There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.
In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.
Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.
Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.
Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either-so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.
After the Pakistan Floods, Why Relief Help Was Slow to Arrive
MIND on Pain: Why People Experience Pain Differently
Secrets of the Phallus: Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That?
How Big a Battery Would It Take to Power All of the U.S.?
Tapped Out?: Are Chlorine's Beneficial Effects in Drinking Water Offset by Its Links to Cancer?
Array of Hope: Australia and South Africa Vie for Massive Radio Telescope Project
61 Comments
Add CommentAbout ten sentences into the article I scanned up to see if this was an April Fool's Day submission. Yep. Funny stuff.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen my son emailed this column to me, it included an eye-popping pop-up featuring young women in scanty swimsuits. The layout seemed to read, "Scientific American: The Latest Swimsuits." Somehow that seemed the perfect accompaniment for this column, and it took me a moment to realize the joke. Thanks for the chuckle ~ even if it followed a frisson of fear at the wrongly perceived loss of this venerable magazine's standards.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's refreshing to see the editors finally coming to their senses. I look forward to reading more intelligently designed comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe designed becomes the designer. It's a beautiful thing. :)
A. Gene Young
I have never understood why some people think that science and religion are incompatible. They are distinct disciplines addressing different issues. Religion addresses the relationship between man and the divine. Science addresses how things work; it never mentions who (or Who) may have had the original idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about more up to date details in the news about global warming? For instance I hear from my old navy shipmates that at the point of crossing the equator, the extreme temperature (due to global warming) has reached the point where the upper structure of their ships begin to melt. Then the guys have to go out and try to pry and hammer away to get everything back into shape again before it cools off too much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso a comic section and a crossword puzzle would be a nice addition to Scientific American.
Why do people get so confused when there is such simple line. When you can prove it, its science. When you can't or you have to bring god or a higher being into the picture to make it fit, its religion. Religion and science are quintessentially not the same thing. By the same case, if you could prove god existed it would no longer be religion but fact. Don't get me wrong i am not attacking religion or its followers, people have a right to believe what they want, but they have to understand that its not science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell the scientific method isn't exactly "prove it and its science". Your point is well taken.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisID is simply a hypothesis with no observations to confirm its predictions and many that contradict it.
Evolution is a hypothesis which has many experiments and observations that confirm its predictions and none that contradict it, that makes it a theory. When an observation DOES contradict some part of it then the theory is rewritten and fixed to take the new information into account.
This is the whole point of science, to catalog human observations in the interest of providing a framework for logical predictions of the world around us, it does not claim to provide unequivocal truths.
ID is religious dogma rewritten into a metaphysical argument along the lines of Aristotle and it's done assuming it's own conclusion, it's certainly not science.
God does not exist. This is my belief and I have as much right to state the same dogmatically as any other believer. Having said this I agree that a magazine such as SciAm must present all sides of all arguments. ALL sides of ALL arguments. This means that unless there are some pretty extensive articles about the creation of the world by the ancestral spirits during the Australian Dream-Time, I shall be forced to assume that SciAm is manipulating human knowledge for it's own dark ends, quite possibly out of racism against the native peoples of Australia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's about friggen time, too. I have long demanded that Stork Theory be taught in the public schools as a scientific alternative to sexual intercourse for the creation of babies, and it is my hope that SciAm will likewise take a proactive, honest approach to the coverage of all such phenomena. Far too long now the scientist elite have dictated truth. I say it's time the morons got to decide. -- Fredric L. Rice
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a rather confused Christian I would rather hope for an eternal creator than some accidental appearence of everything from nowhere
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod gives a meaning to life and Atheism does not.
Gerald Housden.
Beautiful. I can see that sciam has finally been touched by his noodly appendage. I look forward to upcoming articles espousing the benefits of pirates, midgets, and pasta.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisramen
Andrew Monty, I agree with you that there is a clear point where science and religion are two different things and that is wherever the evidence stops.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisID proves scientifically and mathematically that there is an intelligent causation to life and evolution. Therefore it is science. ID looks at the evidence with an open mind and bases conclusions only on evidence. That's why it is irrefutable. Darwinism and Creationism, on the other hand, start with a pre-conceived agenda and try to make it fit the facts. Darwinism and Creationism are pseudoscience.
Andrew Monty: "When you can prove it, its science."
Exactly, and ID is proven.
Andrew Monty: "When you can't or you have to bring god or a higher being into the picture to make it fit, its religion."
True again. That's why Creationism isn't science, but faith. I would add that it is also a religious bias if you insist on finding a Materialist answer to life. Materialism is unproven and nothing more than an ideology unsupported by evidence. Materialism is pseudoscience.
Andrew Monty: "By the same case, if you could prove god existed it would no longer be religion but fact."
Completely agree, but we have not proven God. We have proven intelligent genetics, intelligent design of living things and intelligent animation of matter and energy in living things. So you are right. ID is scientific, not religious, because it is proven fact.
That is not funny, some of that criticism was and is valid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is not funny, some of the cited criticism was and is valid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"That is not funny, some of the cited criticism was and is valid."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWaiting for the waaaaaaahbulance.
It wasn't funny, it was frikken hilarious.
Great post - if it weren't for the fact that supporters ID seem to be the undermining of science education, and so trying to dumb my children down to their level, ID would deserve only a disgusted glance and piles of scorn.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince there is no scientific research supporting ID, since the books about it are simply recycled creationist screeds, with "Creator" or "God" replaced by references to a designer, why should it rate any discussion in higher education. (Hint: it shouldn't)
Sorry - male typing syndrome. The first line of my previous post should begin "if it weren't for the fact that supporters OF ID seem to be ADVOCATING FOR the undermining of science education" - changes are in caps.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Confused Christian:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say god gives meaning to life.
What is the Meaning of Life?
Arrogance profits a man nothing, and a man ought not think higher of himself than what he is. I have always believed that science was based on ideas that could be proved. Evolution can't be proved, there is NO fact surrounding it's theory. It's nothing more than a soured opinion. In fact, you could cast it into the same waste basket as the failed American public school system, greedy labor unions that have assisted in ruining the economic landscape of this country and all the other falsehood issues like global warming and UFO's
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you really want to know what is going on, today, and tomorrow, check it out in the prophecies of the King James Bible. I know it was written in royal english, but most of the "reply-ers" sound intelligent enough to be able to read and understand it. As a matter of fact, look in 2nd Timothy, chapter 3, and you will see most of today's society in the first few verses. But, be careful when you read it, after all, it was written so that even a child could understand its meaning.
If ID was a true scientific theory it would have scientists doing experimentation to explain why hundreds of thousands of fossils are carbon dated prior to their estimated date of creation instead of pointing to a few examples where carbon dating gave unexpected result. They completly ignore that despite a few contaminated fossils thousands of others disprove their theory and they do not seem to undergo studies to determine why this evidence counters their theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI watched in the movie, "Expelled" when someone claiming to be a man of science mentioned the grand canyon as evidence for ID. It's actually the opposite. Could you imagine the erosion rate that would have to occur for 1-2 miles of rock to be eroded in 6,000 years. And they claim it came from a flood? I have yet to see any testing showing how a flood carves out a canyon. I remember building dirt dams in the ditch when I was a kid. If the water level is above the hieght something such as when a flood happens it levels it. If I made a dam and a lot of water was flowing it was far wider than narrow due to the pressure of more water to flow. When smaller amounts of water flowed it cut deeper such as the grand canyon.
ID and Evolution both think oranisms evolve. Just one theory thinks it has only happened in 6,000 years and relies on divine intervention rather than testing/experimentation to evidence against it.
There are too many observations showing that the earth is over 6,000 years old. I think we could very well have been created by a divine being millions of years ago. That creator could have stood on top of a turtle riding on the backs of 4 elephants, but I do not think this should be taught in science class without any evidence.
I happen to be christian, and I believe in a creator. But I have never seen any scientific evidence for the ID theory the parts that agree with the theory of evolution. I believe in a creator by faith.
Frank M: To prove intelligent design you have to produce a designer. No designer, no proof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this04-01 says a lot about the author. the creation narrative is a story about how God could have created the worls, not how he did. Science has a real place in this world, no sane man would refute that. A lot of people have first hand knowledge of the intelligent designer. His signature is everywhere. Many of you have recognized it. those of you who have not, all you need do is open your eyes and gaze in wonder and awe. it is time for us all to stop the name calling and share in the beauty of this creation. If we can't, then maybe the author is right, maybe all of this design is not all that intelligent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk, I give up too, the mock sarcastic tone of arrogant indignation by the SI editors proves there is no intelligence, no design, just an autonomic mediated noxious reaction by simple celled organisms created by a random aggregation of unfortunate molecules tied together by rigidly inflexible bonds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Evolution is a hypothesis which has many experiments and observations that confirm its predictions and none that contradict it, that makes it a theory. " Excuse me but this is purely religious dogma, spoken by an adherent to the religion of evolution. Show me the confirmation of the predictions , quote the experiment so that it can be examined, and tested by an "unbiased " source and you will find that your assertion is lacking any factual support. Read both sides of the issue as I have and put the experiments and studies to a high level of scrutiny and then see what the FACTS support. You will find that the belief system of evolution that has been so elaborately constructed has no foundation and utterly collapses under test.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know Promethious made us humans out of Clay its Obvious
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm insulted. It's obvious Promethius made us humans out of Clay.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sorry but you are all wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe world was created by my cat last Tuesday.
Everything that happened prior to last Tuesday did not really happen, it was a memory implanted in your mind. Fossils and even this Scientic American story (as it was apparently created prior to the creation of everything) are also part of the elaborate back story created for this all to seem plasuible.
If you IDers and Creationists aren't the same people, they're roomies, and quite likely in bed together.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDead center, TracerBullet!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(pun very intended)
You can't have a scientific debate with only one side that is scientific.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProofs are in mathematics. You distort the meaning of theory to fit colloquial conceptions, either through your own lack of understanding or an intent to mislead, bearing false witness to what science is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a rather confused Christian I would rather hope for an eternal creator than some accidental appearence of everything from nowhere
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod gives a meaning to life and Atheism does not.
This is about equal time in a science publication for disguised religious beliefs, not whether your G*d exists.
Dear Confused Christian:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say god gives meaning to life.
What is the Meaning of Life?
-----
A damned funny movie, IIRC. "Every sperm is sacred..."
Good. Off you go then...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>If you really want to know what is going on, today, and tomorrow, check it out in the prophecies of the King James Bible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least those don't change on a daily basis like the 'prophecies' in the back of most newspapers. Just about the same vagueness though.
>Waiting for the waaaaaaahbulance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt wasn't funny, it was frikken hilarious.
Sour, yes, but I like it too.
This is great news!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm working on my article outlining my theories of turtle-based cosmology, a revelation that will reshape the world as some claim to know it. I hope that the editors of SI will help spread this enlightening wisdom.
Bring it on, you wacky heliocentrists! Show me what you got!
religion evolved to help us solve our basic survival issues without having to spend too much time puzzling out cause and effect relationships for natural phenomenon. Its time to get over it and evolve past that pleasant delusion toward better understanding of reality and the manner in which it functions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIronic how hard it is to discern which disgruntled commenters are serious and which are playing along in the April Fool's spirit. Not just ironic, but worrisome.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwinist Evolutionists start with the preconceived a priori assumption that they hate god, and they therefore twist the facts to suit their god hating dogmatic agenda. ID proponents. however, have no such agenda or a priori assumptions. On this basis I ask you, which is the "real" science, the dogmatic Darwinist god hating approach, or the fair and balanced ID approach? I think we all know the answer to that one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrank M: really? really?? This is almost too easy...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason that SciAm does not publish "evidence" about ID is because the word "evidence" has a very specific meaning to a scientist. Conjecture, wishful thinking, etc. does not qualify.
I haven't heard this as you say "All evidence" supports ID and refutes "Darwinism", as you so quaintly say. Can you provide this evidence?
Honestly, your lack of knowledge about evolution has to be somewhat embarrassing for you, no? I'd suggest reading some more about it. If Darwin's Origin of Species is too difficult, there are some good young adult books that explain how it works. To paraphrase, nothing about evolution depends on "random chance" as you imply. I won't try to educate you here, but seriously, if you want to argue with the big boys, you need to have some facts straight.
Good luck in your new learning adventure!
ID proponents start with the preconceived a priori assumption that they hate science, and they therefore twist the facts to suit their science hating dogmatic agenda. Scientists, however, have no such agenda or a priori assumptions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee how this works?
"Real" science is simply science. Not the fantasy land dreamed up by ID proponents to try and plug all the holes in their "god" theory.
Because religions constantly make truth claims regarding the natural world. You act as if they simply sit in their houses of worship, meditating and praying. They do not. And the moment they make claims regarding the natural world, i.e. everything, they step in the realm of science and rational, skeptical minds get to have a crack at them. NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) is a bankrupt idea, a vacuous concept and frell(sic) Stephen Jay Gould for ever advocating it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this Poe's Law at work? Surely so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis is a wind-up, right? a further april fool's thing, yeah?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. what evidence supports ID?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. what evidence refutes evolution?
3. evolution is not a controversy. it is accepted universally throughout every section of the scientific community that has any credibility. the controversy is that non-scientists whose every idea about how we got here has been scientifically disproved, but who have the power to determine (science) curricula in schools, are forcing it to be granted the same status as creationism and so on, ideas which have absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever.
4. you DO see mutant freaks dying off quickly, that's mostly what natural selection means. the mutations that are not useful - which is most of them - mean the individual never gets the chance to pass on its genetic material. WE don't get to see this much, because our relationship with the animal kingdom is a fairly well guarded affair, but random genetic mutations lead to messy humans often enough for us to see them. we have evolved such properties as compassion and mercy and healthcare, so it is common for such "freaks" to survive and even thrive, but elsewhere in the natural world circumstances are rarely so kind.
5. nobody believes that "molecules just join together to animate, reproduce, self-fuel, sing, dance and think by sheer accidental collision of random particles." random mutation, with the grim reaper taking out the trash. four billion years or so. that's enough time to get many many things wrong and still have plenty of hits. "sheer accidental collision of random particles" is nonsense, it has nothing to do with evolution.
6. i know you hate it, i know you think it's a position contrary to your own passionately held position and therefore no more valid than it, but please, you don't even know what evolution means. you don't. i've read your post, you've misunderstood it completely, now read up on it and reconsider.
7. of all the sneering and posturing and self-righteousness i've read on this website today, yours is the most objectionable (that much is of course only opinion).
science and a readiness that the universe was in some way brought into being by a deliberate force may not be incompatible; science and religion, however, are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisalbeit religion is a position, and science is a process, they are not compatible because there is not a single shred of verifiable evidence for any religion involving the supernatural/divine that has so far been thrust forward. none. nothing. and there's plenty to refute it. loads.
they can only be compatible if you choose to allow religion and religious ideas complete exemption from the thinking process. which is unscientific. so even then they're not compatible.
your statement "Religion addresses the relationship between man and the divine" assumes "the divine", something there is no evidence for. that science "never mentions who (or Who) may have had the original idea" is because science doesn't assume a "who"; but a lot of it is an effort to find out "what".
Thank you, comment writers -- for one of the most entertaining comment threads I've read in a while. I love how a cute, snarky April Fool's joke can spark a multi-year back and forth about science v. religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWill April fools 2011 behind us, time to hold hands, sign Kumbaya, and read C.P. Snow's "Two Cultures." :)
My crusty old laptop's keys are sticking, that was:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*With April fool's 2011 behind us, time to hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and read C.P. Snow's "Two Cultures" :)
I completely agree with your new editorial policy. So does my furry friend, Harvey and his best friend, Dubya.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI completely agree with your new editorial policy. So does my furry friend, Harvey, and his best friend, Dubya.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDana, science and religion are incompatible because science is based upon empiricism, which affirms the necessity of supporting claims with evidence, and religion is based upon faith, which denies that necessity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe shorter answer is that science is a legitimate, proven, working method of sorting truth from falsehood. Because religions are based on falsehoods, they are compatible with science only in the sense that a calf is compatible with a den full of wolves.
No, the evidence supports evolution. You disagree because you're religiously brainwashed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBtw, molecules do not combine to form more complex organic chains by luck. It's called covalent bonding. You don't understand even the basics of evolution (claiming that it entails whole, finished morphological features evolving by chance within a single generation) or abiogenesis, so you might want to bite your tongue before you look even more foolish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou talk incredulously about what we "believe", while you believe in childish, primitive superstition. The hypocrisy here is palpable.
For those of you claiming that there are too many different possible combinations of particles for everything to have randomly and "unintelligently" come about in such a short period of time:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you not aware of how many billions of years the universe has existed? And of how many billions of years Earth has existed? And of how many bajillions of different combinations of elements that have occurred during this time frame? I don't find it incredibly surprising that over the vast span of time since the universe was born, certain combinations ended up being more robust than others.
It's like the products that are sold in infomercials. Most of them are really random, and the ones that are useful in the widest variety of situations tend to stick around longer. There isn't a television higher being that spouts out random machines and then decides on the ones people will buy more frequently.
If there was some intelligence that carefully designed the blueprint for every successful organism/microbe/compound/molecule, then how can one account for all of the completely random, "unintelligent" stuff that currently pops in and out of existence in the universe?
The reason they are incompatible is actually in your comment. Talking about why people want religion is scientific (need for closure, re-assurance etc.), religion ("God created man") in of itself is not. Belief has a place in science, it is usually the beginning of inquisition and testing; ie "I believe that a force called gravity is what keeps objects grounded." Step two is proof, and this is where religion stops (well it likes to wave a book around). It's not that there is no place for the idea of a being creating the universe; there's room, but there is no way of being certain at the moment. Science finds the truth in beliefs, religion just believes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjerraldo, you feel that belief in god gives life meaning. But in a realistic, pragmatic sense, is that a convincing reason to think a god actually exists? Isn't it just an explanation of why you want one to exist?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe universe is what it is. Reality isn't obligated to coddle us. We have to find a way to be happy with the cards we're dealt, not pretend we have a better hand than we do.
You're joking right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"God" may be giving a false meaning to life. On the other hand, if worshipping the supreme Egotist makes you feel better, go ahead. But when you start murdering the children of those who disagree with you, as the old testament suggests, please do it somewhere else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisexactly.........fortytwo
Sorry to wake you up but consider this info below:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNever underestimate the power of human imagination run wild. They can even make monkeys out of us.
On December 9, 2010 in The New York Times science writer Nicolas Wade wrote: "Anthropologists have been thrown into turmoil about the nature and future of their profession after a decision by the American Anthropological Association at its recent annual meeting to strip the word “science” from a statement of its long-range plan.?
A NY Times (March 12, 1961) article, “There Are Neanderthals Among Us” that discussed fossil skeletons found in La Chapelle in Europe that turned out to be those of contemporaries who were bent over from bone disease.
In pro-evolutionist Bill Bryson’s best seller, “A Short History of Nearly Everything” he writes about “The American Museum of Natural History Hall of Human Biology and Evolution in New York that has an absorbing diorama that depicts life-sized creations of a male and female walking side by side across the ancient African plain. The tableau is presented with such conviction that it is easy to overlook the consideration that virtually everything above the footprints is imaginary.”
He asked the curator of the museum and paleoanthropologist, Ian Tattersall, if “he was troubled about the amount of artistic license that was taken in reconstructing the figures,? Tattersall replied, “It’s always a problem in making recreations. You wouldn’t believe how much discussion can go into deciding details like whether Neanderthals had eyebrows or not…We simply can”t know the details of what they looked like… If I had to do it again, I think I might have made them slightly more apelike and less human.?
In 2004 National Geographic tested four paleoartists by giving them the same fossil bones at different times without telling them other paleoartist would be creating drawings from the fossils. The results were that not one of the drawings looked like the others and none of them had any body hair on them!
This whole field has proven again and again that many of these researchers have lied and continue to lie. The most brazen and unfounded theories are proclaimed only to find the research was faked or non-existent.
This is chicanery not science.
This is imagination run wild not science.
This is absolute fraud.
Talk about honesty in the "sciences."