What reasons do scientists have to lie?

Question

What reasons do astronomers have to lie about the age of celestial bodies?

What reasons do evolutionary biologists have to lie about evolution and natural selection?

What reasons do anthropologists have to lie about the phylogeny of hominids?

What reasons do astrophysicists have to lie about the age of the universe?

What reasons do geologists have to lie about the age of the earth?

What reasons do geneticists have to lie about microevolution?

What reasons do paleontologists have to lie about the age of fossils?

The Bible is not to be taken completely literally. Creationism or Intelligent Design is not a real science.

An individual scientist can lie but they can't get very far, their evidence needs to be peer-reviewed and corroborated.

That guy actually thinks all the scientists are lying to him because of fame. and money? I didn't know scientists were aspiring celebrities!

Poor deluded soul.

Unlike the Bible which is complete bullshit, science is rarely bullshit and they try to correct themselves over time.
The Bible just says bends its rules on interpreting it. The Bible says the world is flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. They can't re-interpret that bullshit.

You believe that every scientist is bullying every other science to believe what they believe? The evolutionary biologist from Sweden is bulliying the new Swedish evolutionary biologist! And consequently the new American evolutionary biologist is being bullied as well. There's a mass conspiracy because the predecessory scientist of a given field of science is bullying the new scientists that are entering the same field! Science isn't dogmatic because scientists are critical of their own work and other scientist have to criticize whatever discovery is found.

You're basically saying that there is a huge global conspiracy. You're clearly delusional.

Answer 1

I am a believer, but its ridiculous to suggest scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to deceive mankind.

Answer 2

Scientists are men, human beings with all the frailties of any man on the street. Science is the observation of events that occur in nature on a repetitive basis so as to make predictions about those events. The tools of science are the five senses and the machinery, optics, tools, etc to enhance those five senses.
Science can only observe in the physical realm, and only partially in the physical realm, as the physical realm is way too big for our five senses to reach, notwithstanding the enhancers to the five senses. Too many scientists push their valued judgments and biases as if they were true science. A picture hangs on the wall. One man says it is ugly, another says it is different, a child says it is a picture. Only the child spoke a scientific statement. The men spoke valued judgments. Even if a scientist is honest and strives to keep his valued judgments and biases out of his research, and even saying that that is possible, he is severely limited because man can only observe what he can see, touch, smell, hear, and taste. There is a whole physical universe out there that we cannot observe. Another limitation of science is that it cannot observe the spiritual realm. Science is limited to observation of the physical world that surrounds us, yet people thoughtlessly believe science is the tell all to end all tell alls. A leap of an assumption is nothing more than a leaping assumption. It is not science. Creation is true but nobody was there to observe. We have to take God's word for it. I do, many don't. Yet I never think a salt shaker evolved. In fact, we weren't there to observe who made the salt shaker. Yet by faith we believe a man made it. We take it for granted. The thing I noticed that is different between what man makes and what God makes is that man cannot make something that is alive and reproduces. When I see the trees, I marvel that they have been reproducing since the beginning of the world. When God makes things, they are alive. It is marvelous to consider.

Answer 3

So much of it is academic peer pressure; it’s not wanting to be different. We are so indoctrinated in molecules-to-man evolution, and many people are intimidated (e.g. Ben Stein's new movie).

But secular scientists are fallible human beings with limited knowledge and limited understanding, and like every human, they hate to be criticized and are subject to bias and preconceived ideas, and they don’t want to lose their grant money.

Neo-Darwinian evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who don’t know everything and who were not there. And history shows that the scientific establishment has been wrong time after time; that is why the science textbooks constantly have to be revised.

The majority of scientists used to believe that the world was flat; did that make it flat? The majority of doctors used to think they didn’t need to wash their hands before an operation; did that save the people they were infecting? And on and on... Those who discovered the truth and tried to teach differently were soundly rejected by their colleagues.

Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup made an interesting statement: “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology...I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?”

From what I have seen, I have to agree with T. Wallace: “A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)”

It is unwise to bet your life on any scientific theory, no matter how popular it is.

Dr. Ross Olson, “Even though the scientific method is supposed to encourage objectivity, some data get recorded and some get ignored, some articles get published and some get rejected—a lot depends on the very human motives of individual people. Even looking at the same data and the same articles, different observers can come to different conclusions. Great breakthroughs in science are not achieved only by the brilliant. They are shared by the honest and courageous who study the emperor’s new clothes and regard truth as more important than political correctness or a grant for further study. This does not mean that someone outside the herd is automatically right. But proper conclusions may be opposed by scholars with ulterior motives.”

So why do so many people believe in evolution? It’s simple, most people believe what they want to believe and they don’t want there to be a God. You see, if God created us, then He also owns us. If He owns us, then He has a right to set the rules by which we must live. If He has set the rules by which we must live, then we are accountable to Him. They don’t want to be accountable to God; they don’t want to be controlled. And so, it is their desire to explain the origin of everything without a Creator at all costs; they must believe in evolution. Evolutionism then, is intrinsically an atheistic religion—the religion of secular humanism.

Answer 4

to answer your question in the collective meaning scientist as a group NONE

as a individual yes .. of course personal gain etc .. but as a group NONE



Scientific Method
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Anything not conclusion Not gained by this process is irrelivent !!!!

Answer 5

When someone has a proven bancrupt belief the only argument they are left with is to unjustly accuse those with opposing views of lying in the hope that some might believe them.

Answer 6

I don't believe that all of them are doing it intentionally. There is another perspective to look at the evidence from. The dating of anything isn't a clear science either. The dates and ages have been changed so many times, I just get the impression that they aren't really sure themselves. And if they aren't sure, how can they possibly convince me.

Answer 7

Um...they have no incentive to lie...and I doubt that they ARE lying...the evidence does not lie. Hope I helped....^_^
-EDIT- The only way they would "lie" is when another scientist does an experiment and disproves the theory that the original scientist made. Then scientists do not lie. Hope this makes some sense...

Answer 8

Anyone can lie about anything for a profit motive.

Now do I think scientist lie in general? No, not at all. I think they pretty much are the key to truth.

Answer 9

They can't accept there is a God for one.

I don't think they lie, I just think they are wrong, same group of idiots that told everyone that the world was flat you know.

The laws of science and nature are man made laws and God defies those laws.

God created everything.

Answer 10

Research Grants! $$$$$
See "cold fusion"

But these are probably the few among the many honorable and good scientists!