HOMEOPATHY
Young Earth Creationism is just another discipline
found on a long inventory of pseudosciences. There is even a brand of
pseudoscience quickly gaining popularity in my primary field of study called
homeopathy, which offers a terrific illustration on how someone can manipulate
information before presentation. Homeopathy is the principle that a disease can be cured by giving very small amounts of a substance
that produce symptoms similar to the ones produced by the disease. According to
homeopathy, as you further dilute the concentration of the medicinal substance
that you administer to someone, the active ingredient will accomplish an
increasingly desirable result. Mainstream pharmacologists (who all realize that
homeopathy is bunk) understand that most drugs work on production inhibition or
under enzyme-receptor theory. We know that as you increase enzymes levels introduced
to the body, more receptors will become stimulated and produce greater effects.
We also know that as more inhibitors are introduced to
working processes, fewer enzymatic goals will be accomplished. These are
currently undeniable facts of science; and the field of nonsensical homeopathy
is in direct contrast to these foundational theories of medicine.
Substances that follow the principles of homeopathy
cannot actually work to any appreciable degree if they are not present in
sufficient concentrations.[i]
Manufacturers of homeopathic products can even legally sell their products in
the
The FDA serves as the governing body that orders drug
manufacturers to present all relevant evidence for review–not just evidence
favorable to the manufacturer. If you run enough studies, according to the
statistical laws associated with chance, you will eventually get a result that
you want.[ii]
One of the shortcomings with our administration of scientific research is that
there are no governing bodies controlling what studies are
published and advertised to consumers. The best that the scientific
community can do is separate journals that publish only peer-reviewed findings
from ones that will publish anything offered. Creationists do not publish in
peer-reviewed journals because those involved in the appraisal process know
that their methods are too flawed for other scientists
to consider seriously. This observation came to light in the 1987 United States
Supreme Court Case Edwards v. Aguillard, which decided that teaching
creationism in public schools is unconstitutional because it a religious belief
that cannot be factually supported.[iii]