Media misrepresenting science?

Updates posted at articles end. Original article posted Wed 20 May 2009.

This new fossil which I blogged about yesterday is being hailed everywhere as the missing link. Even look at Google’s home page today (see the Google doodle here), and what they have done to honor this find! However, World Net Daily has an excellent article up, with an interview with Ken Ham and many others. Some of the scientists are trying to get the media reports to tone down their sensationalism of this find, even saying that it is NOT the missing link, but the problem they are having, is that a headline like MISSING LINK FOUND! sells a lot more newspapers than a headline like LEMUR ANCESTOR FOSSIL FOUND!

::::::
22 May Update: Answers in Genesis has posted an informative article, quoting all the scientists who were unconvinced of the "missing link" claim, and the problems in the science which may have been a result of media pressure brought to bear on the researchers. Once again, it appears the media slants the coverage to present something as fact, which it wishes was fact, however, the actual facts themselves, under scrutiny, hardly bear out their claims.

Advertisements

When all else fails, use censorship

Quite a sensational news article hit the internet this morning: Scientists Unveil Missing Link in Evolution. They mean, the missing link between humans and primates. How did they accomplish this feat, that darwinsists have been dreaming of for over 150 years? They found the fossil of an extinct lemur- like primate, and have decided that since, they believe, it shares a common ancestor with modern primates, that they have found the missing link between primates and humans.

Did you notice the leap of faith too, in which they might have found evidence for a common ancestor between modern lemurs and modern primates, however the explanation of how that proves a common ancestor between primates and humans remains cloudy?

Well, since they ASSUME primates and humans have a common ancestor, finding a common ancestor between lemurs and primates PROVES it! Such is the twisted logic of the modern evolutionist … they want to find what they want to find sooo bad, that any incredibly thin straw will suffice.

So two comments about how this news story is presented to the public. First, it is LONG, like reading a dissertation in itself. And dry, and technical. It almost makes you wonder if the decision was made to put a technical and scientific- sounding article up, with a compelling headline, and then make it so interminable and convoluted, that 98% of Joe Public will give up on actually trying to read or understand the thing after a few paragraphs — thus only retaining the sensational headline, as fact. They draw your conclusion for you by making it incredibly difficult for anyone with average intelligence to draw their own conclusion.

Second, the first commenter on the article was Ken H., and his lucid response pointing out the logical inconsistencies and errors made in coming to the conclusion the article states, took the scientific legs right out from under the erroneous claims. My son sent me the link to the article, directing me to look for Ken H.’s comment. He said, “I wonder if its Ken Ham (of the great ministry, Answers in Genesis). By the time I clicked on the article, the powers that be had deleted Ken H.’s comment, and I could not read it, other than to report on it through my son’s witness, who did read it. But the proof remains that Ken H. left a comment: another poster a little later begins his comment with, “I agree with Ken H. …” I wonder how long it will take them to excise THAT comment too.

So here is the nature of the thought controllers. They are obviously NOT certain at all that their claim that they have found the missing link is true. How can I say that? Truth reveals its nature under examination and criticism. That is why they cross examine witnesses in murder trials. But if someone is trying to put forward a FALSE claim, then every criticism of that claim must be suppressed, deleted, and censored, because criticism reveals the falsity of the false claim, just as it would reveal the truth of the true claim. If the claim were true, they would let the criticism of it stand, because the criticism would only highlight its truth. But since it is false, they must censor all dissenting viewpoints. Thus the deletion of Ken H.’s comment.

Oh … Answers in Genesis had heard about this claim and reported on what they knew of it before it was publicly revealed. I am sure that now that it has been made public, they will soon devote a full article to it — I’ll keep checking and post a link for you as soon as they do.

The high priests of darwinian religion are unhappy

Swiss creationists were successful in having a passage on divine creation included as a possible origin for life alongside darwinism in a science textbook used in schools. But, of course, the evolutionists are screaming bloody murder because of it, and The Big Debate on whether religion should be taught in a science class has ensued. My opinion: No it should not, and the sooner we get the religion of evolution out of science class the better.

Let me just state one more time for the record: telling us how life came to be is a question which is beyond the scope and authority of science, since science can only tell us what is true about what can be tested and repeated Here and Now. Answers which have to assume unprovable axioms (which evolution as an origin of life answer does) ARE NOT scientific answers. Questions involving unprovable axioms belong to the realm of philosophy.

This is basic science 101, I had it drilled into my head as a science major at university (but was very familiar with it having been taught it in junior high and high school EVERY YEAR before that). Now I wonder if they bother to teach it anymore, since no one seems to know that scientific answers must be testable and repeatable. I have never heard a single journalist, government official, school board member, or scientist they get to quote for these articles bring up this point, have you?

Now there are a lot of unbelievable jaw droppers in this article, but the two that really blew me away are:

"But angry scientists and education experts soon forced the revision of the divisive passage, arguing that teaching creationism in science classes implies a controversy when there isn’t since evolution has been “proven beyond all reasonable doubt.”

And if that isn’t bad enough:

"The assembly warned that creationist ideas in the form of science – once almost exclusively restricted to the United States – has spread throughout Europe and could threaten human rights and democracy."

Belief in the Creator is only a threat to fascists, dictators, and power- hungry oppressors everywhere. But let not the suppressors of academic and intellectual freedom cry about human rights and democracy.

Built without debt by the grace of God

The Creation Museum opens this weekend; so if you are anywhere near Cincy, Ohio, plan on attending this summer! The Christian Post has a great interview with Ken Ham about the Museum and its opening. My sweet dh and I are very excited about going to see the Museum — I am not sure how soon we can get there, but as soon as we can, we are going.

Double the magazines, double the fun (and learning)

Remember Creation, the magazine which was available for years from Answers in Genesis? It is a recommended resource for science study at CCH, and we have almost every issue from its beginning. I just discovered a few days ago that the magazine is still available, from Creation Ministries International! Now we have two great magazines – the new Answers, and Creation (as well as the Journal of Creation, formerly the Technical Journal) to keep up with all the news and discoveries in creation science!

Here we go again

There’s an interesting set of articles on World Net Daily today. The first, God did speak world into existence, tells of the theory of university student Samuel Hunt. Hunt has theorized that God’s Spirit, in the form of a magnetic field, covered the earth, which was a watery deep. Then His voice speaking, Let there be light, carried sonic waves into the liquid, producing light photons. Researchers have verified the phenomenon known as sonoluminesence: the production of light from bubbles when sound is passed through a liquid. There is some interesting reading about the reaction of Hunt’s professors to his questions and theories.

The second is a New York Times article concerning Marcus Ross, now a Ph.D who completed his thesis and received his doctoral degree in geoscience in December. Why the interest in this particular doctoral candidate? He is a young earth creationist who wrote his thesis from the framework of darwinian evolution and millions of years. Some folks are very upset that a creationist has received a doctoral degree by turning in a thesis from within the darwinian framework. The university says he did solid science to earn his degree. The National Center for Science Education is especially concerned that fundamentalists capitalize on "secular" degrees to "miseducate the public."

I guess the panic is so deep because over 700 Ph.D. scientists worldwide (not including medical doctors, of which there are also many) have publically and formally challenged the validity of darwinian evolution as a creative mechanism.

Now a debate is brewing whether a doctoral candidate’s religious beliefs should be made known, then considered, before deciding to confer a degree.

Now isn’t this screaming proof of the point I have been consistently making, that naturalism is an unproven belief system, and not science? The science presented by the doctoral candidate in his thesis cannot be faulted, therefore the degree is conferred. But the debate is among naturalists who are panicked that scienctists should hold to a philosophy other than naturalism. You can see throughout the article that there is a subtle attempt on the part of the naturalists (and the ignorant media) to define science itself as naturalism, which it most certainly is not.

Case in point:

But Dr. Scott, a former professor of physical anthropology at the University of Colorado, said in an interview that graduate admissions committees were entitled to consider the difficulties that would arise from admitting a doctoral candidate with views “so at variance with what we consider standard science.” She said such students “would require so much remedial instruction it would not be worth my time.”

That is not religious discrimination, she added, it is discrimination “on the basis of science.”

Dr. Dini, of Texas Tech, agreed. Scientists “ought to make certain the people they are conferring advanced degrees on understand the philosophy of science and are indeed philosophers of science,” he said. “That’s what Ph.D. stands for.”

Excellent suggestion, Dr. Dini. We cannot put that great idea into practice soon enough. Science would benefit greatly from scientists who understood the philosophy of science. And its distinction from the philosophy of naturalism.