Selective Interpretation of Data
In evaluation of a hypothesis, it is critical to consider all of the data. Fixation on limited observations and the dismissal of potentially falsifying evidence is not a legitimate scientific practice.
If a drug is tested for the treatment of cancer, all cases must be evaluated and compared to a control group that was given placebo. A sufficient number of patients must be followed over specified lengths of time so as to assure that bias and other mitigating factors have been eliminated. The selective reporting of two or three dramatic cures is not legitimate science. Scientific proofs are founded on statistically significant data, and anecdotes are not acceptable. In medicine, any scientific paper that cannot prove that all evidence, pro and con, has been evaluated in an unbiased manner will not be accepted for publication.
In an analogous manner, the publication of papers documenting a few possible transitional fossils does not prove gradualism. If all data is not objectively evaluated and weighed, it is easy to draw erroneous conclusions. Many paleontologists look only for evidence of evolution in the fossil record, while ignoring anything that is inconsistent with gradualism. They focus on a few questionable finds, and believe that they are providing scientific evidence for evolution. Conclusions are drawn without peer review provided by skeptics of evolution.
In the quest of truth through the scientific method, it is a fatal mistake to look at positive evidence and imagine that contradictory evidence is unimportant. All false theories can be supported by "positive evidence". Compelling evidence can be presented to argue the existence of Bigfoot, that UFO's are visiting the earth, and that the Apollo moon landings were fabricated by the government. Without an ever-present mindset of skepticism founded on objective evaluation of all data, it is easy to be persuaded in acceptance of unfounded conclusions.
True science involves not just collecting evidence, but weighing the evidence: Legitimate scientists are particularly interested in any hostile evidence to a theory, because they know that any false theory can be propped up by "positive evidence".
In his quest to arrive at the truth, a scientist is anxious to determine whatever inconsistencies might exist with a theory and observable facts. An alleged scientist who goes about filtering data to validate a pre-drawn conclusion is an imposter and should not be given any respect among scientific peers.
Dr. Mark Singham, a professor of evolutionary theory, made this startling admission,
“… our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over evidence to the contrary.
In the promotion of evolution often there is a carte blanche dismissal of evidence that is hostile to the general theory of evolution. This practice is completely at odds with all traditions and standards of scientific research. The entire defense of the theory of evolution relies on selective filtering of evidence. Evidence that validates evolution is preferentially searched for. Contradictory evidence is generally ignored.
The practice of selective evaluation of data is widespread in evolutionary research and is not a minor weakness. It is scientific fraud. In the annals of medicine, the attempted validation of theories by anecdotal evidence and selective reporting of successes are universal characteristics of quackery.
Most modern university level textbooks of biology present embarrassingly one-sided perspectives of evolution. A perusal of these writings leaves the impression that there is no room for debate. It is pretended that any reasonable scientist accepts all of evolution's claims. It is often stated in such textbooks that evolution is an irrefutable fact, and that all who question it are scientifically ignorant. The teaching of evolution has become a proliferation of dogma rather than scientific investigation.
In this book, a number of references are made, documenting the selective use of data by evolutionary biologists. The reader might wonder why a biologist would admit to such a thing. Evolutionary biologists have been trained their entire careers that their practices qualify as legitimate science. The blatant disregard for scientific integrity is evidence of the depth of corruption of the scientific method that has been going unchecked for over 160 years.
The use of radiometric dating has been a critical pillar in supporting Darwinism for decades. Yet its foundation rests on filtering of evidence. It is therefore completely devoid of scientific validity.
Dr. John Woodmorappe, a geologist who has done extensive research on the validity of radiometric dating, concluded,
"The use of radiometric dating in geology involves a very selective acceptance of data. Most discrepant dates are not published. This selective reporting may account for consistencies in the data; internal consistencies, mineral-pair concordances, and agreements between differing dating methods may be illusory."
Since radiometric dating carries no significant scientific accountability, the selective reporting of data is common. In scientific disciplines with accountability such as medicine, the filtering of data to achieve a desired result is considered fraud and is subject to criminal prosecution.