Guest Post by Lisa Shiel

Is evolution a fact? In my new book The Evolution Conspiracy I expose why the answer to the question is not as simple as scientists would have us believe. But, if we want to accept evolution is a fact, we first have to trust that when scientists analyze the evidence they do so correctly and honestly. Do they?

A paper published earlier this year in the journal PLoS One reported that more than a third of scientists surveyed admitted to using "questionable research practices"—everything from not revealing conflicts of interest to selectively choosing only the results that support the desired conclusion. In this study fabricating data was differentiated from falsifying data, and falsifying was differentiated from questionable practices. While just under 2% of respondents admitted to outright falsifying or fabricating data, about 14% said they knew colleagues who had falsified or fabricated data and 72% knew colleagues who engaged in questionable practices. Why do scientists insist on drawing a line between questionable practices and falsifying or fabricating data? Probably so they can say "I don't falsify data" and still feel good about themselves.

Falsifying, fabricating, fudging, selectively choosing... Data can be biased in countless ways. DNA analysis, for instance, relies on computer software to interpret the results. When scientists claim DNA shows that modern humans first emerged on the African continent about 200,000 years ago they don't mention the two caveats to their claim. Firstly, the DNA studied came from humans alive today not from ancient specimens. Secondly, the software used to analyze the DNA could spit out thousands of different interpretations leading to thousands of different conclusions about the origins and dispersal of humans. This type of evidence relies on molecular clocks, the idea that genetic mutations occur at regular and predictable intervals. Unfortunately mutations crop up whenever they feel like it, not when scientists expect or want them to appear. Counting backward on the molecular clock may or may not provide accurate timetables. The cold, hard truth is no one knows. Choosing which computer-generated interpretation to accept could easily involve some of those "questionable" practices.

What other dubious techniques do evolutionary scientists employ? They hold back on publishing their findings until they can figure out how to make the evidence fit their preconceived notions. They pick and choose which data to use in their studies, excluding inconvenient information. They keep fossils top secret, available only to researchers they like. They label speculation as fact, and wild guesses as theories. And the list goes on and on. In The Evolution Conspiracy I discuss these practices along with many others. Should we trust scientists when they tell us evolution is a fact? Look at the evidence, read the facts scientists hope you never see, and decide for yourself.

Lisa A. Shiel researches and writes about everything strange, from Bigfoot and UFOs to alternative history. She has been interviewed for big-city newspapers, national magazines, drive-time talk radio shows, and TV news. She has a master’s degree in library science. As a fiction writer, Lisa developed the Human Origins Series—which includes the novels The Hunt for Bigfoot and Lord of the Dead. Lisa’s other nonfiction books are Backyard Bigfoot: The True Story of Stick Signs, UFOs & the Sasquatch (a finalist in ForeWord Magazine’s 2006 Book of the Year Awards) and Strange Michigan. Her latest book, The Evolution Conspiracy, Vol. 1, marks the initial release in a planned three-book series. Find her online at EvolutionConspiracy.com, Twitter.com/LAShiel, or on Facebook.