Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter. Isaiah 56:11
"The headline in New Scientist was striking and specific: “Over 90 Percent of Scientists Admit to Questionable Research Behaviors.”
The ‘shades of grey’ in research integrity—Researchers admit to questionable research practices that they do not perceive to be serious (Entradas, M., et al., PLoS One 21(1):e0339056, 12 January 2026).
One question of special interest to creationists was listed as number
Likewise, question number two in the survey asked: “I did not conduct a thorough literature review.” This is a serious lapse in scientific practice. Conducting a thorough literature review on the topic of your research is critical in any area of research.
For question number one, 7 percent admitted they sometimes or frequently engaged in this unethical practice, 24 percent admitted doing so occasionally. For question number two, while 17 percent admitted they sometimes or frequently failed to conduct a thorough review, almost half admitted doing so occasionally.
Here is how an AI engine explained evolutionists’ rationalizations for ignoring creationist research:
"The scientific peer-review process is designed to scrutinize all new ideas. Because evolution is the fundamental framework of modern biology, findings that challenge it are subjected to higher levels of scrutiny. While some studies suggest an unfair “taboo” against anti-evolutionary views, others highlight that the vast majority of findings that challenge evolution fail to provide a robust scientific alternative or fail to hold up to scrutiny."
“Robust” is a flowery term that is often used in this context, yet it is vague and imprecise. For example, certain biological structures are frequently labeled as vestigial. However, in my own review of the peer-reviewed literature, I found documented functions for each structure I examined, illustrating the claim in this quote is false. I have observed similar issues in other commonly cited lines of evidence for evolution, including interpretations of the fossil record.
Another major concern identified in the survey was the statement “I chose not to report my findings if they contradicted my theory.” If research findings do not support evolution, it is likely they will not be published.
This problem has plagued science for much of its history. The inventor of the mechanical computer, Charles Babbage (1791–1871), in his work ‘Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and on Some of its Causes’ (1830), described four types of scientific dishonesty that remain relevant today:
hoaxing (promoting false claims),
forging (altering data),
trimming (ignoring contradictory evidence),
and cooking the data. (fabricating results).
One form of “fraud” not explicitly addressed in the survey, but is highly relevant to evolutionary claims, is the use of misleading implications.
Human evolution is one prime example.
.webp)
Other blunders are evident in this tome. For human phylogeny, Australopiths (specifically Lucy) were listed as the bridge to humans from our common ape ancestor. Now that Lucy has been carefully documented to be a type of ape, and not a bridge between humans and our common ancestor, the results are clear: No evidence exists supporting human evolution from apes. The book making that claim illustrated in this chart the fact that ape-to-human evolution is not supported by the fossil evidence. Although the evidence for Lucy as an ape is now overwhelming, the claims for a transitional form were problematic from its first discovery.
The use of questionable methods to support evolutionary claims is a common recurring issue within the scientific literature on origins. The Entradas study is one example of the evidence of flawed research that appears to be distorted both to sell Darwinism to a naïve public and to reinforce belief in the evolutionary paradigm."
CEH
