From the New York Times:
Virtually every major scientific and medical journal has been humbled recently by publishing findings that are later discredited. The flurry of episodes has led many people to ask why authors, editors and independent expert reviewers all failed to detect the problems before publication….
A widespread belief among nonscientists is that journal editors and their reviewers check authors’ research firsthand and even repeat the research. In fact, journal editors do not routinely examine authors’ scientific notebooks. Instead, they rely on peer reviewers’ criticisms, which are based on the information submitted by the authors.
While editors and reviewers may ask authors for more information, journals and their invited experts examine raw data only under the most unusual circumstances.
In that respect, journal editors are like newspaper editors, who check the content of reporters’ copy for facts and internal inconsistencies but generally not their notes. Still, journal editors have refused to call peer review what many others say it is — a form of vetting or technical editing.
If you are aware of how little actual editing and fact-checking newspaper editors do – I caught three errors in my own column yesterday that the editor missed and asked him to correct them – then this should shake the faith of all of those who believe so firmly in the religion of science. And that slap at “widespread belief among nonscientists” must have stung those who consider themselves to be scientists-by-proxy based on their distaste for religion.
Now, science is a very useful tool. One would have to be a fool to deny it. But like logic, it has two-edges and it is possible to misapply it, to hide untruth behind it and to take its conclusions too far. Those who hate and fear religion often talk of science as if it is practiced by holy secular saints, when the reality is that there is more fraud and blatant money grubbing among scientists than there is on the part of televangelists.
What is the difference between an Oral Roberts who says that God will “take him home” if he doesn’t receive an amount of money and a scientist who applies for a government grant for a study based on falsified data? They’re both lying con men as far as we can tell, but at least those who give to Mr. Roberts have a choice, nothing is being forcibly taken from them backed by the threat of government force.
Critics of religion like to point to its evils and ignore its proven benefits. (In fact, they usually have manufacture the evils and try to blame religion for things which it bears no responsibility, like war.) But to be intellectually honest, one cannot consider the many good things which have come from science, (medicine, longer lifespans, safe childbirths, computer games), without also noting its obvious evils, (more and more efficient ways to kill more people).
The Bible has repeatedly proven to be more reliable than modern archeology, sociology and psychology. One can even make a case that it anticipated some aspects of modern physics, although that’s debatable. Some atheists wonder how an intelligent, educated person can believe in the Bible. I, on the other hand, constantly wonder how any intelligent, educated person can look at the massive fraud and many contradictions that permeate modern science and place their unquestioning faith in that.