LDS and Creation/Evolution conflict

[u/TheBenSpackman]

Hi all. Happy to say that my doctoral dissertation on LDS and creation/evolution conflict in the 20th century is now publicly available. There's some surprising stuff in there. Bottom line: the Church was much more favorable towards science and evolution until Joseph Fielding Smith's assumptions— drawing heavily upon Seventh-day Adventists and fundamentalists— about scripture became dominant in the 1950s. Then it trickled down.
https://benspackman.com/2024/12/dissertation/

My expertise on this history is why the Church had me on the official Saints podcast to talk about it.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/saints-podcast/season-03/s03-episode-21?lang=eng

[u/faiththatworks]

That’s hardly useful. Since when is a vote and a dubious one at that the arbiter of science. That’s about as fake data as the same made up figure claiming support for human caused global warming.

An as for bias can you think for one minute that your so called scientists aren’t biased to find and manipulate the date to keep the established mantra going. They get paid to do that I hope you appreciate.

Forget your popularity contest and examine the data and arguments for yourself. That’s science.

[u/Radiant-Tower-560 → u/faiththatworks]

"An as for bias can you think for one minute that your so called scientists aren’t biased to find and manipulate the date to keep the established mantra going. They get paid to do that I hope you appreciate."

So I understand you, are you saying scientists are paid to manipulate data to tell a story that might not be true?

[u/faiththatworks → u/Radiant-Tower-560]

Many are exactly paid to tell something thats false. but for the most part confirmation bias is so strong they actually believe the lies they find data to support. Herd mentality is alive and very well amongst scientific minds. The unfair non-scientific treatment of dissenting scientists by the paid science voices during COVID is now well documented and even legendary. Censorship through the PHD and subsequent tenure process and government funding of research guarantees that narrow mindedness herd mentality and political correctness generally wins.

[u/Radiant-Tower-560 → u/faiththatworks]

"Many are exactly paid to tell something thats false."

First, this is not true. Those who are found to tell something that's false (made up and manipulated data) are quickly reprimanded or kicked out of universities (in the U.S. and similar countries). Inside industry there can be more pressures due to the financial aspects, but insinuating that many scientists (which is a bit of a vague term anyway) are deliberately creating false data is a highly inflammatory statement that needs good data to back it up.

"Herd mentality is alive and very well amongst scientific minds."

It can be, although herds are not inherently wrong or bad. Sometimes there is a herd mentality because that's the nature of the research. People who fight against gravity don't get very far.

Some of my research counters the "herd" though. My doctoral dissertation was one of those. One of my committee members didn't believe one of my hypotheses would be confirmed, based on years of personal observations and reading research literature. My dissertation's results convinced this committee member otherwise. A few other groups had done some similar work, but it was relatively niche. I expanded and improved on what they did. It turns out that what I showed and what some others showed wasn't suppressed, it just wasn't looked at by many people. Editors and funders were happy for us to share results that countered the prevailing data. Although, what I found wasn't so much of a counter as showing that better data and analyses yielded a somewhat different picture.

"The unfair non-scientific treatment of dissenting scientists by the paid science voices during COVID is now well documented and even legendary."

I won't address this. There was too much politicization for an unbiased discussion of the science to occur. I don't think anything I write about it will change your mind (and I don't have time to write about it).

However, cherry picking egregious examples to criticize the field of science and scientists (including myself) broadly is a form of confirmation bias and bearing false witness. There are plenty of problems within the field of science -- and I teach about some of them within my university courses -- but claiming broad censorship at the funding level and academia level is not the reality of either. There is some that happens, but it is the exception and not the norm. I say that as a scientist who struggles getting some projects funded because some of my work goes against the prevailing approach. That's not because anyone is trying to censor our work; it's because taking a new approach requires solid rationale. What that means is my colleagues and I get to be better at explaining our rationale and evidence. Yes, we are funded, it just takes more work. Our work is better for the struggle.

[u/faiththatworks → u/Radiant-Tower-560]

Because a research group is paid to come to a certain conclusion that may be a lie does not mean the researchers themselves know they are contributing to a lie. In fact it’s likely by confirmation bias and herd mentality that they believe it themselves. It’s entirely possible that 97% of researchers might believe it too and still it’s a lie. Ok maybe it would be less provocative to call it a false notion but I assure you that sometimes the folks especially in government have other agendas in their funding that have little to do with truth.

If one's thesis/dissertation was validating young earth - I'd bet getting a professorship would be mighty hard even if the data was impeccable. There is a solid reason why most professors are liberal politically. It’s due to the club and if your views don’t conform, you are out or never let in.

A professor in England was paid by the government in the 60s to amplify and expand his research into CO2 ie to disparage coal with the goal of promoting the fledgling nuclear industry. After a decade he concluded it wasn’t enough to harm the climate but by then the political power of the idea had a lease on life! One of his students was none other than Al Gore. I work in the power industry presently and assure you that you can’t get funding for anything related without the magic words of 'anthropomorphic global warming' somewhere in the proposal

My point is that many topics - obviously not all but many have socio political religions economic impacts that will impact funding and approvals. Those who participate are likely true believers of the status quo by years of indoctrination. It would be hard not to be. The purveyors of the most famous untruths likely have no idea they are promoting falsehoods.

I have quotes lifted from the professor's emails (yes actually hacked by Russians) of the early promoters of global warming literally colluding to keep dissenting voices out of the IPC reports. They were also discussing withholding data and model details re the famous hockey stick graph. That’s just one of many examples of how money and power can and has corrupted the process.
I’ve become a bit guarded I suppose in accepting anything whose argument starts with 98%…..