"Political" Science Threatens Historic American Values

Take any issue on the political scene, and you will find the scientific elites cheering for the left side.

One would think that science should be politically neutral as the PhDs in white lab coats study germs under the microscope. Not so. Here’s a sampling of political bias in the science news, showing how the Big Science community enables the agenda of the Progressive left, whatever the issue might be.

Brexit: Conservatives hailed the English for voting to leave the European Union, exercising their national sovereignty and liberty instead of letting unelected bureaucrats in Brussels run every aspect of their lives. But PLoS Blogs (see Medical Xpress copy) immediately worried about the impact on science, immigration and the environment. Medical Xpress scared readers about threats to “global health” and immigration. Nature fretted about changes to funding (see also earlier Nature reaction to the “Brexit shock”). American science institutions joined the anxiety fit; Science Magazine worried that “Brexit vote casts a pall on future of UK science.”  New Scientist, unabashedly against the majority who voted to leave, says that scientists now need to “reassert their value to society.” With elitist snobbery, the editors disdained the unwashed masses who didn’t know what was good for them, suggesting they must be treated like children. “For reason to triumph, scientists need to learn to engage with emotion.”

Immigration: Republican candidate Donald Trump can’t seem to get the mainstream press to understand that he is all for immigration, just “legal” immigration. He wants proper vetting of who is coming in, especially from nations where terrorism is a threat. For that, the press often labels him a “racist.” But why do science reporters get involved in this question anyway? Immigration is about policy and national sovereignty, not science. Medical Xpress published the following advocacy headline: “Europe: Don’t adopt Australian style immigration system, warn ethicists.” Why? Because of its “emphasis on deterrence.” The article smacks of favoritism for open borders, aided by emotional appeals about the migrants in war-torn Syria. But what if a compassionate country just wants a way to separate the needy from the terrorists? Ignoring the issue of a sovereign nation’s right to control its borders and to protect itself from terrorism, New Scientist mounts a pulpit to preach to its readers a half-truth, “Why we all need to fight the irrational fear of outsiders.”

Abortion: Pro-life conservatives are happy when abortion rates fall, but leftist scientists get alarmed. Medical Xpress reported that Texas abortions fell sharply under the Texas regulations overturned by the Supreme Court, as if that was a bad thing. The article quotes only pro-abortion spokespeople, concerned about how the rules interfered with abortion providers’ businesses. Another Medical Xpress article, decorated with a photo of pro-abortion demonstrators celebrating, worried that the pro-abortion ruling may not open the door to new abortion clinics in Texas. Medical Xpress reported cheerfully about the federal judge who blocked restrictions in Florida that were due to go into effect; “Planned Parenthood officials praised Hinkle’s ruling,” one subheading reads (that’s the same Planned Parenthood stung by revelations that it sells baby body parts). A third Medical Xpress release gives the last word to abortion advocates who are happy that the ruling “imperils abortion laws” in many states. One additional article on Medical Xpress did give the last word to Alliance Defending Freedom, but failed to point out Obama’s broken promise that his healthcare plan would not fund abortions.

Rachel Rettner cheerfully announced on Live Science what the Supreme Court decision means for “women’s health,” advertising how safe the procedure is (it sure isn’t for the human being destroyed in the process). She totally ignored the reasons for state restrictions that were prompted by the exposure of Kermit Gosnell’s house of horrors in Philadelphia. Conservatives were distraught by the SCOTUS ruling. To allow unregulated, unhygienic abortion is “clinically insane,” the conservative Family Research Council reacted, noting that Gosnell was not an isolated case. How does this protect “women’s health”? Rettner ignored the fact that veterinarians are more regulated than abortion clinics. And she completely ignored the strong dissenting opinions from the three conservative justices who denounced the court’s unconstitutional legislating from the bench. Few tears were shed in the liberal media for the Stormans, who lost everything when the Supreme Court refused to hear their case about being forced to sell abortifacient drugs against their convictions at their pharmacy (Family Research Council). Dissents by Thomas, Roberts and Alito warned of a dangerous trend against religious freedom that the refusal to hear the case portends.

Transgender: Despite their earlier protestations for peace and acceptance, LGBT activists are now seeking tyrannical power. They are working through courts and legislatures to punish anyone who disagrees with their agenda. Right now in California, the leftist majority legislature is seriously considering a bill that would punish Christian colleges who take a traditional position on sex roles, forcing them to accept transgenders into their dorms and bathrooms or lose Cal Grant scholarships (California Family Alliance). You’re not likely to hear about that kind of coercive government discrimination in the secular science press. Instead, you will hear all about “hate crimes” against transgenders (e.g., Medical Xpress), implying that anyone who believes in God-given sex roles is a bigot. You will hear praise for Obama’s lifting of restrictions against transgenders serving in the military (e.g., PhysOrg), without any mention of how this affects military readiness and morale, or whether it is constitutional for a President to bypass Congress and single-handedly conduct social experiments with our armed forces. Science Daily ignores the huge issue of religious freedom by focusing on victimization of a “marginalized” group: “Transgender rights critical for the health of 25 million transgender people worldwide.”

In fact, though, the gender-confused have accomplished a political coup with astonishing rapidity, despite representing 0.02% of the population. The marginalized today are conservatives who support traditional sex roles and marriage between one man and one woman. PhysOrg joined the pity party about “anti-LGBT bias” and how it might translate into violence. The violence is not coming from Christians, however. LGBT activists have stooped to violence and coercion themselves, disrupting Catholic worship services and conservative political events. The activists don’t seek dialogue or understanding. Even when the Pope bowed a little to the LGBT community with a weak apology, it wasn’t enough. Breitbart News says they are calling on the church to change its teachings. That would amount to rewriting the Bible itself! To see how this is about power, not dialogue, turn the situation around: what if the Pope insisted that the LGBT community change its teachings or its behavior?

Ironically, Medical Xpress listed some of the many health problems (physical and mental) suffered by LGBT people, but attributed it all to “discrimination” even though being gay or transgender is trendy these days. LGBT people who “come out” get sparkling coverage in the media. They launch “pride parades” in every western country (even Israel) with no interference, often with the active support and participation of mayors and other political leaders. There’s even a Gay Pride Month (June). Nevertheless, the article preaches to the guiltless that they need to be even more “inclusive” and “tolerant.” Why are they not preaching that to Muslim countries who kill homosexuals, throwing them off buildings or stoning them? Incredibly, after the Muslim attack on the gay nightclub in Orlando, the liberal press jumped to the conclusion that Christians had created a “climate of intolerance” against gays that led to the horror, even though the perpetrator openly shouted, texted and phoned that he pledged allegiance to ISIS while mowing down 49 people (The Stream). The Obama Justice Department only permitted full transcripts of his rants to be released after a public outcry over redactions in Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s first release that downplayed the Islamic motivations (Fox News).

Sharia: Classical liberalism would support women’s rights around the globe, so why are serious violations of women’s rights in Muslim nations given a pass? This is a huge discussion among conservatives these days, but you would never know about it from the left-leaning secular press. Astonishingly, Science Daily posted an opinion from the American Psychological Association in support of Muslim men’s domination of women by forcing them to cover up. “Veils, Headscarves May Improve Observers’ Ability to Judge Truthfulness,” says the headline, effectively rationalizing Islamic subordination of women over concerns that judges, jurors and attorneys cannot gauge facial expressions of Muslim women on the stand when they cover up. PhysOrg notes that conservatives and liberals have different reactions to Osama bin Laden’s death. Who, would you predict, is portrayed in the article as more open-minded? “Liberals tend to be more malleable, so their beliefs can change, whereas conservatives are sort of always on guard.”

Assisted dying: The Hippocratic Oath “Do no harm” was thrown out the window when assisted-dying laws were passed in the Netherlands, Belgium and most recently in Canada and California. Conservatives are appalled at the rise of the “culture of death” in western countries (see articles by Wesley J. Smith at Evolution News & Views), but secular liberals—the same ones who love Darwin—are all for it. True, Medical Xpress worried about the ethics of killing psychiatric patients, who might be vulnerable, but not about the policy itself. Here’s the shocking conclusion of a recent study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal: “Perhaps those who advocate for extending access to people with psychiatric disorders may be willing to tolerate a number of potentially avoidable premature deaths as acceptable because access to assisted dying is felt to be so important in principle. However, that argument must be made explicit and debated publicly.” Just tell the public, in other words, that you have to break some eggs to make an omelette.

Tyranny: America outwardly celebrates the “land of the free and the home of the brave” on July 4, but leftists prefer government control over liberty. As pointed out above, some Christian conservatives have already suffered great loss for conscience’s sake, just for having convictions about traditional marriage, sex roles or abortion. The threat of government coercion is gaining momentum with California’s bill to force Christian colleges to adopt the LGBT agenda or go out of business (hear Al Mohler’s clarion call about the danger of SB 1146 on The Briefing, June 30). California is also considering a bill to threaten skeptics of global warming (source) with prosecution. PhysOrg, reporting on climate scientists telling Congress that climate change is a real threat, promoted in another PhysOrg article the views of Renee Cho who advocates pricing carbon—not products made from carbon, mind you, but the element itself. In a touch of conscience, Science Daily realized that “Climate scientists are more credible when they practice what they preach: People are more willing to take advice from climate researchers who reduce their own carbon footprint.” (What the article didn’t point out is the number of private jets and jumbo jets flying elitist scientists and politicians to climate summits each year.) Science Magazine gave favorable press to a book by George Woodwell who, in the tradition of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, advocates more government control of business to save the ecology. Leftists look to governance as the solution, and individual liberty as the problem. Increasingly, they look to global governance. Ronald Reagan, by contrast, famously said, “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.” Whether the Brexit vote and Trump’s popularity portend the beginnings of a fundamental shift back toward liberty, or instead the 1984-style statism is arriving 32 years later than George Orwell predicted, remains to be seen.

This means war: Institutional science (as a political and cultural force) presents itself as the champion of Reason. But instead of arguing propositions, considering fairly the arguments and evidence for and against each issue (as Darwin suggested), in these days Big Science presents The Consensus. One must bow to the consensus as if to an oligarchy; dissenting worldviews (such as theism) are not allowed (6/22/16). In a book review in Science Magazine, reviewer Peter R. Reczek, working for the AAAS, says “The Battle Lines are Drawn.” Standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Shawn Otto, author of The War on Science Who’s Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do About It, he lumps “religious groups” in with other bogeymen (tobacco companies, climate skeptics and large corporations), portraying them at war with science. Resurrecting the old warfare thesis that was roundly debunked by historians of science, Otto and Reczek, with the help of the AAAS, draw their line in the sand to oppose The Enemy, including creationists, intelligent design advocates and those captive to “entrenched religious dogma.” Using the Association Fallacy, they portray those “anti-science” people in the same corral as anti-vaccinators, climate skeptics and Greenpeace activists. Igor Juricevic even lumps them in with flat earthers (The Conversation). Both Juricevic and Reczek, incidentally, use the Galileo Affair to promote their causes, despite well-studied corrections to the popular myths about what happened in 17th-century Italy. But no matter; the battle lines are drawn now, and the nonconformists—including intelligent design advocates—must be opposed. The progress of science depends on it!

The reason for this entry is to motivate our readers to pray. These violations of God’s laws are making us ripe for judgment. Isaiah warned, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:2). Judgment often begins at the house of God (I Peter 4:17). We are at the verge of losing religious liberty in America, National Review warns, and if evangelicals don’t act now, we will lose our freedoms. Al Mohler’s briefing is very alarming; America could be at the tipping point. Knowing the danger we are in—the loss of our freedoms and threats to our national security—the Family Research Council has urged Christ followers to join the annual ‘Call 2 Fall‘ on our knees in prayer this Sunday, the day before America’s Independence Day. Voting or any other political involvement, though important, takes a back seat to seeking God with all your heart. (Hear Washington Watch for July 1).

Our founding fathers recognized in 1776 that the source of freedom is the Creator of our unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 240 years later, the America of 2016 is becoming an enemy of those values. But the solution to the current darkness is not just voting for the right candidate or enacting more laws. Unless people’s hearts change, even a good government cannot restrain evil. As Solzhenitzen said, the reason for the great disasters that fell on his country of Russia in the 20th century was that they had forgotten God. Tyranny haunts the horizon of every age; more Lenins and Hitlers lurk in the shadows, waiting for their chance. The path to liberty and blessing is clear in Scripture: “If My people, who are called by My Name, will humble themselves and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, forgive their sins and heal their land” (II Chronicles 7:14).