Why Evolutionary-Based Science Is A Menace To Scientific Research, Discovery, and Progress

All evolutionary-based research begins with the unscientific bias that the Theory of Evolution, i.e. the Big Bang, the spontaneous generation of life, and common descent, is true. When discovery conflicts with these tenets, evolutionists get mired in their own bias and devise convoluted explanations in order to fit the discovery into commonly held evolutionary beliefs.

Because of this and the fact that most research dollars come from pro-evolutionary sources, scientific discovery and progress has been severely hampered and hundreds of billions of research dollars have been squandered over the years. What’s worse is that, in a time in which almost ANY alternative thought is given a platform, the evolution industry openly censors ANY dissenting hypothesis that conflicts with commonly held evolutionary principles … even when it’s from fellow evolutionists!

See a study that showed peer-reviewed research findings are typically biased and unreliable, including “most modern molecular research”:

(Abstract) “Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.”

(Opening paragraph) “Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies to the most modern molecular research. There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false. Here I will examine the key factors that influence this problem and some corollaries thereof.”
John P. A. Ioannidis, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece and Adjunct Professor of Medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” August 30, 2005, doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

For over 50+ years, most evolutionary geneticists have arrogantly DENIED the critical nature of ‘junk DNA’ because they believed it was just useless genetic remnants left over from evolutionary predecessors. What’s really stunning is that some still do:

Go to “Junk” DNA–The Biggest Blunder of Evolutionary-Based Science
http://whoisyourcreator.com/junk_dna.html

In 1956, many scientists, including Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock (an evolutionist), proposed that ‘junk DNA’ was essential and functional genetic material. But, since that view didn’t fit with the evolutionary philosophy, their proposals were dismissed and the next 50-60 years of research was primarily focused on pursuing the dogma that genes controlled everything:

“Bejerano and his colleagues aren’t the first to suggest that transposons play a role in regulating nearby genes. In fact, Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock, PhD, who first discovered transposons, proposed in 1956 that they could help determine the timing for when nearby genes turn on and off.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185538.htm

It is now known that ‘junk DNA’ makes up approximately 98.5% of the total DNA in organisms, and is the key to cell health and development and primary link to disease when not functioning properly. What is truly alarming is that a high percent of researchers still believe in the old gene-centered dogma and are currently using research dollars (and time) in that direction versus exploring the genetic regulatory elements that control genes:

• “The puzzle of how higher animals develop – how a mass of undifferentiated cells organise themselves into specialised, functioning tissues, organs, and organisms – could now be solved – and the clue has been right under our noses for over a century.
  Every mammalian cell has a single primary cilium. This structure sticks out from the cell membrane like a cellphone aerial. First noticed by 19th Century microscopists, it was thought to be a useless, vestigial structure like the appendix. But recent discoveries show it is absolutely pivotal in cell differentiation and maintenance of tissue and organ structure and function.”
  The Scientific and Medical Network Blog, “The Primary Cilium – antenna for the organising field?” June 9, 2008.
  http://www.scimednet.org/blog/?start=140
• “Almost every vertebrate cell has a specialized cell surface projection called a primary cilium. Although these structures were first described more than a century ago, the full scope of their functions remains poorly understood. Here, we review emerging evidence that in addition to their well-established roles in sight, smell, and mechanosensation, primary cilia are key participants in intercellular signaling.”
  Science magazine, “The Primary Cilium as the Cell’s Antenna: Signaling at a Sensory Organelle,” Vol. 313. no. 5787, pp. 629 – 633, August 4, 2006.
  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5787/629.abstract
• “For me, the most important outcome of the human genome project has been to expose the fallacy that most genetic information is expressed as proteins … In contrast to protein-coding genes, the extent of noncoding intronic and intergenic sequences increases markedly with complexity; only 1.5% of the human genome encodes proteins …
  These observations suggest that we need to reassess the underlying genetic orthodoxy, which is deeply ingrained and has been given superficial reprieve by uncritically accepted assumptions about the nature and power of combinatorial control.”
  John Mattick, University of Queensland, “The genomic Foundation Is Shifting,” February 18, 2011, Science Magazine Vol. 331 no. 6019 p. 874.
  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6019/874.1.full
• “Gene regulation has turned out to be a surprisingly complex process governed by various types of regulatory DNA, which may lie deep in the wilderness of so-called junk DNA that lies between genes. Far from being humble messengers, RNAs of all shapes and sizes are actually powerful players in how genomes operate. Finally, there’s been increasing recognition of the widespread role of chemical alterations called epigenetic factors that can influence the genome across generations without changing the DNA sequence itself. The scope of this ‘dark genome’ became apparent in 2001, when the human genome sequence was first published.”
  Elizabeth Pennisi, “Shining a Light on the Genomen’s ‘Dark Matter’,” Science, Vol. 330 (6011):1614, December 17, 2010.
  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6011/1614.short
• “The commercial media is both ignorant of and blocks coverage of stories about non-centrality of the gene because its science advertising dollars come from the gene-centered Darwin industry …
  Thus, the public is unaware that its dollars are being squandered on funding of mediocre, middle-brow science or that its children are being intellectually starved as a result of outdated texts and unenlightened teachers.”
  Suzan Mazur, “Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry” an E-Book in 8 Parts – Part 1, July 6, 2008.
  http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm#introduction
• “While miRNAs were first discovered in 1993, scientists did not link them to gene regulation until nearly ten years later. Now, scientists are working to understand how miRNA expression is controlled, what genes miRNAs target, and how varying levels of miRNAs are related to human disease, particularly heart disease and cancer.”
  Tufts University School of Medicine and Tufts Medical Center, “Newly Identified RNA Sequence Is Key in microRNA Processing,” August 21, 2010, ScienceDaily.
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100816110413.htm

See “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” list of scientists who doubt Darwinism and hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences, and/or hold a M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine. The list includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, and UCLA. (Many of these people are risking their careers by ‘coming out’ against the evolution industry, especially in the United States.)

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
(For list of scientists, see PDF)

See case histories of dozens of physicists, even some Noebel Laureates, who have been censored or blacklisted by Cornell’s arXiv because they challenged the Big Bang Theory and the dogma of traditional physics:

“The purpose of this site is to alert the public about the blocking activities being conducted by the Cornell sponsored arXiv.org administrators and to relate the case histories of those scientists who have been censored and/or blacklisted. Archive Freedom advocates that this practice be immediately stopped and that all scientists be given open uncensored access to this archive to post their technical papers. We respectfully urge the administrators at Cornell University, as guardian of the world’s knowledge of physics, to honor the contributions of all serious scientists.”
Archive Freedom, “Addressing the Need for Freedom in Scientific Research”
http://www.archivefreedom.org/
Case histories:
http://www.archivefreedom.org/casehistories.htm

Making a stand against the Big Bang Theory, 33 well-known scientists paid for and published “An Open Letter to the Scientific Community” in the New Scientist on May 22, 2004. (It was originally titled, “Bucking the Big Bang” but the title was later changed.) Since then, hundreds of scientists, engineers, and independent researchers have added their names to the list:

“Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world…
Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.”
http://cosmologystatement.org/

	“The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems.” —Dr. Vladimir Voeikov Professor of Bio-organic Chemistry, Lomonosov Moscow State University, member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. “The commercial media is both ignorant of and blocks coverage of stories about non-centrality of the gene because its science advertising dollars come from the gene-centered Darwin industry … Thus, the public is unaware that its dollars are being squandered on funding of mediocre, middle-brow science or that its children are being intellectually starved as a result of outdated texts and unenlightened teachers.” —Suzan Mazur “Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry” an E-Book in 8 Parts – Part 1, July 6, 2008. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm#introduction