Can science paper retractions become reality TV?

Did Darwin not indicate something that would indeed falsify his theory, if it transpired to be the case - and it did. But he was carried along on the tsunami of rabid excitement of the atheist activists, wasn't he? He was gulled, a sap, a pigeon, a booby. Axel

Nick Matzke also tried, in response to Michael Behe's claim about irreducibly complex molecular machines, to literature bluff about the origin of molecular machines by unguided material processes:

Calling Nick Matzke's literature bluff on molecular machines - DonaldM UD blogger - April 2013 Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along. Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard. Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291

What should be needless to say, since the main evidence(s) supporting the claims that unguided material processes can generate non-trivial functional information is found to be based on deception and misrepresentation, then perhaps it is a sure sign that we are dealing with a dogma instead of a real science? bornagain77

Of related note as to how peer review is practiced Darwinian style. Although the main question that Intelligent Design proponents always have for neo-Darwinists is, 'Where did the information come from?',,,

Dr. Stephen Meyer: Darwin's Dilemma - Where did the information come from? - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CTKKrtSc8k

although that is the primary question for neo-Darwinists, the origin of non-trivial functional information, and/or molecular machines, is never demonstrated in the peer reviewed literature of Darwinists.

“The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.” David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology

Non-trivial functional information, and/or molecular machines, is always merely assumed to be result of unguided Darwinian processes in the peer reviewed literature of Darwinists. It is never demonstrated! In fact, unguided evolution is found to be a superfluous 'narrative gloss' in the peer reviewed literature of Darwinists:

"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.,,, In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology." Philip S. Skell - (Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology - The Scientist - August 29, 2005) (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

At the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, Dr. Behe gives an example of how positive evidence is falsely attributed to evolution by using the word 'evolution' as a narrative gloss in peer-reviewed literature:

Michael Behe - Life Reeks Of Design – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThY

Drs. Gauger and Wells comment here on the superfluous nature of Darwinian explanations in the peer-reviewed literature of Darwinists

Rewriting Biology Without Spin By Ann Gauger - Jan. 12, 2014 Excerpt: It’s a funny thing—scientific papers often have evolutionary language layered on top of the data like icing on a cake. In most papers, the icing (evolutionary language) sits atop and separate from the cake (the actual experimental data). Even in papers where the evolutionary language is mixed in with the data like chocolate and vanilla in a marble cake, I can still tell one from the other. I have noticed that this dichotomy creates a kind of double vision. I know what the data underlying evolutionary arguments are. By setting aside the premise that evolution is true, I can read what’s on the page and at the same time see how that paper would read if neutral, fact-based language were substituted for evolutionary language. Let me give you an example.,,, http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/107965814309/rewriting-biology-without-spin Jonathan Wells on pop science boilerplate - April 20, 2015 Excerpt: Based on my reading of thousands of Peer-Reviewed Articles in the professional literature, I’ve distilled (the) template for writing scientific articles that deal with evolution: 1. (Presuppose that) Darwinian evolution is a fact. 2. We used [technique(s)] to study [feature(s)] in [name of species], and we unexpectedly found [results inconsistent with Darwinian evolution]. 3. We propose [clever speculations], which might explain why the results appear to conflict with evolutionary theory. 4. We conclude that Darwinian evolution is a fact. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/darwinism/jon-wells-on-pop-science-boilerplate/

Thus since Darwinists have no actual evidence that unguided Darwinian processes can produce non-trivial functional information, and/or molecular machines, how have Darwinists managed to convince a large segment of the public that Darwinian evolution is as well supported as gravity? Well, it turns out that, for lack of a better word, deception plays a big part in keeping the general public hoodwinked. In fact, at the Dover trial, a theatrical and fraudulent 'literature dump' was orchestrated by Darwinists in the courtroom that purported to show overwhelming evidence for how the immune system evolved by unguided Darwinian processes. Yet, when the literature from that theatrical 'literature dump' was carefully gone through, by an expert in immunology, it was found that none of the literature actually supported the claims of the Darwinists, but were merely comparative studies that had nothing at all to do with the evolution of the systems. In this following podcasts, Casey Luskin interviews microbiologist and immunologist Donald Ewert on the Dover incident, and on the peer reviewed papers on immunology in general

"A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception": Immunologist Donald Ewert on Dover Trial - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-20T15_01_03-08_00 What Does Evolution Have to Do With Immunology? Not Much - Donald Ewert - April 2011 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-04-06T11_39_03-07_00

The deception (literature bluff), from neo-Darwinists at Dover, did not stop with immunology, but also extended to claims about the origin of functional information;

The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information – Casey Luskin – March 2010 http://www.discovery.org/a/14251 Assessing the NCSE’s Citation Bluffs on the Evolution of New Genetic Information – Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/assessing_the_ncses_citation_b.html

Nick Matzke, (who was instrumental in helping prepare the Dover, and NCSE's, literature bluffs about the origin of genetic information), also tried to literature bluff about the origin of genetic information when Stephen Meyer's book 'Darwin's Doubt' came out. His bogus claims are refuted here:

Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/hopeless_matzke075631.html

bornagain77