Science Supports Traditional Values
It is well known that liberals outnumber conservatives in academia (see 12/02/2004), but sometimes, scientific studies support traditional values, not leftist ideology. Imagine the surprise of some of these researchers who went looking and found that conservative Christian family organizations have evidence to support their views.
- Sexually explicit songs: Liberals scream free speech whenever supporters of traditional values complain about the raunchiness of pop music lyrics, but researchers at Brigham Young University analyzed pop music and concluded that “degrading and sexualized music can have a deleterious effect on teens.” Isn’t that what conservatives have been warning for decades? PhysOrg quoted one of the researchers, who said, “Popular music can teach young men to be sexually aggressive and treat women as objects while often teaching young women that their value to society is to provide sexual pleasure for others.”
- Preventing malaria: Environmentalists have succeeded in forbidding poor African countries besieged by malaria to spray pesticides to kill the mosquitoes that carry the disease (see American Council on Science and Health article from 2000 by Dr. Thomas R. Gregori). A report on Science Daily now says that insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) could reduce child deaths by 23%.
- Spreading the misery: Science Daily posted a self-explanatory headline, “Couples Who Receive Government Assistance Report Less Marital Satisfaction, Commitment, U.S. Study Finds.”
- Liquor license: Another self-explanatory headline on Science Daily sounds like something an inner-city preacher might say, not researchers at UC Riverside: “Liquor Store Density Linked to Youth Homicides, U.S. Studies Find.” Indeed, “Violent crime could be reduced significantly if policymakers at the local level limit the number of neighborhood liquor stores and ban the sale of single-serve containers of alcoholic beverages,” the researchers concluded.
- War as environmental disaster: Hardly anyone would think World War II was a boon to the ecology, and certainly no one would recommend war to help the planet. Apparently fish don’t realize this, however; according to Live Science, “WWII Shipwrecks [Are] Swimming in Marine Life.” Unexpectedly, the wrecked hulls of ships sunk by U-boats off the coast of North Carolina have become boom towns for marine biology and diversity. (There must be a better way to achieve this result, though.)
- It takes a two-parent family: Hillary Clinton famously quoted the maxim that “It takes a village to raise a child” in speeches and in a 1996 book to promote liberal welfare programs. Apparently not. “Raising a child doesn't take a village, research shows,” PhysOrg reported. Beverly Strassman of the University of Michigan, who studied the Dogon tribe, found, “There’s a naïve belief that villages raise children communally, when in reality children are raised by their own families and their survival depends critically on the survival of their mothers.” She explains her findings in a video clip embedded in the article.
- Totalitarian utopia: Some in the far left look at China as a model of a planned society. Why, then, do they have the highest suicide rate in the world? Medical Xpress reported that one reason is the extreme pressure put on students and young adults to perform well, but other causes need to be explored.
- Fetus humanity: Babies start making facial expressions in the womb around the 24th week of gestation, reported Live Science. This is the first time ultrasound has probed the progression of facial movements in the womb. Babies also start to feel pain before birth, another Live Science article reported. While some researchers may quibble about when an unborn baby distinguishes pain from touch, there is no question that partial-birth abortion, defended by every Democrat in past Congressional votes, must be an extremely painful ordeal for the child based on these findings.
- Abortion law revisited: Liberals almost monolithically support abortion as a woman’s reproductive right. But even in the left-leaning UK, according to Medical Xpress, there is a “rare debate on abortion law” going on, asking “whether clinics that are paid to carry out abortions should also be allowed to give advice to women unsure how to handle an unwanted pregnancy.” The problem is that abortion clinics tend to place women on a “conveyor belt to the operating theater” – a clear conflict of interest since that is what brings the clinic money. A nurse and a member of the liberal Labor Party are recommending a change: “They demand that women must have access to independent advice and suggest that clinics that carry out abortions should no longer be the only option for those seeking pre-abortion counseling.” That this is not a move by the religious right is clear from the former nurse’s comment, “No organization which is paid for carrying out abortions, and no organization that thinks it’s appropriate to bring God into a counseling session with a vulnerable woman should be allowed anywhere near the counseling room.”
Lisa Grossman on New Scientist continued the myth that conservatives don’t care about science. “Americans and the rest of the world may have to prepare for US president who gives science an even lower priority than George W. Bush did,” she said. Maybe it’s not the science conservatives object to, but the liberal ideology that directs the scientific institutions and their lobbyists.
So no one thinks it’s appropriate to bring God into a counseling session. This is a measure of the hatred of religion by today’s secularist societies. Only decades ago bringing the grace of God into any and all discussions would have been thought a wise and caring thing to do. Not any more; this is the age of “science” – meaning, godless science. Ann Coulter made the claim in her book Godless that, contrary to public perception, liberals hate science – despite their image as the pro-science party. They only use it when it can be twisted to support their ideology.
It’s not science that supports liberalism; it is liberals using “scientific consensus” as their tool for power. (David Berlinski recently explored this theme in an instructive interview by Peter Robinson posted on PowerLine.) As these articles reveal, scientific data can support traditional values and conservative principles. Simplistic ideas of what “science” is and what it can do lead can lead to disastrous social consequences. Think about it whenever a politician appeals to “science” to support a policy position, and has a dozen experts in white lab coats standing beside to give an image of legitimacy to the proposal. Somewhere, sooner or later, another scientific study will debunk it.