Bias, Suppression, and Intimidation in the Science Lab

Drug companies do not have to report on all of the evidence or experimentation regarding new drugs they want to market. This means that they can merely report on the one positive test out of the 50 negative trials. However, this kind of biased, unbalanced reporting can be used to “prove” the value of any drug!

Is this same bias endemic to other areas of the scientific enterprise? Evidently! Foundations and governmental bodies pour millions, even billions, into research universities, not to find the truth, but to prove evolution. Meanwhile, I am not aware of any such money funding studies to prove ID or creationism.

What will be the inevitable result of such an imbalance in experimentation? Researchers will inevitably “find” what they are looking for!

However, it is not even as simple as this profound imbalance. Intimidation has also become the standard in suppressing unwanted findings. Bruce Malone gives one example of what happened when someone contradicted the establishment orthodoxy pertaining to the dating of the dinosaurs:

·       Mark Armitage, the discoverer of the osteocytes in the triceratops horn, and instructor at a microscopy lab at California State University… showed his students the material. They returned to their Earth science departments excited to share the inconsistency of these finds (which contradicted the evolutionary teaching they were being taught) with their geology, anthropology, and paleontology professors. The result – Armitage was fired from his job within days of his paper being published in July 2013. This was in spite of years of stellar performance and excellent reviews setting up and running the university’s microscopy lab. (Brilliant, 23)

Many such incidents suggest that such repression of divergent voices is standard operating procedure – enough to make even the most gullible suspect of what is currently marketed.

Evolution and the Continuing Saga of Silencing any Opposition

Can we trust the “findings” and the proclamations of the scientific community? Not if it is dominated by fear and repression! Here is a good example of what happened to a scientist who published findings that didn’t agree with the party line:

• Soft unfossilized tissue continues to be found in a wide variety of fossilized dinosaur remains. One of the latest is a stretchy film membrane containing unfossilized osteocytes (bone cells) found inside a triceratops horn in 2012. The paper reporting this find was published in a peer reviewed journal called Science Direct, Volume 115, Issue 6, July 2013, pages 603-608. These unfossilized tissues are made of fragile protein molecules which under the best conditions…have total degeneration projected at less than 30,000 years. (Bruce Malone, Search for the Truth, Vol.6, Number 4, Fall 2013)

Of course, such a finding calls into question the orthodoxy of the evolutionary establishment, requiring a re-dating of both the dinosaur and the rock level – millions of years old, according to this orthodoxy.

We might hope that the establishment would welcome these multiple finds, however unorthodox they might be, and re-adjust their theory accordingly. Instead,

• [Mark] Armitage [California State University] was fired from his job within days of his paper being published…This was in spite of years of stellar performance and excellent reviews setting up and running the university’s microscopy lab.

How then can a rational person trust the establishment’s pro-evolution pronouncements? On the one hand, these elites control hiring and firing to such an extent that only their (unnaturally) selected few can make authoritative pronouncements. On the other, they receive all of the research money. Result – scientific monopolies might produce convincing propaganda, but they don’t make for good and trustworthy science.