Introduction to Assumptions and Likely Bias
Some terms will be defined to clarify what follows. Naturalism is a belief denying that an event or object has a supernatural cause, and affirming the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena. Materialism is a belief claiming that physical matter and its interactions are the only or fundamental reality. Current science generally rules out God and the possibility he created the universe and life because supernatural claims cannot be easily measured, tested and repeated (p.22). To quote Dr. Scott Todd “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” (p. 22 and Nature 401(6752):423, 1999). The problem with this view which claims science to be neutral and unbiased is that, it starts with a bias of ruling out one plausible hypothesis, that of creation by God or an intelligent designer.( p 22) Operational (observational) Science uses a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, and repeatable experimentation to find out how nature commonly behaves. Some hypothesis’s can be readily tested and scientific laws verified. However many well documented events defy natural laws. Christians call some of these miracles, while naturalists would call them unexplained events or deny them. Historical (origins) Science involves interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view. The history of the distant past is much more difficult to verify. There are no living observers, with the exception of God, and big bang event would be difficult to repeat. However there are valid scientific methods and historical review methods that can be used in historical reviews. Naturalistic origins theory assumes there was no God and uses evolution and many assumptions to try to explain things, while biblical creation theory assumes there was a God and the bible documents what happened. Biblical creation and the history in the bible is one hypothesis that can be that can be studied (p 24-5). It would be logical that if most of the history in the bible could be verified as true that that creation and flood description may also be true. See Ref. 27,28 for more on the truth of the bible history.
Evolutionists portray the debate as scientific truth seekers versus biased religion. Another way of portraying this is a debate is of biased atheists versus truth seekers who believe it is a sin to lie. Sarfati (2003 pp.20-28 ) points out there have been many very misleading presentations by evolutionists that present distorted views, leaving out facts and sometimes even presenting falsified accounts(2003 p.28) to bolster their arguments. A prime example of this is the Haeckel falsification (2003 p. 200)(2007 p. 96). Here, a known falsified diagram was published for about 50 years in school biology textbooks as an argument for evolution (16). Also in an effort to show land animals evolved into whales evolutionists have published fish like transitional diagrams of the Pakicetus. However, this is now known to be a land animal that had four legs and walked. This misleading technique has often been used by evolutionists to fill missing links that are not proven and are often falsifications in details (2003 pp.136-146). The evidence for strong bias in a scientific journal is found in the following information and quote from Scientific American(SA): “Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural: they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms is unproved.”(2003 p.83) If one automatically rules out any intelligent design argument, even if very compelling and logical, one has an atheistic-naturalistic bias and may not be open minded to all facts and arguments. However, they appear to accept all naturalistic assumptions, even if even far fetched and improbable. Sarfati (2003 p. 10) pointed out that SA also has an agenda of pushing abortion, human cloning and population control and was biased in staff hiring. They ruled out hiring a highly qualified staff writer after finding out he believed in God and was against abortion. The editor of SA was quite political on the controversy in Kansas creation education court case, even implying that Kansas schools and colleges should screen out all applicants that believe in creation by God.(2003 pp. 10-11) Thus, SA appears one sided and biased an is open to consider only one set of science views: the atheist-materialistic ones. Another example of bias is an important false fact published an influential book “Principles of Geology” by C. Lyell. To support his assumption of gradualism in geology, he stated the erosion rate of Niagara Falls was 1 ft/yr when the observed rate at the time was 4-5 ft/yr. His estimated 35,000 yrs. of erosion of the falls has been proved wrong by history and recent geological reports. He work is thought to have strongly influenced Darwin and later theories of geology (2003 p. 28), (10). More examples of evolutionary fraud in textbooks are in Appendix 3 and are also noted by searching by the word “fraud” in the AIG site (12). See McGrath’s note of bias in ref. 29.The process of microevolution involves small changes in species that are known to occur and differs from macroevolution which involves the whole tree of life from molecules to man. Creationists agree micro changes are true. Evolutionists commonly use micro changes as proof of macro, and don’t distinguish between the two. By not distinguishing they can dupe the public into thinking these small changes prove the macro changes and the tree of life. A number of biologists do not agree that tree of life and macro changes are credible or factual. Five reasons for this are cited: 1. Genetic limits and probabilities limit macro changes; the dog type always remains dogs. 2. Genetic change is cyclical and not directionally upward as evolutionists assert; most mutations are harmful and not kept. 3. Many structures and creatures are irreducibly complex: DNA, the cell, the eye, and the human brain. 4. There are no viable transitional forms between major groups; the assertion that birds evolved form reptiles and scales turned into feathers is false. 5. Molecular and gene isolation is true; Although about 90% of the DNA is similar between apes and man, this could by divine design. It is also true that mice and men have a 90 % similarity. The DNA that is different is very important. Biologist Michal Denton states there is no evidence at the molecular level of the commonly stated evolutionary transitions from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal.(g p142-151) There are also huge gaps in the fossil record, with missing transitional forms. Darwin thought that fossil finds over time would prove the theory, but they have not. Evolutionary paleontologist S. Gould stated: “The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis- species show no directional change, 2. Sudden appearance- species do not arise gradually– but fully formed” He then rejected gradualism and proposed punctuated equilibria, with fast changes over short periods of time.(p 152) The missing links are still missing. Denton states 99% of the biology of any organism resides in the soft anatomy which is not left in a fossil.(153) With a few bones or even one tooth of a fossil, many assumptions are made often incorrectly. That is why so many missing links have later been exposed as frauds.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/03/14/fishy-gill-slits
Abstract by Jerry Bergman, Northwest State College
December 23, 2009
Answers Research Journal 2 (2009): 201-210. Fraud and Forgery in Paleoanthropology
A review of the history of paleoanthropology leads to the conclusion that the discipline is far less objective than that for physics, chemistry, or even biology. The field is rife with controversy and fraud, including outright faking. Classic examples include Piltdown man and Hesperopithecus, but many other less well-known examples exist that are reviewed in this paper. Several well-documented examples are cited in some detail to illustrate the types of problems encountered, and the results of fraud in paleoanthropology http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/controversy-in-anthropology
Expelled, No intelligence allowed, Ben Stein movie