationists are held to a higher standard by our Creator and each other, so these problems are not rampant in the creationary community.
via GIPHY
There are other difficulties in secular science. Many have been in the corral a mighty long time, and folks are getting upset. Paleontologists are naming too many species . Male, female, and juvenile dinosaurs have been unnecessarily classified as separate species). Then there's the problem of hypotheses that post-dating the proposal; they had their information, then wrote the hypotheses. Things don't work that way. Another problem is that scientific racism gets people on the prod nowadays, so National Geographic had some apologizing to do.
Peer review is treated as if it was a guarantee of scientific accuracy and integrity (which is absurd). Anti-creationists go haywire when something is presented that doesn't meet their standards, or was not peer reviewed by scientists that they approve of — especially if it came from a creationary perspective. (I reckon many of those wouldn't understand a hard science peer-reviewed paper even after giving it a week of study, so complaining about peer review is a cop out.) But I digress. Some things are getting peer reviewed after publication. For that matter, fraud and downright bad science is getting a pass in the peer review process on multiple occasions.
You can read about these and more by clicking on "Big Science Trying to Wipe Egg Off Its Face"
 |
| Credit: Freeimages / Dave Dyet |
via GIPHY
There are other difficulties in secular science. Many have been in the corral a mighty long time, and folks are getting upset. Paleontologists are naming too many species . Male, female, and juvenile dinosaurs have been unnecessarily classified as separate species). Then there's the problem of hypotheses that post-dating the proposal; they had their information, then wrote the hypotheses. Things don't work that way. Another problem is that scientific racism gets people on the prod nowadays, so National Geographic had some apologizing to do.
Peer review is treated as if it was a guarantee of scientific accuracy and integrity (which is absurd). Anti-creationists go haywire when something is presented that doesn't meet their standards, or was not peer reviewed by scientists that they approve of — especially if it came from a creationary perspective. (I reckon many of those wouldn't understand a hard science peer-reviewed paper even after giving it a week of study, so complaining about peer review is a cop out.) But I digress. Some things are getting peer reviewed after publication. For that matter, fraud and downright bad science is getting a pass in the peer review process on multiple occasions.
You can read about these and more by clicking on "Big Science Trying to Wipe Egg Off Its Face"