Peer Reviewed Fraud

For a long time now, people have touted the mighty peer-reviewed journal as the way to keep scientists honest. It was the place to go for real answers, and it’s been trusted and touted by atheists as the only source of wisdom. Only papers published by a peer-reviewed journal were worthy of being discussed among true scientists, therefore, papers not published in a peer-reviewed journal were meaningless. Such were the arguments regarding papers written against popular "scientific" studies such as climate change, and natural evolution.

For all practical purposes, atheists/scientists defended their peer-reviewed journals with the voracity of a Christian defending the Gospels. Okay, probably more.

Writing for PJ Lifestyle, Theodore Dalrymple brings into question just how much faith should be put into these journals. In Peer Review Fraud on the Rise at Scientific Journals he writes:

The pressure on academics to publish, irrespective of whether they have anything to say, either for the sake promotion or even of mere continuance in post, is the soil which allows this particular weed in the garden of human dishonesty to flourish.

What I’ve thought for a very long time is coming to light. Scientists are people, and contrary to atheistic thinking, scientists have the same wants, desires, and biases that every other human being on this planet has; they have the same tendency towards sin. Like any human being, greed and pride play in their minds, and regardless of their academic education, they’re no better, and no smarter.

The argument that a finding was published in a peer-reviewed journal never held a lot of weight with me, and still doesn’t. It holds even less now that the truth of peer-review is coming to light. That doesn’t mean peer-review doesn’t play an important role. What it means is that what you read needs be read with a grain of salt. Studies that defy common sense are to be questioned.

h/t: Rick Moran

Never Argue With An Atheist

Warning! Contains “mature” language!


I hate to generalize, but if you’ve ever read writings or dialogs involving atheists, I’m sure that you would have noticed the utter contempt for those who don’t see the world as they do, and a lack of civility and tolerance. Last week, I thought I would attempt a reasonable conversation with an Atheist, but was quickly reminded that that is not possible. Continue reading “Never Argue With An Atheist”

God and Gremlins: Why I Believe

Believing in God is akin to believing in gremlins. Believing in God is irrational, backwards, or illogical. At least this is what “rational” society would have you believe. Rational society also defines faith as believing in what you know isn’t so, but what they don’t understand is that this definition couldn’t be further from the truth. There are valid, and convincing, arguments for the existence of God, and not gremlins. As someone who flirted with atheism, I would like to share some of the evidence as to why I believe. Continue reading “God and Gremlins: Why I Believe”

Science Is A Tool, Not An Authority

One of the things Christians are attacked over is their “unreasonably blind” faith, and “willful ignorance” of modern science. Although I would agree that there are Christians that hold their beliefs without asking the questions of why, that is not the case for all, and those that do ask the questions find that there are reasonable arguments for the Christian worldview. Continue reading “Science Is A Tool, Not An Authority”