March 22, 2013 | David F. Coppedge

Scientific Organizations Promote Leftist Social Causes

What on earth does a science journal have to do with abortion or gay marriage?  Some editors and reporters are actively pushing for social revolution.

In “A Pope for Today,” Nature‘s editors hoped that newly-instated Pope Francis would push social causes near and dear to their own Darwin-worshiping leftist hearts.  The editors spoke of “the backwards unscientific belief in creationism of many US evangelicals and lawmakers” (undoubtedly including any Darwin doubters in that category), hoping Pope Francis would not be one of those.

Moreover, recent popes have substantially increased efforts to engage in dialogue with scientists on a host of issues, from embryonic stem-cell research and genetically modified crops to in vitro fertilization, abortion and euthanasia — and in the future will no doubt increasingly do so on advances in neuroscience and genetics, including prenatal screening. Scientists who have taken part in such discussions tell of thought-provoking and constructive debates, with the Church being open to ideas and often changing doctrines as a result. A damaging exception is its long-held opposition to the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV, and it can only be hoped that Pope Francis will have a more enlightened approach.

It is hard to imagine any legitimate philosophy of science that would insert “science” into abortion, euthanasia, or prenatal screening.  Such positions presuppose a backdrop of support for eugenics.  Embryonic stem cell research cannot evade serious ethical questions, and the editors know it.  Why did Nature classify all these things with Darwinism as “enlightened” while “creationism” is called “backward”? (see loaded words).  If Nature were being truly scientific, it would seek balance on such hot topics or avoid them altogether as political matters for the domain of ethicists and theologians.

At Live Science, Stephanie Pappas is on a crusade to promote gay marriage.  One of her pieces, “How Straight People Paved the Way for Gay Marriage,” tried to blame straight people for the apparent rise in support (depending on polls used) for homosexual “marriage”.  An even more egregious advocacy piece she wrote for Live Science is called “5 Scientific Reasons Gay Parents Are Awesome.”  There, Pappas tried to promote the idea that homosexuals are better parents than traditional moms and dads.  In these articles, Pappas put no fingers in the dikes to distinguish her preferences from those who would use the same arguments to support polygamy and other social experiments.  By rubberstamping her advocacy pieces, Live Science has endorsed her crusade.

Without controversy, Pappas has the right to advocate her own views; she could, for instance, start a personal blog.  What is troubling is that she attached the honorable name of “science” to her far-left social agenda, pushing a view repudiated by Catholics, evangelicals, Jews, and many non-religious heterosexuals.  Never in the history of the world has a civilization promoted homosexual pairing to be a form of “marriage” on par with mother, father and children.  Never have societies tried to redefine marriage to include other social experiments.  Yet some “scientific” organizations like Nature and Live Science presume to create new social orders based on their self-proclaimed “enlightened” views – views informed by Darwinism and characteristic of other far-left organizations.

Attention!  We must view secular science as a special-interest group, NOT a movement that seeks the truth about the natural world.  What!  Promoting euthanasia in the name of science?  Homosexual “marriage” in the name of science?  Abortion in the name of science?  Wake up, people!  We are back to the early 20th century, when progressives who loved Darwin promoted eugenics.  Many unspeakable horrors followed.  Don’t think our age will not escape the consequences of this kind of thinking.

You will notice that Nature and Live Science act like blind elitists.  They are all for “religious” people changing their doctrines.  They have no conscience telling them they need to change their own doctrines.  Secular science is just as “religious” as anyone; it has an origin story, a purpose story, ideals, and visions.  It uses divination and dreams.  Its shamans hold sway over their subjects, using all the tools of propaganda.

When secular science organizations stick to observable, repeatable facts about the natural world, that’s fine; when they promote leftist causes, they need to be opposed with the same vigor as one would fight political revolutionaries, because that’s what they are.




(Visited 46 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply