Elimination of Bias
All human beings, including scientists, are subject to emotional bias. Bias may be introduced when the desire for a particular conclusion overshadows the commitment to scientific principles. Anticipation of advancement of one's career and personal notoriety can and do influence the interpretation of data. In the practice of scientific research, constructs have been established in an attempt to eliminate bias and thus arrive at the truth. Any experiment or study that cannot prove the absence of bias should be rejected as invalid. In order to prove the absence of bias, conclusions must be able to be validated by a skeptic.
If a medical researcher submits data for publication as to the efficacy of a new drug, he must declare whether or not he has stock or other financial interest in any company that produces that pharmaceutical. Such disclaimers are published so that anyone reading his research will consider the enhanced potential of erroneous conclusions.
Analogous standards of scientific objectivity are essentially absent in the thousands of papers published in the promotion of evolutionary biology. On the contrary, negative incentives are prevalent that discourage anyone from publishing data that refutes evolutionary dogma.
If research is published asserting that an alleged fossil is ancestral to man, any potential for monetary gain by the authors through research grants or notoriety within a field should cast serious doubt as to the validity of such conclusions. One cannot trust any scientific research to produce accurate results if it can be shown that conclusions of such research could be self-serving in any way.
M.J. Whitten, Ph.D, professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne (Australia), observed,
"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."
Such observations represent serious flaws in the scientific quest for truth. No research obtained when ulterior motives are in place should be accepted without thorough scrutiny by skeptics.