Doug Axe on hidden research constraints

4 Replies to “Doug Axe on hidden research constraints”

1. 1
   bornagain77 says:

   August 8, 2016 at 3:34 am

   In AA denial of the way things really are is seen as a form of insanity that prevents recovery. i.e. Denialism. Thus, the institutional denialism seen in peer review of the apparent design seen in life is a form of insanity imposed at the institutional peer review level of science.

   Jonathan Wells, Ann Gauger, and Philip Skell, lay out how this insanity in peer review works out:

   Darwinian ‘science’ in a nutshell:

   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.
   http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ilerplate/

   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.o.....thout-spin

   “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.
   I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
   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 – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005
   http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

   It is interesting to note that underneath the insane ‘narrative gloss’ that Darwinists artificially impose on the peer review literature that they still, none-the-less, cannot rid themselves of ‘design language’ underneath it all:

   The ‘Mental Cell’: Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! – Stephen L. Talbott – September 9, 2014
   Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”.
   Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness1.
   One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself.
   http://natureinstitute.org/txt.....ell_23.htm

   Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails – Ann Gauger – June 2011
   Excerpt: I’m a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them.
   Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn’t troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it’s high time we moved on. – Matthew
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....nt-8858161

   The formal Darwinism project – June 2015
   Excerpt: Today, as molecular biologists choose to call some of their discoveries ‘mechanisms’, and ascribe ‘functions’ to enzymes, they use purposive language and so they also adopt the design approach. It is arguably impossible to undertake work in many areas of biology without doing so:
   https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/the-formal-darwinism-project/
2. 2
   bornagain77 says:

   August 9, 2016 at 9:18 am

   Conversations with Douglas Axe: Where Did Darwin Go Wrong? – video
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS3-MQT4SEaLNloU5v2poZKf&v=kMEjaSmTkkc
3. 3
   J-Mac says:

   August 9, 2016 at 3:41 pm

   “Only a very few research scientists have the opportunity to work against that disjointed view by openly studying life as something clearly and cleverly designed. I am one and can count the others on my fingers.”

   Hmmmm… How is this possible in the 21st century that a small group of people, lets say 1% of the human population, has gained so much power?

   How is it possible that 99% of the rest of the human population have to pay for this nonsense research and have to accept the results rigged before the research or studies are done?

   How does this nonsense “science” ends up published in so-called “scientific journals”, so the majority of the 99% of human society would think it is the “truth”…

   How did it end up like that? Who created a system that promotes lies and why would anybody in the right frame of mind promote it?

   Does anybody have any ideas?
   I think I might get one or two from someone I trust in these matters….
4. 4
   J-Mac says:

   August 9, 2016 at 3:50 pm

   Here is the first idea I had forgotten about…

   If you don’t know what the problem is (meaning the reason (s) for human actions that are inconceivable) follow the money… Greed often wins…or a decision between being a well paid scientist or not having a “prestigious job”…