Creationists are often accused of confirmation bias. In other words they say when we look at data we contort it to fit our preconceived ideas about how we think the world works. These accusers often cite how science looks to weed out that bias through the peer review process. They are right and wrong at the same time. We do have a bias, but so do they. We take certain unprovable, unverifiable beliefs about the past (supernaturalism, catastrophism) to interpret evidence from the past (unobservable). They take other unprovable, unverifiable beliefs about the past (naturalism, uniformitarianism) to interpret the same evidence. Therefore we both have a bias before we look at the evidence. Those who share our biases will also interpret the evidence the same as we do. That is the answer to why the majority of scientists see the evidence the same way – they all are interpreting it the same and agreeing with the starting assumptions.
So… how does confirmation bias play into mainstream science? Five scenarios:
- Red blood cells, soft tissue, and DNA found still intact in supposedly millions-of-years old dinosaur fossils (http://blog.drwile.com/?p=12518). Normally these elements would decay very rapidly. Mainstream sciences answer: preservation must last longer than we thought before. Obviously, the most apparent response is that the dinosaurs are not as old as previously thought. Instead they maintain their beliefs and offer explanations with no evidence as to how these materials can last this long in the face of repeated demonstrations of rapid decay of these materials. Their explanations actually defy the evidence of decay to maintain their beliefs. Confirmation bias! Note: some evolutionists have tried to use iron as the mechanism for preserving the materials, but that explanation fails miserably (http://blog.drwile.com/?p=11753).
- Do a Google search or image search for human artifacts found in coal deposits or “out-of-place artifacts”. Mainstream science maintains that coal seams were formed over millions of years of gradual, uniform deposits well before humans came onto the scene. Yet, there are many examples of manmade items found embedded in these coal deposits and other rock layers (http://s8int.com/page8.html). The only response from mainstream science is that these anomalies must be forgeries. They must be forgeries because the alternative explanation does not fit their worldview. Confirmation bias! Of course the obvious interpretation is that perhaps humans existed prior to a worldwide catastrophic event (the flood) that laid down most of the coal deposits and rock layers.
- Did you know that genetics only finds evidence of degeneration? Dr. John Sanford, a geneticist, argues that evidence from observational genetics confirms what he calls genetic entropy. That man is degenerating, not improving through some imaginary upward evolution. Here are three peer-reviewed papers published in secular journals confirming this concept (http://www.tbiomed.com/content/9/1/42, http://ge.tt/7mN7K6O/v/0, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1716299/pdf/ajhg00429-0003.pdf). Dr. Sanford goes on to claim that nearly all leading geneticists acknowledge this: “Kondrashov, an evolutionist who is an expert on this subject, has advised me that virtually all the human geneticists he knows agree that man is degenerating genetically. The most definitive findings were published in 2010 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science by Lynch. That paper indicates human fitness is declining at 3–5% per generation.” Obviously evolutionary biologists must simply ignore this data to maintain their beliefs. Confirmation bias! I would say this is possibly the most striking blow to Darwinism and a complete scientific confirmation of a creationist prediction.
- Carbon still remaining in diamonds. Carbon, which due to its decay rate cannot last longer than 60,000 years, is consistently found in diamonds and other samples believed to be millions or even billions of years old (http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-breakthroughs)! What is the mainstream science answer: contamination. They claim the scientists or labs must have contaminated the samples… yet often times these are the same scientists and labs they use to verify their own data. I smell a double standard. What is the obvious answer? The samples are not as old as believed.
- Young comets exist with no evidence of a comet-maker. Every time a comet circles the sun in our solar system it loses some of its matter. Therefore comets have a relatively short lifespan, yet we have no observable evidence of a source that is making new comets. Mainstream science suggests either the Oort Cloud or the Kuiper belt – yet neither of these have been observed. They are mythical. They are necessary for mainstream scientists to maintain their beliefs about the age of the universe. The Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt have never been observed. They are hypothetical. Need I say it? Confirmation bias! What is the obvious answer? The solar system and the universe are not as old as previously believed.
Seeing a pattern? This is by no means an exhaustive list either, there is much more I could go into. We could also talk about fossils being found “out of place” all the time (http://creation.com/fossils-wrong-place). Or we could talk about the dinosaur stone carving from 1200 AD (http://creation.com/did-angkor-really-see-a-dinosaur). Or we could talk about the Big Bang’s horizon problem (https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/light-travel-time-a-problem-for-the-big-bang/). We would simply not have enough room to write about all the inconsistencies. Yet in the light of all these inconsistencies, the UK has the gall to outlaw any suggestion of anything contrary to that of the consensus!
Mainstream scientists believe creationists are the only ones who use confirmation bias to hold onto their beliefs, yet this is demonstrably incorrect. Now combine all five anomalies to mainstream science from above (DNA still in dinos, human artifacts in coal, genetic entropy, carbon in diamonds, & young comets), combine those with all the other inconsistencies that have filled volumes of books (https://answersingenesis.org/store/topics-themed/) that we don’t have time to discuss here , and now decide if there is still “overwhelming evidence” for their positions? I will leave the conclusion up to you…
I will leave you with a quote from Michael Crichton (PhD in biology, writer of Jurassic Park), although an evolutionist – he had strong words for what he called consensus science…
“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
For more resources on scientific issues with the consensus I suggest…
http://blog.drwile.com/ – written by a PhD in nuclear chemistry & science textbook writer.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/ – written by a PhD in biophysics.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/ – collection of recent science news that defies the mainstream.
http://www.icr.org/news/ – Institute for Creation Research.
http://www.reddit.com/r/creation/ – online community discussion.