Evolution or Creation

It isn't my intent to jump on the dog pile. However, the above perked my interest. Do you believe that a biologist could twist data or develop an agenda-driven theory and not get caught? Are you aware of both how competitive and how intensively scrutinized anything written for publication in scientific journals actually is? Or worse, presented at a scientific conference?

Interestingly, to the best of my knowledge, there haven't been all that many biologists (I can only think of examples like the mammoth DNA scandal awhile back) who've done something like this. And they have ALWAYS been caught - usually really quickly. As nator mentioned, one of the first things that happens with a new discovery or idea is that everybody else in a relevant or related subdiscipline tries to either replicate the data (through observation or experimentation), or tries to find fault with the idea (along the lines of "this is pretty out there, is there a better explanation for what was observed?"). Why do you think things like the Mungo Lake data is/was so controversial? And not really accepted by the specialists? Because sample contamination is a better explanation for the really odd results than a whole new theory of human origins. (If you don't know the story, I can give a brief precis). Given what I know of how the peer-review process in biology works, not many if any at all. We have LOTS of controversies, competing ideas, "battles of the data", arguments over interpretations, etc. However, that is the sign of a healthy science in action, not fraud. It took Margulis ten years (or thereabouts, I don't remember exactly) to get the idea that some cellular organelles in eukaryotes may hve been derived from symbiosis rather than developing over time via RM/NS. And she had really good data. It's something of a truism in science that the more radical or novel the claim, the more scrutiny it will undergo - and the more vociferous the arguments. Doesn't leave a lot of room for somebody trying to sneak falsified data or an agenda-driven idea into the mix.Do you have any specific examples in mind - in biology, 'cause that's what evolution is all about - or is your contention just a sort of general comment based on supposition, or something someone mentioned to you in passing?

It would be substantially off-topic to address each of these quotes here (this is Faith and Belief, after all). Pick one that you think is really really relevant and put up a PNT.BTW: I thought you said that biologists were the ones committing all the fraud (or weren't getting caught, or whatever). There isn't a single biologist listed in any of those quotes. Even though they are all spurious, it appears most of the accusations are being leveled at paleontologists, with one abiogenesis (biochemistry) note. Do you have any actual biology frauds? If not, perhaps you might consider modifiying your original accusation?

Umm, biology IS the study of evolution - at least in large measure. The ToE really IS the fundamental underpinning of all of that science, its related sciences, and all of its myriad subdisciplines. As Dobzhansky put it well over a half-century ago: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Obviously schraf made the same connection. If you are NOT claiming that biologists are frauds, then your accusation that "evolutionists" are frauds is at best misleading. As it stands, if biologists (the folks whose science is most concerned with evolution) are not frauds - and you have singularly failed to provide any substantiation for this claim - then your assertion is falsified and if you have any integrity at all you should admit it.I suppose it is possible you mean something else. I'll give you a chance to clarify. In other words, how are you using the term? What is an "evolutionist" in this context? How is "evolutionist" different from the scientists who study evolution?