As usual, it’s not really “peer review” so much as …

Comment on Report on LSU constituency meeting by Erik.

As usual, it’s not really “peer review” so much as it is “peer pressure.” It’s a big boys’ club, and they don’t take kindly to having independent thinkers in the group. As long as you rubber stamp their pet theories as fact, they’ll honor you as an “outstanding scientist” (misnomer). In America, it used to be said that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, while in Asia it is said that the nail that sticks out gets hammered in. Scientists today seem to follow the Asian way–no one is allowed to stick out, they all must stick together. Instead of the squeaky wheel getting greased, it gets replaced with one that won’t squeak. No whistle-blowers allowed!


Erik Also Commented

Report on LSU constituency meeting
Geanna said:

Dude, where did you learn your science? Do you really believe article after article affirms all of the prior work done on a topic? Do you really believe most science is rubber stamped by reviewers and editors?

Geanna, of course there could never be any conspiracies in the world today. There is no reason for such, you know…no money in it, no power. (Tongue in cheek.)

I’m reminded of a cartoon I once saw where a girl in pigtails and freckles asks her father about something she just read in the newspaper. The father answers “Yes, Virginia, if it’s in the paper it must be true.”

Do you believe everything you read? Obviously not. The catch with modern science is that it is often tied to finances. Marketing. Research grants. Etc. Case in point: many of these so-called “third party” research groups that help to research and publish studies in the medical journals…guess who funds them? The pharmaceutical companies, aka “big pharma.” Guess what they do with research results that are unflattering toward their product? They don’t publish those. You see, perhaps they can claim to be doing “scientific” research, but it still seems a bit unscientific to me that they might be shelving nine out of ten studies, and not publishing them, only printing the one that favored their product.

True science is interested in facts, and readily accepts even unfavorable evidence in the pursuit of knowledge. The “peer review” process has turned “science” into a sham. It does this by refusing evidence deemed unfavorable. In modern times, this especially means evidence for creation. There will always be some level of debate within the scientific community. But you just don’t see much on this level. It’s all “evolutionism.”

As I’ve said before, there were many scientists in Noah’s day telling the world it would be impossible to have rain. Apparently, the masses were convinced…at the cost of their lives. I’m one who puts faith in God, for as the world’s Creator, He knows a lot more than scientists do.

When God says He created the world in six literal days, don’t you think God knows what He did and didn’t do at that time? Jesus Himself spoke of the scriptures, including the books of Moses, and never once ventured to “set the record straight.” It already was straight.

Why now does LSU wish to do that which Jesus did not do?


Report on LSU constituency meeting
Quoting Geanna:

Gentry submitted papers. They were accepted and published. Are you suggesting that Dr. Chadwick has written and submitted his papers but that they were rejected?

Did you read the materials on the links I provided? It seems you have not.

It is true that some of Dr. Gentry’s papers were published. This was during the early stage of his work when he was still silent on his Creationist viewpoint. As soon as his evidence began supporting Creation, the papers were no longer published. In addition, some of what he had already published was removed from the archives and no longer publicly accessible. This amounted to clear anti-Creationist censorship.

As for Dr. Chadwick, it is even more difficult for a creation scientist to have articles published in the “peer reviewed” journals today than it may have been for Dr. Gentry some years ago. Where should Dr. Chadwick publish? Can you know of a certainty, Geanna, that he has not tried? Would you have a way of knowing if his articles were refused?

The way “peer review” works today basically amounts to “I’ll accept it for publishing if I like it and agree with it, regardless of the scientific quality it represents.” A good case in point, one which hit the news on a non-origins topic, is the statistical reports of accidents at red-light camera intersections.

The industry does not want to publish the best, most comprehensive study to date on that topic because its results are unfavorable. The same is true in the evolutionist camp. The scientific quality means nothing. The conclusion is everything. They don’t want to publish anything that would refute their pet theories. Why should they? Who wants to let evidence see the light of day that will make him or her lose face and prove their theories were flawed?

In a worldly sense, these evolutionists are to be congratulated as having succeeded in dominating the world with their religion. Nevertheless, we Christians know Who will win this war, regardless of the outcome of this present skirmish.

So, why does LSU wish to tell the world that Adventists don’t believe God created the world in six days as He said He did? Should this not make us ashamed? Why will LSU choose the losing side and favor the world, when Jesus, looking to the future, prayed especially for His followers, saying “I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.” (John 17:14-15)

Why do the world’s theories look so attractive to us when our treasure is in Heaven? Should we not rather treasure God’s Word and believe it?


Report on LSU constituency meeting

Have you heard what the scientific community has done with Dr. Robert V. Gentry’s scientific work? Don’t try to tell me his evidence was just a “hobby.”

Here are several important sites where you may find information related to his case. His case presents very strong evidence of the “big boys’ club” that is called “peer review.” –> PDFs of his published articles –> Documentation of anti-Creationist censorship –> More info relative to his case and credentials


Recent Comments by Erik

CCC Requests “Decisive and Conclusive Resolution” from LSU
Dear Adventist in High School,

The devil frequently mixes just a small amount of error in with a larger amount of truth. This is sufficient to accomplish his purposes. He does not need to undermine every truth, only some select truths. The Bible tells us how to know whether or not we can accept something as pure and true: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20). If what they say, even a part of it, does not agree with scripture, even the rest of what they have said is of no value according to this.

We have a saying in English that goes something like this:

A barrel full of sewage with one tablespoon of wine is sewage.
A barrel full of wine with one tablespoon of sewage is sewage.

It does not matter how much “wine” there may be with that sewage, the sewage has perverted the entirety.

Consider how entirely the “sewage” has perverted truth at LSU, given that one of the professors’ statements relegated Mrs. White to “the lunatic fringe” for “the absolute necessity of believing that the only way a creator God could do things is by speaking them into existence a few thousand years ago.” Mrs. White clearly informed us that Creation week was six literal days about six thousand years ago, and further, she has told us that God was not dependent upon pre-existing matter and could but speak them into existence. Yet all of that flies in the face of those who wish to believe their own opinions to be superior to inspiration, doesn’t it? It makes perfect sense that if they believe we evolved from apes, they could not believe what Ellen White taught was true.

Nay, the evolutionist “sewage” has defiled the pure and true at LSU, and its effect permeates the remaining departments of the university. One cannot contain such a far-reaching apostasy as this within a single corner or department of the university. Indeed, we have been given clear evidences that the theologians at the university have also been affected. Whither goes the biology department, and then the theology department, thither goes the whole school.


Mrs. White: “Don’t send your children to…”

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13)

“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” (Romans 8:14)

“That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.” (Philippians 2:15)

“Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:1-2)

We are the sons of God if we receive Christ and follow Him. The line of Seth did this, and were, therefore, called the sons of God. Cain’s descendants did not follow God, and were not called His sons.


Mrs. White: “Don’t send your children to…”

The descendants of Seth were called the sons of God–the descendants of Cain, the sons of men. As the sons of God mingled with the sons of men, they became corrupt, and by intermarriage with them, lost, through the influence of their wives, their peculiar, holy character, and united with the sons of Cain in their idolatry. Many cast aside the fear of God, and trampled upon his commandments. But there were a few who did righteousness, who feared and honored their Creator. Noah and his family were among the righteous few. {3SG 60.2}

After the translation of Enoch to heaven, the sons of men that were set against the worship of God were drawing away the sons of God. There were two parties in the world then, and there always will be. The worshipers of God called themselves the sons of God. The descendants of Seth went up into the mountains and there made themselves homes separate from the sons of Cain. Here in their mountainous homes they thought to preserve themselves from the prevailing wickedness and idolatry of the descendants of Cain. But after the exhortations and the influence of Enoch were removed from them, they commenced to unite with the descendants of Cain. {CTr 39.2}

That should help clarify the identity of the “sons of God.”


Mrs. White: “Don’t send your children to…”

It does our position no service to claim too much or to base too much on such large leaps into very thin air… claiming that this or that animal within the fossil record was the clear result of human genetic manipulation before the flood and for that reason was not saved on the Ark….


It seems like Ellen White said “Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark” (1 SP 78.2). Therefore, any species which became extinct at the time of the flood must necessarily have come about via amalgamation. That seems fairly clear. So we know where T-Rex came from, right?


Mrs. White: “Don’t send your children to…”

Your logic is sound regarding what amalgamation cannot be properly applied to. Such applications as forbid certain inter-human marriages are racist, as you have said, and as I have attempted to express. I almost fully agree with your reasoning on this. However, I will differ slightly on one point, and that is that since we do not know how the amalgamations occurred, we cannot rule out the possibility of men tinkering with plant, animal, and human genetics by means of cross-breeding (as opposed to a more “laboratory” approach). They were very intelligent. Perhaps they knew ways of intermixing species which we would never guess could be mixed with any survivable result, including humans with animals.

So, on the lighter side, if evolutionists like to think they have descended from apes…maybe we should give them a fair hearing (and a DNA test)!