Junk science

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Junk science is the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based mainly upon whether its conclusions support the answers (or views) favored by the promoters; see propaganda.

Junk science consists of giving poorly done scientific work the same authority as work which conforms to the scientific method. It is akin to politicized science, i.e., the selective use of scientific evidence to reach predetermined conclusions and support extra-scientific political goals.[1]

In some cases, junk science may result from a misinterpretation of previous sound scientific studies. An example of this is the misinterpretation of the research on eggs and cholesterol.[2] Studies had found that eggs contained cholesterol and that cholesterol in blood contributed to heart disease. So as a result of these studies, people were advised against eating eggs. What was missing, however, was a study showing that the cholesterol in blood is a direct result of cholesterol intake in diet. We know now that that is not the case, that saturated fat intake and overall body fat are the primary contributors to cholesterol production in blood.

Junk science can be easily identified based upon the way in which it is planned, carried out, manipulated/assessed, and then disseminated to the public. Also to watch out for are unnecessarily liberal conclusions, and no reference to relevant sections of the bible.

The following are, in the minds of the liberal junk scientists of today, the strategies (both intentional and unintentional) for:

Common Actions of Junk Scientists

The following are common actions that can be used to identify junk scientists and their work.

If you have any type of college degree, then you are capable of conducting “science” of any type
For example: prognosticating on the age of the Earth by using flawed techniques such as radiometric dating rather than consulting those who are well-versed in the true age of the Earth thru accurate creation science, Biblical scholarship, and Mideastern archaeology[3]

Do not defer to or consult with persons of more experience than you or who are of a different field than you
For example: ignoring creation scientists’ research merely because their results are more conclusive and sensible than your own

Just because it doesn’t rigidly adhere to the scientific method does not mean it’s not “scientific”
For example: saying that a fossil has to be particular age, yet not referencing instances of fossils being formed in very short matters of time[4]

Work in isolation from other scientists
For example: by ostracizing, firing, or refusing to fund creation scientists.

Use terminology, statistics, and methods incorrectly
For example: using the word "theory" and then claiming that it holds more weight than it actually does once people begin to question you

Do not define controls, limitations, or experimental conditions when discussing your experiment or its conclusion(s)
For example: liberal “climatologists” neglecting to mention that they’ve only been collecting data for a few decades, yet are making claims about multi-million year trends; this is how they perpetuate the myth of man-made global warming[5]

Give anecdotal evidence rather than proposing a detailed, testable mechanism
For example: seeing two fossils that appear to be evolutionary relatives, and then concluding one evolved from the other rather than saying one of them was just an isolated mutant[6]

Do not use the simplest explanation to suit your data; rather, use the one that would have the most impact on social, political, or moral matters
For example: instead of saying that we’re in the middle of a slightly warmer/cooler period of time, start telling everyone that humans have caused global climate change and thus we need to spend billions of dollars reducing carbon output

Do not worry about “gaps” in your conclusion; they will be filled in over time
For example: the numerous “missing link” hoaxes

Ad hominem
For example: call anyone who disagrees with you “uneducated”, “bigoted”, “biased”, “naïve”, etc.

Analyzing Junk Science

In the mind of the atheistic junk scientist…

Do not acknowledge mistakes in, flaws of, or future improvements to your study
For example, never consider that whatever “climate change” we’re enduring might be a temporary, and normal, shift in temperature as has happened several times in Earth’s history

Cite the smallest variety of references possible
For example: only using liberally- and politically-funded research instead of non-profit and unbiased research, etc. [7]

If it hasn’t be proven false, then it must be true (and vice versa)

Publishing Junk Science

In the mind of the atheistic junk scientist…

Do not cite, acknowledge, discuss, or consider alternative data or conclusions
For example: Darwinists not acknowledging the research and conclusions of creation scientists[8]

Make claims that are vague rather than precise, and omitting specific measurements
For example: Climate scientists claim to be 100% sure of 1-8 degrees of warming, how can they both be so unsure and so sure?

If you considered it to be true 30 years ago, then it must still be true today
For example: accepting the fraudulent drawings of Ernst Haeckel, but then never revising textbooks once his conclusions were proven incorrect

Your conclusion is irrefutable once it has been reached
For example: Darwinist scientists refusing to consider new paradigms proposed by creation science as they’ve been researched[9]

Emphasize the implications of your discovery rather than the details of it
For example: saying that since an embryo does not have a brain until the third month of pregnancy, then it cannot feel pain when it undergoes abortion during the first trimester[10]

Connect every conclusion to matters of social, political, or moral importance
For example: Barack Obama writing that moral relativism is acceptable because the incorrect theory of relativity is accepted by liberal universities and scientists who are funded by the federal government[11]

Claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress previous conclusions similar to your own

Target your publication towards summaries in popular magazines and websites rather than towards academic journals
For example: broadcasting fraudulent research on CBS, NBC, and ABC evening news programs before the research has had the chance to be verified by unbiased scientists

See also


  1. Burying Evidence: The Union of Concerned Scientists' Unscientific Claims about Air Pollution and Health
  2. http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/faculty/pbird/keepingfit/ARTICLE/eggs.HTM
  3. Answers in Genesis
  4. 50yr-old fossil
  5. Harvard study
  6. Creation Ministries International
  7. Washington Times
  8. Behe’s “The Design of Life”
  9. Discovery Institute
  10. CNS.org
  11. WorldNetDaily

Further reading

  • Peter W. Huber, Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom, 1993. ISBN 0-465-02624-9.