Paradigm Paralysis
Evolution theory over fact?
When the paradigm effect is so strong that we are prevented from actually seeing what is under our very noses, we are said to be suffering from paradigm paralysis.
This phenomenon describes the bottleneck caused by too narrow a vision of the world. Author Joel Barker adds that it's the mortal disease caused by certainty. Paradigm paralysis pushes an individual or a group to believe that their way is the only way - the one correct and true way - to see an event, a situation, a problem or a circumstance.
Emily Levine correctly said that When you're only surrounded by people who speak the same vocabulary as you, or share the same set of assumptions as you, you start to think that that's reality. The paradigm in the world of mainstream science today is evolution theory. Despite being based on the unprovable philosophy naturalism it is sold to the world as a fact. This of course resulted in the acceptance of evolution theory by many people around the world of which the majority doesn't even know the very basics of evolution theory and of science. Monkey see, monkey do. Nowadays there are hardly any TV documentaries about nature in which evolution is not promoted in one way or another. Repetition is a basic tenet of IndoctriNATION which of course has its effect especially on the weak minds of people who never really do any thinking for themselves. Evolution has become a mental construct in this materialistic world because it is being heavily propagandized daily by mainstream science organizations.
Theory over fact?
Here's what NCSE director and fanatic evolutionist Eugenie Scott said...
Facts are interesting, but they're not terribly exciting. Hypotheses help us build theory. Theories are the most important things in science. Theories mean explanation. But laws are broken, both in science as well as in.... euh... the real world. Laws are not as important as theories, because theories explain laws. Theories are most important! Then come laws, hypotheses, and facts. Facts don't explain anything.
Eugenie Scott served as Executive Director of NCSE, a powerful mainstream science organization. This prominent evolutionist says that theories are more important than facts and laws in science. That's a striking statement which I believe reveals much about what's going on in the world of mainstream science. Here's another example of what a self-proclaimed monkey descendant said...
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
What a nonsense this man produced. Fanatic evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould also once said that Although I have frequently advanced wrong, or even stupid, arguments, at least I have never been lazy. He was a fanatic evolutionist who compared evolution to the law of gravitation. Macroevolution is not science because it is not even observable while gravitation is testable and its effect is observable in everyday life. Evolutionists turn the world upside down. At the end of this quote he, probably unknowingly, admits that evolutionists like him simply do not know how evolution takes place. So of course evidence for microevolution is not evidence for macroevolution eventhough many evolutionists wrongfully and misleadingly present it that way. Here's what one of the world's most prominent members of the "New Atheists" said...
The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.
Richard Dawkins is a fanatic evolutionist who is cocksure that evolution theory is a fact. Here's an interesting quote from Bertrand Russell, another fanatic atheist and evolutionist...
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
Of course a theory based on the unprovable philosophies naturalism and uniformitarianism can never be called a fact. At least not by reasonable people. Richard Dawkins mentions some of the biggest mysteries to science: the big bang and abiogenesis. These are one-time irrepeatable events that are beyond the limits of science and based on assumptions. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments. So obviously the world of mainstream science propagates the idea of evolution theory over fact. Arthur Conan Doyle famously wrote that It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts. Stephan Lewandowsky rightly said that The role of worldview presents a formidable challenge to science communicators because ideology may override any factual information. That ideology is of course unprovable naturalism in the world of evolution theory. Facts and laws are uncontroversial while theories are controversial and can never offer absolute truth about the facts or laws. Theories are human explanations for observable natural phenomena. Theories are necessarily driven by worldview or philosophy and can be completely wrong. From a scientific point of view the idea of theory over fact is very dangerous. So what we clearly see in the world of mainstream science is the fact that the evolutionists who run it promote evolution theory as a fact. Fanatic atheists like Richard Dawkins call unobservable irrepeatable one-time unscientific events and illogical ideas staggering facts beyond any doubt. Almost too stupid to be true. Here's some sense...
The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game. ... Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.
Evolution is the religion of the atheists.
Cognitive bias
If we selectively "find" or communicate only those data that support a given model of behavior, then our inquiry efforts will hardly be optimally effective. Despite the fact that confirmatory bias in scientists was first noted by Francis Bacon (1621/1960) over three centuries ago, precious little research has been devoted to the topic and the few extant studies have hardly challenged Bacon's observations. One study found that the vast majority of scientists drawn from a national sample showed a strong preference for "confirmatory" experiments (Mahoney & Kimper, 1976). Over half of these scientists did not even recognize disconfirmation (modus tollens) as a valid reasoning form! In another study the logical reasoning skills of 30 scientists were compared to those of 15 relatively uneducated Protestant ministers (Mahoney & DeMonbreun, 1977). Where there were performance differences, they tended to favor the ministers. Confirmatory bias was prevalent in both groups, but the ministers used disconfirmatory logic almost twice as often as the scientists did.
Cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality. Irrationality is for example the belief that nothing became everything, dead matter turned into life and simple turned into complex by means of mindless naturalistic processes while in hardcore reality specified information is only caused by intelligent agents. A simple fact of reality that most evolutionists either can't grasp because they don't have the mental capacity or don't want to accept out of ignorance because they are blinded by the unprovable philosophy naturalism. I tend to the latter explanation.