The Wright View: WI Board not the reason for U19 triumph

first_imgVictory by the young West Indies squad in the recently concluded ICC Under-19 Cricket World Cup brought not only relief, but unmitigated joy to the West Indian cricket fan who has suffered day after day, series after series, quarrel after quarrel, as those representing us, either on the field or off the field, appear to strive valiantly to make the game of cricket relevant only to those who are interested in the scores in a match. The following day, therefore, the red carpet treatment arranged by grateful fans to the returning conquerors was welcomed. However, the joy of the real cricket fan was tempered by the bizarre rush to claim responsibility for the victory by the much pilloried president of the West Indies Cricket Board, Mr Dave Cameron. As is now usual, Mr Cameron congratulated himself and the board for the “preparation” of the team before they reached Bangladesh, conveniently forgetting that the successful coach of the team, on his arrival in Bangladesh, bemoaned the lack of match preparation of the team before their arrival in the venue of the World Cup. COACH’S COMPLAINT The veracity of the coach’s complaint was revealed by the fact that our young heroes lost their three warm-up games against the host nation and also lost their opening game against England. After a start like that and the ensuing media firestorm after the win against Zimbabwe, the resilience and character shown by the team, and to no small extent, the coach and the experienced staff that accompanied the team, is one of the reasons the West Indies triumphed. It has absolutely nothing to do with Mr Cameron and his fellow executives, who are determined to stay in charge of West Indies cricket against the wishes of some fans, some prime ministers, and some of the ordinary citizens of this region. That cut like a knife when his self congratulatory statement was heard. Every fan and student of the game now recognises the importance of keeping this group of cricketers together, while continuously exposing them to superior skills. The call to “do a South Africa” and include fast bowling sensation Alzarri Joseph into the senior squad in time for the June series of international matches – as was done by South Africa after their triumph in the last World Cup on the back of their fast bowler, Kagisi Rabada – has been initiated by Tony Cozier, a noted West Indian scribe and cricket guru. This call is reasonable and makes excellent cricketing sense, but the implementation of this suggestion has to be ratified by a group of men (the selectors). Previous groups of young West Indians have been neglected, and as a consequence, they are out of the sport. As long as this board remains in charge, I do fear that the same neglect will follow, no matter what the president says now.last_img read more

Giants loss reveals what’s changed, what remains the same from 2014 wild-card game

first_imgPITTSBURGH — When Madison Bumgarner tossed a complete game shutout to lead the Giants past the Pirates in the 2014 National League Wildcard Game, four of his teammates in Friday’s starting lineup were on the field with him.The Giants’ continuity is stunning, impressive and at the moment, a major problem.Five years after Bumgarner stormed his way through the 2014 postseason and willed the Giants to their third title in five years, several of the Giants regulars are still the same.Their …last_img read more

Final audition for some Sharks prospects falls flat

first_imgSAN JOSE — The Sharks came into training camp excited about the amount of competition it was going to bring. There were going to be spots on the roster up for grabs, and the organization felt the players it had in the system deserved an opportunity to vie for those jobs.A couple of players like Lean Bergmann and Mario Ferraro, no doubt, have come to the forefront. But after 11 days of camp and four preseason games, it’s safe to say not enough guys took advantage of the opportunity.Tuesday’s …last_img read more

Blunders Without Number: The Fraud Problems and Darwinism

first_imgBlunders without Number: The Fraud Problems and DarwinismOne of the most respected medical journals in the world, New England Journal of Medicine, recently “retracted and republished a landmark study on the Mediterranean diet, and issued an unprecedented five other corrections after an obscure report last year scrutinized thousands of articles in eight journals over more than a decade and questioned some methods.”[1] At about the same time, Cornell University reported it was investigating “a wide range of allegations of research misconduct” raised against a prominent food marketing Cornell faculty member.The fact is, fraud is a major problem in scholarly publishing today. One evidence of this is that the retraction rate is definitely increasing.[2] And, according to New York University health journalism professor Dr. Ivan Oransky, there are ten times as many corrections as retractions. Dr. Oransky is a co-founder of the website Retraction Watch, that tracks the thousands of errors in science journals that they have been able to identify since the website was founded. Given his data, of the about 1,350 papers that were retracted in 2016, about 13,000 “corrections” were required. This number tabulated only the errors and the cases that they managed to document. No doubt many more occurred but were not detected, something that is not very easy to do.Sources of ErrorMost academic-based research is done by graduate students and, if not supervised carefully, mistakes can occur, partly because they are students just learning their trade. When mistakes or errors happen during their training, a temptation exists to attempt to cover up the mistake by adjusting the data, throwing out values that they suspect are wrong, such as misreading a measurement, then estimating what must have been the correct value. A strong motivation exists to do this, namely to complete their work to receive their degree and enter the real world to become employed to pay off student loans and start their career and/or marry their sweetheartOne of the most common mistakes in science is confirmation bias, a tendency to search for, or interpret, information in such a way that conforms to one’s preconceptions, leading to incorrect conclusions and even statistical errors.[3] This is an enormous problem in evolution which is described by critics as distorting the world through one’s evolution glasses.Worldview BiasSome behavior is observed, such as female preference for men taller than themselves, which causes curious researchers to look for an interpretation to help them understand why. An evolutionist will often interpret this difference in male and female average heights as due to females sexually selecting tall men due to the perception that they can better take care of them and any children they birth. Thus, its advocates claim that evolutionary sexual selection theory explains this physical trait.A biologist may explain the same physical difference as due to male hormonal differences, such as testosterone levels produced as a result of male chromosome regulation. A creationist would add that this biological difference existed as a result of design in the original creation of Adam and Eve. An evolutionist may also add that the hormone differences were due to sexual selection of the height trait which in turn resulted in the hormonal differences.How leading experts can be fooled.What science has documented is the biological connection between chromosomes and male traits such as height. Worldview then causes confirmational bias, in this case both by the creationist and evolutionist, thus both need to recognize this. Darwinists, though, often do not. They claim that ‘science’ has shown the cause of height differences, when actually evolutionists applied sexual selection theory as a result of their worldview, not science. Likewise, creationists view it as due to inherent design, a better explanation because it is based only on the observations. Inherent design is a fact both sides agree on.As one Indiana University Professor wrote, “whenever science meets some ideological barrier, scientists are accused of, at best, self-deception, and, at worst, deliberate fraud,”[4] a fact that has been well documented by the 12 case histories in my book Evolution’s Blunders, Frauds and Forgeries.[5] There is no shortage of examples of this self-deception. I am now working on a second volume that contains 12 more case histories of  evolution’s blunders, frauds and forgeries.Why Darwinism Is Prone to ErrorConfirmation bias is especially a problem in evolution for several reasons. Intolerance of creationism in scientific institutions strongly opposes alternative theories, especially those that involve outside influence such as implied by Intelligent Design. I once wrote a well-documented paper on a major problem of evolution which was rejected by the editor. The reviewers noted “you did an excellent job explaining and documenting a major problem of evolution. Now solve it,” by which he meant deal with the problem within a naturalistic evolutionary framework so that the problem is explained in such a way that allows evolutionary naturalism to remain a viable theory.One last example illustrates that evolutionary bias can cost both lives and health. Darwin concluded that ‘descent with modification’ theory (the phrase he used for evolution), explained that “the existence of organs in a rudimentary, imperfect, and useless condition, or quite aborted, far from presenting a strange difficulty, as they assuredly do on the old doctrine of creation, might even have been anticipated in accordance with [evolution].”[6]In 1911 a creationist medical doctor wrote the “Darwinian construction of ‘rudimentary organs’ is utterly untenable. There are no rudimentary organs, the function of the organs so called are gradually being discovered.” He added the “two rudimentary organs which are still being abused are the tonsils and the appendix. The tonsils have … a protective function.”[1][7] It took us over a century to prove this German medical doctor correct. Why did it take so long? The reason is partly due to the blinders that belief in evolution puts on scientists. A leading anatomy textbook published in 1908 said that the use of the tonsils “is not known, and it is often removed by the doctor when it becomes enlarged, as is the case in many children.”[8]Blunders Harm Real PeopleRecently the largest long-term study on tonsillectomy ever completed was published in JAMA. A total of 1.2 million subjects were in the study, including children born between 1979 and 1999. Of those, 17,460 underwent adenoidectomy and 11,830 a tonsillectomy within the first 9 years of life. Their health records were compared to the 1,157,684 who retained both their adenoids and tonsils.The 30-year research follow-up concluded the modest benefits of the operation mostly vanish by the age of 40. As many as one in five people who underwent a tonsillectomy suffered from serious diseases they would otherwise never be burdened with. The common childhood procedure more than tripled asthma risk, doubled the rate of chronic bronchitis and emphysema, upper respiratory tract diseases, and conjunctivitis. It also increased the risk of allergies, influenza, pneumonia, and infectious disease in general.One reason for these dramatic increased risks was that removing tonsils during the first decade of life interferes with proper immune system development and significantly reduces protection against future disease. Fortunately, the removal procedure rate has dropped from a high around 200,000 annually in the 1950s to under 50,000 today. This is in marked contrast to the trend a few years ago when a recurring sore throat alone prompted their removal.We now know that tonsils are the first line of the body’s defense system, thus the study director urged pediatricians to drastically limit or at least delay tonsillectomies and adenoidectomies as long as possible. How many people will end up sick and suffer from some disease or die early due to this past blunder of evolution can only be estimated, but the number is not by any means small.[9] Worldwide it involves multiple millions of victims.Footnotes[1] Marchione, Marilynn. 2018. Science Says: What happens when researchers make mistakes. June 13, PHYS.Org. https://phys.org/news/2018-06-science.html.[2] Marchione, 2018.[3] Kentrick, Douglas et al.,2018.  Anti-Science thinking. Scientific America. 319(1): 36-41. July[4] Chris Lee. 2010. Confirmation bias in science: how to avoid it http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/conf.bias.article.pdf[5] Atlanta, GA: CMI Publishing. 2017.[6] Darwin, Charles. 1859. The Origin of Species. London: John Murray. p. pp. 346-350 and 1871. The Descent of Man: And Selection in Relation to Sex. Rudiments pp 17-30. London: John Murray.[7] Schultz, Alford. 1911. The End of Darwinism. New York: Schultz Publishing Co. p. 13[8] Davison, Alvin. 1908. The Human Body and Health. New York: American Book Company. p. 134. Emphasis added.[9] Byars, Sean G.; Stephen C. Stearns and Jacobus J. Boomsma, 2018. Association of Long-Term Risk of Respiratory, Allergic, and Infectious Diseases With Removal of Adenoids and Tonsils in Childhood. JAMA Otolaryngology; Head and Neck Surgery. Published online June 7, 2018. E1-E13. Author Jerry Bergman, PhDDr Jerry Bergman, professor, author and speaker, is a frequent contributor to Creation-Evolution Headlines. He is currently a staff scientist at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). See his Author Profile for his previous articles and more information.(Visited 556 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more