More Evidence of an Epidemic of Fraud in Scientific Research

A new study supports creationist
contentions that evolutionists are
lazy and dishonest about origins

 

 

The headline in New Scientist was striking and specific: “Over 90 Percent of Scientists Admit to Questionable Research Behaviors.”[1] The report itself in PLoS One was even more damning. This is not new to the creation movement which has been documenting this problem for decades.[2]

by Jerry Bergman, PhD

The ‘shades of grey’ in research integrity—Researchers admit to questionable research practices that they do not perceive to be serious (Entradas, M., et al., PLoS One 21(1):e0339056, 12 January 2026).

One question of special interest to creationists was listed as number one in the survey, namely “I failed to cite publications that contradict my beliefs.” In other words, an ethical researcher should ensure that he or she cites articles that challenge his beliefs or conclusions.

Likewise, question number two in the survey asked: “I did not conduct a thorough literature review.” This is a serious lapse in scientific practice. Conducting a thorough literature review on the topic of your research is critical in any area of research.

My Experience with Evolutionist Papers

In my experience, articles dealing with evolution rarely cite creationist research, even when authored by PhD-level scientists. For question number one, 7 percent admitted they sometimes or frequently engaged in this unethical practice, 24 percent admitted doing so occasionally. For question number two, while 17 percent admitted they sometimes or frequently failed to conduct a thorough review, almost half admitted doing so occasionally.

It would be very enlightening to obtain similar data for those who publish in the area of evolution or origin-of-life (OoL) research. When evaluating evolution articles, I often attempt to determine if articles by non-evolutionists were consulted. In most cases, they are neither cited nor even acknowledged. The only exception occurs in articles specifically written to refute the creation worldview.

How They Justify Unethical Biased Research

Here is how an AI engine explained evolutionists’ rationalizations for ignoring creationist research:

The scientific peer-review process is designed to scrutinize all new ideas. Because evolution is the fundamental framework of modern biology, findings that challenge it are subjected to higher levels of scrutiny. While some studies suggest an unfair “taboo” against anti-evolutionary views, others highlight that the vast majority of findings that challenge evolution fail to provide a robust scientific alternative or fail to hold up to scrutiny.[3]

“Robust” is a flowery term that is often used in this context, yet it is vague and imprecise. For example, certain biological structures are frequently labeled as vestigial. However, in my own review of the peer-reviewed literature, I found documented functions for each structure I examined, illustrating the claim in this quote is false. I have observed similar issues in other commonly cited lines of evidence for evolution, including interpretations of the fossil record.

Another major concern identified in the survey was the statement “I chose not to report my findings if they contradicted my theory.” If research findings do not support evolution, it is likely they will not be published. The use of selective evidence to argue a position while ignoring contrary evidence is sometimes called card stacking.

The Details of the Entradas Study

The survey was headed by Professor Marta Entradas. She holds a PhD in Science and Technology Studies from University College London, where she also served as a Teaching Assistant in Science Communication and Science Policy. She is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University Institute of Lisbon and a Visiting Scholar at the London School of Economics and Political Science. She has also received  a Marie Curie Fellowship, and was a Cornell University Fellow under a Fulbright Scholarship.[4]

Entradas and her colleagues surveyed more than 1,500 researchers at Portuguese universities to gauge their perception of, and participation in, questionable or even unethical research practices. The study, published in PLoS One, found that 91 percent of respondents had engaged in at least one practice falling within the “grey zone” of scientific integrity included in the survey. The study concluded that widespread violations exist and pose a threat to ethical research.[5] As the authors note: in an ideal world, science is conducted by competent individuals with good intentions. However, science is not always “pure,” and its practice can deviate from the values that are meant to guide it, with “consequences for both science and society.”[6]

Card Stacking Is Not a New Problem

This problem has plagued science for much of its history. The inventor of the mechanical computer, Charles Babbage (1791–1871), in his work ‘Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and on Some of its Causes’ (1830), described four types of scientific dishonesty that remain relevant today: hoaxing (promoting false claims), forging (altering data), trimming (ignoring contradictory evidence), and cooking the data. (fabricating results).[7]

One form of “fraud” not explicitly addressed in the survey, but is highly relevant to evolutionary claims, is the use of misleading implications. Human evolution is one prime example. In a major work, it is clearly described as fact and presented with great detail in an  8.5 x 11 inch 506 -page book titled The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution. This book, on page 206, includes a chart depicting primate evolution which includes 11 question marks, indicating significant guesswork and uncertainty in the proposed phylogenetic relationships.

Other blunders are evident in this tome. For human phylogeny, Australopiths (specifically Lucy) were listed as the bridge to humans from our common ape ancestor. Now that Lucy has been carefully documented to be a type of ape, and not a bridge between humans and our common ancestor, the results are clear: No evidence exists supporting human evolution from apes. The book making that claim illustrated in this chart the fact that ape-to-human evolution is not supported by the fossil evidence. Although the evidence for Lucy as an ape is now overwhelming, the claims for a transitional form were problematic from its first discovery.[8]

Notably, this large reference work on Human Evolution does not cite any creationist research. Creationism is mentioned only three times (pp. 15, 307, and 461). Page 461 explains what evolution rejects, namely “the belief that life was created by some supernatural being and not by organic evolution.”

Summary

The use of questionable methods to support evolutionary claims is a common recurring issue within the scientific literature on origins. The Entradas study is one example of the evidence of flawed research that appears to be distorted both to sell Darwinism to a naïve public and to reinforce belief in the evolutionary paradigm.

Editor Note: The Orion space capsule carrying four astronauts around the moon is named “Integrity.” Engineers appear to be more open to question Darwinism because their intelligently designed machines, bridges and spacecraft have to work.

References

[1] Khedkar, Sneha, “Over 90 percent of scientists admit to questionable research behaviors,” New Scientist, https://www.the-scientist.com/over-90-percent-of-scientists-admit-to-questionable-research-behaviors-74258, 24 March 2026.

[2] Bergman, Jerry, Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters, Leafcutter Press, Southworth, WA, 2012;  Censoring the Darwin Skeptics: How Belief in Evolution is Enforced by Eliminating Dissidents, Leafcutter Press, Southworth, WA; Silencing the Darwin Skeptics: The War Against Theists, Leafcutter Press, Southworth, WA, 396 pages 2016, 2018. Revised edition 2023.

[3] A summary produced by AI.

[4] Entradas, Marta, https://ciencia.iscte-iul.pt/authors/marta-entradas/cv.

[5] Entradas, M., et al., “The ‘shades of grey’ in research integrity—Researchers admit to questionable research practices,” PLoS One 21(1):e0339056, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0339056, 12 January 2026.

[6] Entradas, et al., 2026.

[7] Babbage, C., “Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and on Some of its Causes.” In: Campbell-Kelly M., editor, The Works of Charles Babbage, Volume 7, University Press, New York, NY, 1989. First published in 1830.

[8] Bergman, Jerry, et al., Apes as Ancestors: Examining the Claims About Human Evolution. Co-authored with Peter Line, PhD, and Jeff Tomkins, PhD, Bartlett Publishing, Tulsa, OK, 2020.

---

Dr. Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology for over 40 years at several colleges and universities including Bowling Green State University, Medical College of Ohio where he was a research associate in experimental pathology, and The University of Toledo. He is a graduate of the Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, the University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has over 1,900 publications in 14 languages and 40 books and monographs. His books and textbooks that include chapters that he authored are in over 1,800 college libraries in 27 countries. So far over 80,000 copies of the 60 books and monographs that he has authored or co-authored are in print. For more articles by Dr Bergman, see his Author Profile.