Science is Error Correcting and has Proven One Thing

Just to kick off my blog proper, I have picked an article that a brother has written regarding the honesty problem within the science community .

Science is Error Correcting and has Proven One Thing

– by Douglas David Lantz


Anyone is welcome to email me at:


This letter can be shared in any manner, in any venue,

to any person, either whole, or in part.


Permission to share this letter, or portions, is given with the condition

that credit is acknowledged with my name and email.


Although Retraction Watch was a major source of the material,

my views and opinions should not be construed as to represent theirs.

They are to be considered reasonable, and more cool headed than I.


Letter begins



Science has proven Lord Acton’s Razor –

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”


In fact, corruption in the scientific community could be given

the symbol C for constant, because lying and plagiarism

are the only things in science that haven’t changed.


This letter may be offensive to some, and I want to make clear

I’m not against science, or the pursuit of discovery.

I love my computer.


As a Christian I thank God for scientists who’ve increased

the quality of medical miracles in hospitals.

They’ve truly done the Lord’s work.


I’m simply against the wholesale allegiance to an institution that requires

it’s adherents to bow the knee of faith, while in return, merely offering

the faithful masses an endless history of broken scientific promises.


How dare scientists criticize the failed prophecies of a

Charles Taze Russel, or a Harold Camping, when scientists have

planted their flag upon the territory of testable evidence,

arrogantly waving that flag at religion, only to have their “evidence”

continually evaporate from one dismal failure after another

in full view of the world, repeatedly.


The hypocrisy is stunning.


The Church (as an institution) is held hostage by people using science

as a way to hold religious people captive.


The reaction by religious people in this war, is to respond by

going on the offensive, and turning the weapon of science back upon

the secular world, as a way to return fire.


The problem with that approach, is that science is “error correcting”,

and “self evaluating”.   Therefore, devoutly religious people denying Evolution

are ensnared in the tactic of trying to use science to “prove in reverse”

that Evolution is false, in the belief that using the enemy’s “own weapon”

of science against them, will yield results.


Creationists have forgotten Murphy’s Law of Combat –

“Your weapon was manufactured by the lowest bidder”.

(in other words, the weapon you use may be poorly made)


Or, the other approach religious people take, is to surrender to science

and be taken hostage, submitting to every whim of “discovery”

until they suffer Helsinki Syndrome like the abused hostages they are.


Pastors who teach Evolution Theory to their congregations

have surrendered to the enemy of “new enlightenment”


The only result is the debacle that faithful Creationists are like

military insurgents fighting with the unreliable weapon of science,

trying to shoot at a moving target.


The pastors, and their congregations, who submit to being taken hostage

are incarcerated within a prison constantly on the move,

forced to live the nomadic life of a Prisoner of War,

traveling endlessly from one scientific prison camp to another,

at the behest of their captor.


Like bowing down to face Mecca, pastors teaching Evolution Theory

ensure that their congregations are facing toward the “East” of Atheism

when their Churches celebrate Charles Darwin’s birthday,

during what is known as “Evolution Weekend”.


The Clergy Letter Project, Evolution Weekend


Remember that science is less like a list of absolutes,

and more like a recipe of theories filled with the ingredients

of ambiguous words like “maybe, if, might be, could be,

perhaps, possibly, sort of, appears to be”, etc. etc.


Those “ironclad words” mixed with promises of discovery

are what scientists use to hold religious people at gunpoint.


Hopefully this article will pull back that Wizard of Oz curtain.


Back In 1997, the American Institute for Cancer Research,

and the World Cancer Research Fund, published a report concluding,

“…diets loaded with fruits and vegetables might reduce

the overall incidence of cancer by more than 20 percent.”


But that was in 1997.


In 2014, the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research,

with some 18,500 researchers and juxtaposed professionals,

is chanting a new mantra:   just forget the whole ‘ fruits and veggies’ thing.


For the past 24 years I’ve enjoyed pointing out that science

can’t make up its mind on coffee.


Sometimes coffee is good for you, sometimes it’s bad for you.


If you think I’m being “cute” about the coffee thing,

here it is, the latest coffee news from that 2014 Symposium –


“There were new hints that coffee may lower the risk

of some cancers and more about the possible benefits

of vitamin D.”



“In the opening plenary session, Dr. Walter C. Willett,

a Harvard epidemiologist who has spent many years

studying cancer and nutrition, sounded almost rueful

as he gave a status report. Whatever is true for other

diseases, when it comes to cancer there is little evidence

that fruits and vegetables are protective or that

fatty foods are bad.”–workshops/aacr-annual-meeting-2014.aspx


Here’s a study showing that kids become more aggressive

when they bite their food without utensils, such as eating pieces of chicken –


“kids are more socially aggressive and disobedient

when they have to hold and bite their food

than when they can use utensils and chew it,

say researchers from Cornell University in Ithaca, NY.”


From the same article –


“The researchers suggest, as seen in animals,

using teeth to bite food may be connected to

aggressive behavior.

For their study, the team observed 12 elementary children

for 2 days during a 4-H summer camp.”


Wow !


12 whole kids, for 2 days.


Did they find an error rate of plus or minus 3% ?


Do you know how hard it is for a novelist to find an agent,

and a publisher, willing to invest in the novelist’s book?


Here’s a scientific question:   why weren’t the authors of that

food study laughed out of the office and the study thrown in the

waste basket?


Here are the sources (because quoting sources is always scientific) –


You may be thinking,

Gee, Doug, you Googled a couple of bad examples,

but you’re not being fair.

Like the Catholic Church, Doug, for every bad example,

you can find thousands of examples of good works.”


Science is so infested with corruption, from top to bottom,

that the only reason we’re as far along as we are,

is because God has helped scientists along.

I’m convinced of that.


Here’s a statistical study of sloppy science, published in 2002 –


“A cunning statistical study has exposed scientists

as sloppy reporters. When they write up their work

and cite other people’s papers, most do not bother

to read the original.”


From the same article –


“The model shows that the distribution of misprinted

citations of the 1973 paper could only have arisen if

78 per cent of all the citations, including the correct ones,

were “cut and pasted” from a secondary source.

Many of those who got it right were simply lucky.

The problem is not specific to this paper, the researchers say.

Similar patterns of errors cropped up in a dozen other

high-profile papers they studied. The trouble is that

researchers trust other scientists to repeat the

key message of a paper correctly. This means that

when misconceptions take root, they spread like weeds.”


The sloppy science situation is so bad, a cottage industry is developing.


Retraction Watch, a Blog site, tracks scientific journals,

chronicling retractions made within the scientific community.


The Blogs founders, science writers Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus

originally thought they wouldn’t have enough material, due to estimates

that only 80 papers (only ?) were retracted each year.

But in its first year, Retraction Watch reported on roughly 200 papers.



Last year there have been more than 500 retractions.


Retractions according to Thompson’s Web of Knowledge



Retraction Watch was launched in 2010.

So how is business lately ?

Business is so good, they’re hiring !


Retraction Watch Hiring an Intern – $500.00 per week


Another Blog elsewhere on the internet with the same goal, was shut down

after the Blog’s founder, Paul Brookes, approached the endeavor badly.


His methods (he admits) included aggressive targeting of fraudulent scientists,

and highlighting the lack of integrity in the industry,

which Brookes did with “offensive language”.


Although I personally don’t endorse those methods,

I can certainly understand the frustration, especially when you

read Retraction Watch and look at unnecessary story, after story,

of material you’d think was on the Onion News Network.


Here are examples of Retraction Watch article headlines.

Each headline is matched with its link.


  • Ethics training paper retracted because data couldn’t be shared


  • A group of authors in China has retracted their December 2013 paper

   in PLoS ONE after realizing that they’d been studying the wrong cells.


  • Plant paper retracted when new species turns out to be not so new.


  • Faulty model forces rapid retraction of paper on sea ice and climate change


  • Heart study retracted because it was submitted without permission

  of most of the authors.


  • Some authors seem to cite their own retracted studies.

   Should we be concerned?


  • “The Chrysalis Effect: How Ugly Initial Results Metamorphosize Into Beautiful Articles”


  • Oh, the irony: Paper on “Ethics and Integrity of the Publishing Process”

   retracted for duplication


  • Want to make sure your paper gets published? 

  Just do your own peer review like this researcher did.


  • Author who broke into lab to tamper with investigation

  now up to half a dozen retractions.


  • Doing the right thing: Authors retract lubricant paper

   whose findings they can’t reproduce.


  • In sharp resignation letter, former ORI  [ Office of Research Integrity ]

   director Wright criticizes bureaucracy, dysfunction.


  • Senator “unsatisfied” with ORI ’s response on recovery of tainted grant money.

  • Researcher intimidated trainees into faking heart test results


  • Researchers invent time machine!

  [ 1997 paper cites data from year 2000 paper that didn’t exist yet ]


  • Plagiarism makes renewable energy paper unsustainable.


  • Authors of “just make up an…analysis” Organometallics paper issue mega-correction.

  • Nature Nobel Prize winner calls peer review “very distorted”,

  “completely corrupt”, and “simply a regression to the mean”.


  • Nature paper retracted following multiple failures to reproduce results.


  • “Knowledgeable informant” topples ovarian cancer paper.


  • Should readers get a refund when they pay to access seriously flawed papers?


  • “Inconsistent errors” and unknowing authors force retraction of microbiology paper.

  • Springer, IEEE withdrawing more than 120 nonsense papers.

[ both Springer and IEEE are huge publishers ]


  • And then there were none: Plagiarism forces retraction of metabolism paper

  with vanishing authors.


  • Dispute with “unlisted author whose claim to authorship could not be solved”

   topples cancer paper.


  • ‘Pseudoknots’ a pseudopaper, retracted for plagiarism.


  • Seeing triple: Optics paper proves to be one of three, retracted.


  • Author blames “young coworker” for duplication as paper is retracted.


  • Faked HIV vaccine research presentation retracted.


  • Journal and authors apologize “unreservedly” for distress caused

   to deceased child’s family by case report.

[ parents did not give consent to publish the paper, only that the medical

information in the case could be shared confidentially with other Doctors ]


  • Bone-headed move? Authors of cancer-skeleton paper

   copy from paper in same journal.


  • Citation manipulation: Journal retracts paper because

   author boosted references to a journal he edits.


  • Journal grounds paper on radiation exposure in air traffic controllers

   because it was “published inadvertently”.

[ Retraction Watch was unable to find out what “inadvertently” meant

at the time of the Blog’s posting ]


  • We did what? Authors retract paper after forgetting

   they’d published the same study elsewhere.


  • Researcher who called plagiarism “the worst type of fraud”

   retracts paper for…plagiarism.


  • Scientific Fraudsters should keep their jobs

Encouraging rehabilitation for offending scientists

An organization specializing in science ethics


  • More retractions for authors who duplicated, and did their own peer review.


  • Want to make sure your paper gets published?

  Just do your own peer review like this researcher did


  • Retraction count grows to 35 for scientist who

  faked emails to do his own peer review.


  • Chemistry papers retracted for “lack of objectivity:”

   The authors did their own peer review


  • Should authors be encouraged to pick their own peer reviewers?


  • Science publication Black Market industry in China

unscrupulous scientists can pay up to $26,300 for their names

to appear on science papers they didn’t write


  • Harvard student publication retracts article saying Jews

  deserve punishment because “they killed Jesus”


  • Psychology journal editor has seven articles retracted for duplication or plagiarism


  • Doing the right thing, 150 years later: Paper retracts editorial

  condemning Gettysburg Address as “silly”


  • Who’s on first? Paper on “the ethics of being first” retracted

   because it was…second       [ duplicate publication ]


  • mBio retracts anthrax paper whose authors say they misinterpreted findings

[ article highlights lackadaisical approach to retractions ]


  • Retraction Record: scientist Yoshitaka Fujii holds the

   current record of 183 retractions.


  • Scientist who faked data in his thesis will keep his PhD

[ board of inquiry finds that data was “scientifically valid”, despite being faked ! ]


  • Papers faked (on purpose) in more than 300 journals, published,

   as part of journalistic “sting”


  • Researcher who threatened Retraction Watch with lawsuit

   corrects funding source for several papers


  • Danish neuroscientist Penkowa, found guilty of misconduct,

   reappears as Scientology group headliner


  • Is impact factor the “least-bad” way to judge the quality of a scientific paper?


  • Scientific American faces firestorm after removing blog post

   about scientist being called a whore


  • Do authors who retract papers end up cited less often?

   Depends how eminent you are


  • Virtually verbatim text earns retraction of neonate paper, gives authors a pass

[ editor acknowledges that it was plagiarism, but the editor

believed the scientists did not know what plagiarism was,

and they were therefore unaware of their misconduct ]


  • Journal withdraws diabetes paper written by apparently bogus authors


  • A Serbian Sokal? Authors spoof pub with Ron Jeremy and Michael Jackson references


  • Dutch anthropologist Mart Bax faked 61 papers, says university


  • Editor: “Close to 10% of the papers we receive show some sign of academic misconduct”


  • That’ll do it: Physics paper retracted for a “pattern that is unphysical”


  • Thou shalt not plagiarize: Eighth commandment violation results in retraction

[ scholarly work on Christian Theology ]


  • What happened to Joachim Boldt’s 88 papers that were supposed to be retracted?

   [ 10% not retracted ]


  • Math paper retracted because it “contains no scientific content”


  • Chemistry papers retracted for “lack of objectivity:”

  The authors did their own peer review


  • When 1 equals 2, the result is a retraction


  • Paper on “better-than-average effect” retracted for being, well, worse than average


  • Paper retracted because images “were, in fact,

  electron microscopy results of totally different catalysts”


  • Insert data here … Did researcher instruct co-author

  to make up results for chemistry paper?


  • That’s not plagiarism, it’s an “administrative error”


  • What happens to researchers who publish duplicated papers?

   At one university, they’re promoted


  • Paper by NASA scientists retracted for plagiarizing NASA report


  • “Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?”

    New study tries to answer


  • Ants in the past: Journal pulls insect-global warming paper

  after questions arise over results      [ validity of findings questioned ]


  • Retraction of 19-year-old Nature paper reveals hidden cameras,

  lab break-in, evidence tampering


That’s a cursory skimming of Retraction Watch.

There are mountains of articles like those, each one reading

the same way with rampant plagiarism, missing data, buffoonery,

faked data, laboratory jealousies, funding embezzlement,,

but I couldn’t cite them all here, because it’s too much.

I had to use coin flips to trim down the list.


If you thought I sounded harsh in my opening salvo of this article,

now you can understand why, and I’ve felt this way for 20 years.


Here’s an article from Scientific American giving a history

of Peer Review, starting in the year 1731


Here’s one on whether anonymous Peer Review is even useful –


I figured out what Peer Review is.

It’s done after publication, in the wake of the damage,

with all your peers looking as bad as you do.


I reject the premise that scientists are just idiots who “don’t know”

what plagiarism is, or that they “forgot” where they put their data,

or any of the other excuses they try to feed us.


I also reject the argument it’s “only a few bad apples”.


An otherwise crucial institution for protecting the earth,

and prolonging the quality of life, is infested with corruption.


Why are they given 100% of our trust daily,

after proving they are reliably untrustworthy?


Sure, no human skeleton has been found in the same geological strata

as a Triceratops – so we’re told – but perhaps no anthropologist who

wants to lose his job (his funding, his committee chair, his office),

will admit he ever found one?


Perhaps the fossilized human remains were ‘re-located’ into a

different dig site, and some shovels of dirt were piled on top of it,

along with a few cigarette butts, while that Triceratops

was liberated from its strata and placed in a museum?


And what group of anthropologists are ever  going to let the

‘crazies’ from the Institute for Creation Research anywhere near

a Dinosaur dig where fossilized human remains can be shouted from the rooftops?


Each time the Church starts to see through the cracks

in the established “evidences” of how old the earth is,

(limitations in radiometric dating methods, flaws in the

Natural Selection puzzle, etc.) which scientists have insisted are indisputable,

when the Church starts asking questions that can’t be answered,

that’s usually when scientists decide it’s time to change the rules.


Such as:  what is the definition of a “theory”?

Its usage has morphed over the years, suspiciously having its definition changed

ever since the Church learned not to be afraid of that word,

or the scientists who use it.


Nothing evolves faster than Evolution Theory.


Corruption is like an iceberg:

9 tenths beneath the surface cannot be seen.


Here’s a paper entitled,

“Why most published research findings are false”


A quote from the abstract –


Simulations show that for most study designs and settings,

it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true.

Moreover, for many current scientific fields,

claimed research findings may often be simply

accurate measures of the prevailing bias.



Scientists say whatever they have to, in order to maintain the status quo.


That link came from this one,

“Bad research rising: The 70th Olympiad of research

on biomedical publication”


A quote from the article regarding statements made by

Epidemiologist John Ioannidis, about work he and colleague

Chavalarias did together –


Why is there so much un-reproducible research?

Ioannidis points to the many sources of bias in research.

Chavalarias and he trawled through more than

17 million articles in PubMed and found discussion

of 235 different kinds of bias.

There is so much bias, he said, that it makes one of

his dreams – an encyclopedia of bias – a supremely

daunting task.


There it is, right there.

And the secular world has the gall to denounce religious people

because we are biased ???


It’s understandable that religious people take their faith

entirely on faith.


But at least I have religious reasons for putting my allegiance

in the Almighty Creator revealed in the Bible.


But why on earth would anyone  put their unbridled trust

in mere men who demonstrate repeatedly  they are corrupt,

especially when you factor in the tragedy that religion can be

a road almost traveled, if not for the lies in the scientific literature?


You wouldn’t buy a car from a person like that,

and you’re trusting your Eternal Salvation  to these people ?


And what’s all this supposed swill about scientists vigorously

testing a new theory to make sure it stands up to scrutiny?


There are no pure motives here, it’s just plain old jealousy and fear.


What scientist, after investing himself in his work,

is going to let some new discovery shatter established research,

(and professorships, reputations, funding,, without a fight?


Watson and Crick, the “discoverers of DNA” (allegedly),

stole the research of a colleague (conspiring with her boss whom she trusted)

whereupon they produced a false model of DNA to buy time.

(they stole, cheated, conspired, and lied)


James Watson is a racist.


Scientific Racism is listed on Wikipedia as Pseudoscience

(as it should be), but Watson is simply being true to his beliefs.

If Evolution is true, then it is not only possible, but likely,

that one race of people is bequeathed with more refined

survival advantages (ie: intelligence) than other races of people.


Think of it this way:   what Evolutionist will ever say

that all animals have precisely the same advantages ?

In fact, that’s the whole point of Evolution.

Natural Selection will select out  the least suited to survive.

And we are told that humans are just another life form

adrift upon the river of Natural Selection.


But when the mechanism of Natural Selection is applied to

the human race, you can’t say that one race is superior,

or that one race is inferior. That’s a taboo line one simply cannot cross.


So think about it:   if Natural Selection is the truth, then wouldn’t it

be true for humans, as well as all the other animals?

Wouldn’t that be the perfect explanation for all the different

races of people we have?


So when we’re told on Wikipedia, and in the media, that we can’t

cross that taboo line, isn’t that evidence of a systematic cover up ?


Therefore, the mantra that science “follows the evidence where it leads”,

is just propaganda. The model of Natural Selection isn’t followed at all

when it comes to racism.


I have no such difficulties, because I think Evolution Theory

is completely false. God created man in His own image,

therefore one race of people is not ‘disadvantaged’ from another.

All  are equal in God’s Creation.


The tragedy is how much scientific advancement could have been made

if not for the failure of the scientific community to police itself.


The Church needs to stand up to the King Agrippa of science,

declaring, “I pray to God that not only you, but all who are listening

may become what I am, except for these chains”.


Would to God every Christian lose their fear of scientists.


Deuteronomy 18:22 says that if a prophet proclaims something that

does not come to pass, it’s a message the Lord has not spoken,

and, “Thou shalt not be afraid of him”.


Don’t be afraid of scientists. They’re wrong all the time.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s