Half of Scientific Literature May Be Untrue
It is common for evolutionists to dismiss a lot of great work by creationists, saying that their papers do not appear in their own peer-reviewed journals. But now, editors of the two most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals have gone on record as saying that the peer-review process doesn't mean much anymore.
Several years ago, Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime editor of one of the most trusted medical journals in the world, wrote this: "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."
More recently, Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote the following in his own magazine: "The case against science is straightforward. Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." He added that "science has taken a turn towards darkness" and said that this is caused by "flagrant conflicts of interest." He also said something we've been saying for years: "In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world."
So never let an evolutionist throw the peer-review process in your face as a mark of the superiority of evolution over biblical creation. Unlike peer-reviewed publications, the Bible is never wrong.
Notes: http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf. Marcia Angell, "Drug companies and doctors: A story of corruption." January 15, 2009. The New York Review of Books.
Creation Moments, Inc., P.O. Box 839, Foley, MN 56329 www.creationmoments.com
Comments are closed.