“Trust the science” is a popular phrase we’ve all heard, but it has quickly lost credibility. For many people, the COVID era was a turning point. Policies were justified in the name of “science,” dissent was silenced, and questioning the official narrative was treated as dangerous. Now we know that much of what we were told during the pandemic was false. And the result has been predictable: widespread skepticism and a growing realization that science, as it is presented to the public, is not always honest, objective, or immune from corruption.

So how do we respond to this erosion of trust? One answer is awareness. Simply recognizing that claims made “in the name of science” are not automatically true is a crucial first step. Equally important is understanding that questioning science is not only allowed, but essential. Science advances through scrutiny, testing, and challenge. When questioning is forbidden, science stops being science.

Yet, when I debate evolutionists, I am often told that questioning science is the same as being “anti-science.” This accusation is a rhetorical weapon, not a reasoned argument. It functions as psychological manipulation, designed to shield evolutionary theory from criticism. In this mindset, evolution is assumed to be true from the outset, and any contrary evidence must be silenced. Ironically, this is the truly anti-scientific position. Why study an area of science if we already have all the answers?

Thus the following article from Phys Org is sounding the alarm on the growing rate of fraud in science. Specifically, fraud in the form of “fabricated research” and “paid authorships and citations” is rampant, and much of it is organized. A study by Northwest University points to “sophisticated global networks of individuals and entities, which systematically work together to undermine the integrity of academic publishing.”

Even more alarming, fraudulent papers are now outpacing legitimate scientific publications. In many cases, researchers can secure publication simply by paying for it. The peer-review system, long held up as science’s quality control mechanism, has been increasingly compromised.

I’ve been pointing out problems in peer-reviewed journals for years, so it is encouraging to see this issue finally acknowledged openly.

As senior author Luis A. N. Amara warns, “If we do not create awareness around this problem, worse and worse behavior will become normalized. At some point, it will be too late, and scientific literature will become completely poisoned. Some people worry that talking about this issue is attacking science. But I strongly believe we are defending science from bad actors. We need to be aware of the seriousness of this problem and take measures to address it.”

Exactly!

This crisis also exposes a fundamental weakness in evolutionary theory and highlights why it should not be treated as scientific fact. Evolutionary claims are routinely published in mainstream journals not because they have been rigorously challenged and proven, but because they conform to accepted assumptions. Evolution is rarely questioned, and therefore it does not need to be true in order to be publishable. The peer review process doesn’t weed out evolution for being circular, assumed or incorrect because those narratives align with evolutionary expectations.

Creation science, by contrast, is actively excluded- regardless of the strength of its arguments or explanatory power. Secular journals operate under a strict naturalistic framework that automatically disallows God and supernatural creation from consideration- even if it is true. This is not neutrality; it is bias. And it represents another form of scientific fraud that is rarely recognized.

Evolutionists often ask why creation is not published in peer-reviewed journals if it is true. The answer lies here. When journals only accept work that conforms to a predetermined worldview, publication becomes a matter of ideological compliance, not scientific merit. Under these conditions, mainstream scientific journals fail to offer an unbiased evaluation of evolution or creation.

I do not expect secular journals to knowingly publish creation science anytime soon. Their commitment to naturalism is too entrenched. But awareness remains our most effective defense. Understanding how science can be corrupted- financially, ideologically, and institutionally- equips us to think critically.

If science is to regain credibility, it must welcome being questioned, tolerate dissent, and follow the evidence wherever it leads. Anything less is not science at all- it is dogma.