Wednesday, 4 May 2016

Evolutionists Are ”Vampirical More Than Empirical”

Gustave Doré: Hop-o'-My-Thumb steals the ogre's seven-league boots. Image courtesy of Creative Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0). While not a vampire, an ogre is obviously no more empirical than a vampire.

Joel Kontinen

I recently stumbled upon an interesting article in The Conversation by Akshat Rathi on the reliability of scientific research. Written in 2013, it is perhaps more timely now than ever, given the increasing numbers of papers being retracted (some unnecessarily so, due to blatant censorship):

In the past decade scientists have raised serious doubts about whether science is as self-correcting as is commonly assumed. Many published findings, including those in the most prestigious journals, have been found to be wrong. One of the reasons is that, once a hypothesis becomes widely accepted, it becomes very difficult to refute it, which makes it, as Jeremy Freese of Northwestern University recently put it, ‘vampirical more than empirical – unable to be killed by mere evidence’.”

The issue becomes even more serious through the very nature of Darwinian science that does not tolerate heresy and tries to shut down dissenting views.

As naturalistic/materialistic dogma is infallible in the eyes of some if not most of the beholders, they cannot allow the facts to spoil a good theory.

That should not be the way science is done.


Rathi, Akshat. 2013. Scientists falter as much as bankers in pursuit of answers. The Conversation (4 December).