The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

A lot of guys on here are hard one Dr. Wise for speaking of how his ideology relates to his Science, but they make the mistake of assuming that those who review articles for peer reviewed sources are not biased themselves. Here is an article out of Discover that talks of this very thing.

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna

When Dr. Mary Schweitzer found the reminants of red blood cells in Dinosaur fossils she found out just how difficult it is to get good science published when it appears to "buck" the current system. Unlike Dr. Wise though, this particular reviewer wouldn't let any amount of evidence change his Science, not his ideaology but his Scientific views themselves. How is that good science?

That article, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, sparked a small flurry of headlines. Horner and others regarded Schweitzer's research as carefully performed and credible. Nonetheless, says Horner, "most people were very skeptical. Frequently in our field people come up with new ideas, and opponents say, 'I just don't believe it.' She was having a hard time publishing in journals."


"I had one reviewer tell me that he didn't care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn't possible. I wrote back and said, 'Well, what data would convince you?' And he said, 'None.' "

I'm not sure what you're attempting to prove about the scientific method or peer review with this, but yes, many scientists can often have their own suppositions about the scientific field but the process of evaluation of data and evidence by peer review by the scientific community clearly vindicated her despite whatever bias against her findings had.

That is, in fact, one of the greatings things about science and now, we can know and understand through further investigation just how and why her evidence came to be and what it proves through the same process.
This is because her evidence was examined and the same results consistently showed up in examinations and tests of the evidence she discsovered and the data she gathered and submitted.

This goes into my statement regarding the difference between the kind of bias creation science has in contrast to the bias a scientist may have - the scientist can and will examine counterevidence and accept that he's wrong.
Stephan Hawking is an excellent example of this because for thirty years, he postulated that black holes could could make information that became trapped by their gravitational pull disappear forever, but some years down the line he was proven wrong by a scientific community that was biased in favor of the work he does. Despite being rather stubborn, he continued to try and try again to disprove or falsify their methods, but he ultimately failed.
Yet, instead of proclaiming his correctitude despite their findings, he eventually accepted their findings and formed a new theory.

To my knowledge, "creation science" does not have a process that works anything like this, at the very least, without also going through a biblical interpretation of evidence they gather specifically to be interpreted by biblical passage. It doesn't work. It can't work. It's been proven to fail to have any success when subjected to the same methods that have been proven to work.

If anything, your article is abject proof of why the scientifc method is perhaps the greatest of all human achievements and forms the basis of every human achievment.