Evidence Clearly Seen (eBook)

This image artistically captures the theme of science being manipulated by external influences, contrasting the pursuit of truth and knowledge with the challenges of bias and political manipulation. It symbolically represents the tension and struggle for scientific integrity.

Addressing concerns about misinformation, bias, and the role of scientific consensus in public discourse and policy involves multiple strategies aimed at enhancing transparency, rigor, and communication in science. While it’s crucial to acknowledge the complex interplay between science, society, and policy, it’s equally important to understand that the scientific process is designed to be self-correcting, with mechanisms in place to address errors and biases over time. Here are steps and principles that can help maintain and enhance objectivity in the scientific process and its communication:

Strengthen Peer Review

• Enhanced Review Processes: Making peer review more rigorous and transparent can help ensure that studies are thoroughly vetted before publication. This includes involving reviewers with diverse perspectives and expertise.

Promote Open Science

• Data Sharing: Encouraging or requiring scientists to share their data and methodologies openly allows for independent verification, replication of studies, and can help uncover errors or biases.

Encourage Replication

• Replication Studies: Funding and publishing replication studies are essential for confirming results and theories, which is a cornerstone of the scientific method.

Foster Scientific Literacy

• Education: Improving scientific literacy among the public and policymakers can help individuals critically evaluate scientific claims and understand the nature of scientific consensus and its role in decision-making.

Diversify Perspectives

• Inclusive Research Communities: Ensuring that research teams and scientific communities are diverse can help minimize individual and cultural biases, leading to more comprehensive and objective scientific inquiry.

Address Conflicts of Interest

• Transparency and Regulation: Clearly disclosing potential conflicts of interest and implementing strict regulations to manage them can help reduce the influence of external pressures on scientific research and its communication.

Engage in Public Communication

• Effective Science Communication: Scientists and institutions should actively engage with the public and media to explain not only scientific findings but also the process and principles behind scientific inquiry. This includes clarifying the provisional nature of scientific knowledge and how consensus is reached.

Implement Policy Safeguards

• Evidence-Based Policymaking: Policies should be based on a broad review of the scientific literature and consensus, incorporating safeguards against basing decisions on single studies or unverified claims.

Critical Evaluation of Science in Policy

• Science Advisory Mechanisms: Establishing independent and transparent science advisory panels for policymaking can help ensure that decisions are informed by the best available evidence, free from political or ideological biases.

Continuous Education for Professionals

• Lifelong Learning in Science: Encouraging continuous education and training for scientists in ethics, methodologies, and communication can help maintain high standards of research and public engagement.

Vulnerabilities to bias and misinformation still exists, the scientific method, coupled with a commitment to these principles, is supposed to offer a robust framework for advancing knowledge and informing society. It is only through ongoing true scrutiny, open dialogue, and a commitment to integrity that science can progress and maintain its objectivity and credibility.

Stephen C. Meyer’s book “Return of the God Hypothesis” (published in 2021) is a comprehensive work that argues that theism provides the best explanation for the origin and development of the universe, life, and consciousness. In the book, Meyer also discusses the rise of modern science and its relationship with theism. He builds on Michael Behe’s 1996 book called “Darwin’s Black Box” where Behe introduces the concept of Irreducible Complexity (IC). Meyer previously published another book in 2009 that is referenced here called “Signature in the Cell” where he builds on William Dembski’s 1998 book called “The Design Inference”.

I have endeavored to build on their concepts of Irreducible Complexity and Specified Information Complexity (SC) from my Design Engineering perspective. Actual Engineers and scientists recognize that design concepts of including varying specification levels of Accuracy (A) and Precision (P) is what makes the difference in the objectivity of those concepts. SC deals with probability, but that does not necessarily include A or P. Along with the existing scientific concept of Cognitive Load Theory, that led me to articulate the new concept that I call “The Complexity versus Intelligence Equation”.

Here is a quote from the Prologue of Stephen C Meyer’s new book “The return of the God Hypothesis”:

The Dover trial judge claimed that evaluating ID concepts of irreducible complexity and specified complexity is a subjective process. I show how it is actually a very objective process that is based on engineering and scientific principles.

Again, my book uses the same Intelligent Design arguments for evidence of God along with my own actual design engineering perspective where knowledge, understanding, accuracy, precision, and high cognitive abilities are needed. I also include the importance of considering the scientific Theory of Cognitive Load. The evidence seen within the things made shows that God’s cognitive abilities far exceed human levels.

I attempt to use clarity and discernment to see through the many flaws, prejudice, and bias of methodological naturalist arguments. I want to make it crystal clear to readers how such prejudice is masquerading as science while misusing methodological naturalism as a thin facade as skeptics dishonestly attempt to suppress the truth of the supernatural Creator based on what is actually illogical and philosophical reasoning.

Just as with the way dishonest politicians deceive voters by manipulating information to appear gray and subjective, skeptics fight obvious truth. In the case of ID, the blind watchmaker argument attempts to explain it all away with natural selection. That’s why it’s important to keep the focus on origins of life, as well as of the universe. That makes it much harder for them to dodge and weave the issue of creation from scratch, where irreducible complexity, and specified complexity have the utmost significance leaving no room for natural selection and blind watchmaker arguments to confuse the gullible with their bias.

Just as with the Theory of Cognitive Load, Creationism and Intelligent Design is the understanding that the level of complexity found within a thing made from scratch, has ALWAYS been recognized as directly corresponding to and directly proportional to the level of cognitive abilities required to make it. That recognition goes from computers, rocket ships to written novels, computer code to integrated circuits, nano machines, forensic science, crime investigation, and on to the origin of life and of the universe.

Various levels of Complexity found within any mechanism can be tabulated, itemized and measured, just as the corresponding minimum cognitive abilities of the minds that are required to make them. That is always the case.

I don’t believe in evolution, but I also feel that we don’t necessarily have to target it as anti-creation. The reason I say that is because of the way that evolutionists have succeeded in manipulating the minds of the general public into falsely believing that evolution includes the origin of life. All that they actually have is evidence of what is called micro-evolution...