July 2, 2017 | David F. Coppedge

Leftist Takeover of Science Continues

Nothing in science requires a scientific institution to take the liberal position on everything. Quite the opposite: science relies on traditional values.

Objectivity. Integrity. Curiosity. Fairness. Diligence. Honesty. Respect. Cooperation. Self-sacrifice. Humility.

These are all essential virtues for science. Where do they come from? Can they be derived from Rules for Radicals? No; arguably, these are expressions of the Ten Commandments, valued through the ages of the Judeo-Christian heritage. As our Scientist of the Month series documents, many of the founders of modern science were Bible-believing Christians. Many others grew up within a Christian culture, accepting its values as self-evident.

Now it is 2017. The news constantly shows science journals, science reporters and science spokespersons taking far-left positions. Take any issue bearing on science and politics (climate change, evolution, abortion, gender, homosexuality, gay marriage, conservatism vs liberalism, Donald Trump’s policies and cabinet, Brexit, etc.), and you will find such monochromatic messaging of a leftist bent that conservatives fear for their reputations or careers to speak out of line (see 6/14/17).

What happened? Does ‘science’ demand this kind of intolerant bias? Have Alinskyites conquered the kingdom of science?

Explanations are many, with roots going back at least to Charles Darwin if not before (Laplace, Buffon, and others), and need not be rehashed here. Suffice it to say that there is nothing intrinsically leftist about science, else historians would have to eject Boyle, Faraday and Carver (our current Scientist of the Month) as non-scientists. We’ve covered the leftist bias many times, and continue with this post, pointing out the situation so that thoughtful people can ask why this is so, and consider what needs to be done about it. For each of these sample news items (among many), the question should be whether anything about empirical, observational science requires the blatant leftist slant on these subjects.

Abortion. The lopsided reporting about abortion continues unabated in the ‘science’ media. Phys.org celebrates “a woman’s right to choose” with pro-abortionists in, “Trailblazing Colorado abortion law marks 50th anniversary,” beginning its coverage with a photo of placard-holding supporters in front of Planned Parenthood. Where is their support for the female baby’s right to choose to be born so that she can have choices as a female adult some day? On Medical Xpress, “UK doctors’ union calls for change in abortion law”, claiming the British Medical Association wants more freedom from existing laws, to treat abortion as a “medical issue” (the liberal position). And in another Medical Xpress article, David Orenstein is worried that “Abortion restriction may have new momentum after 40 years of pervading policy.” His liberal bias is clear, as he he worries that the Hyde Amendment (which merely prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion) might make it more difficult for a woman to obtain an abortion. Where is his concern for the taxpayers forced to violate their conscience if the Hyde Amendment falls? Where is his concern for the women in utero? Is that ‘scientific’? Is it so hard to imagine a scientific establishment that cherishes life, where scientists are indignant at filthy abortion clinics and unite to demand laws against the sale of baby body parts? Where are those voices in the science media?

Health care. It’s predictable. If Trump is for it, ‘science’ is against it. If Trump is against it, ‘science’ is for it. Medical Xpress raises the perhapsimaybecouldness index  in its fear-mongering article, “Recent presidential election could have negative impact on health.” Anything “could” have a negative impact on a glittering generality. This article, nudging reader opinions to the left with argument from authority and card stacking, fails to mention that collapsing Obamacare is already having a negative impact on health, driving millions of citizens out of insurance they can no longer afford. The usual liberal tactics come into play: victimization, racism, and the implied view that big government is the answer to everything. Didn’t big government promise, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?” Wasn’t the disaster of Obamacare titled the “Affordable Care Act” in the rear view mirror of skyrocketing premiums and deductibles and insurance carriers exiting the marketplace? Medical Xpress, where is your balance? Where is your ‘science’?

Embryonic stem cells. Once in awhile, an article in the science media will mention that embryonic stem cells are “controversial” (e.g., this article on Medical Xpress). But here is one on Science Daily that claims that human embryonic stem cells are “are essential to the future prevention and treatment of disease.” It’s ironic that the proponents come from Israel, home of the Judeo-Christian tradition that emphasized the preciousness of human life (Psalm 139) and denounced the sacrifice of children as an abomination.

Human cloning. Conservatives, generally championing human exceptionalism and the value of every human life, oppose human cloning. Not a few liberals worry about it. But Phys.org asks, “How can a legally binding agreement on human cloning be established?” as if the current impasse over ethics is unfortunate. “Progress” will come when scientists can go ahead and work on tweaking human embryos free of ethical restraints. Not a word is said about the dark history of eugenics.

Gay marriage. Conservatives were appalled at the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in 2015 that invalidated laws in more than half the states that had been passed by majorities, representing millions of people, who spoke up to uphold the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. ‘Science’ however stands at the ready to support the leftist view that values should evolve like fluids according to cultural whims. That bias is exemplified in Medical Xpress that argues gay married people are just as happy as heterosexuals. Personal happiness was never the issue, but this article tries to use happiness as a ‘scientific’ justification to the liberal position. The evolutionary psychologists behind it don’t seem too concerned for the happiness of vendors who have lost their businesses for staying true to their traditional marriage beliefs when bullied by gay-marriage activists to violate their consciences. Could not one imagine a scientific study of their happiness?

Illegal immigration. In PNAS, three leftist ‘scientists’ argue that “Providing driver’s licenses to unauthorized immigrants in California improves traffic safety.” They might be able to prove it with some selective data. Ignored in this kind of study that rationalizes law-breaking, though, is the safety of people like Kate Steinle, who was murdered by an illegal alien who had been deported five times. Steinle is only one of many victims of crime at the hands of illegals. Even the authors’ use of terms shows bias: “unauthorized immigrants” instead of illegal aliens. If ‘safety’ were truly the concern, PNAS could publish dozens of papers about drug trafficking, human trafficking, terrorism, and other societal costs of illegal immigration. Well, NAS? We don’t hear you.

Gender identity. All the trendy leftist phrases about gender Kimberley Norris employs in her article on The Conversation posted by Phys.org (a “science” news site): gender equality, sexism, gender-neutral, gender-identity, etc., along with the leftist belief that gender stereotypes are a cultural bias and we should all learn to be accepting of whatever identity a person chooses. Conservatives routinely point out the illogic of this (e.g., Dr Everett Piper), but you’ll never find those views on Phys.org, Science Daily, National Geographic or the BBC. Wouldn’t objective “science” support the notion that (except for a very, very small percentage of newborns with ambiguous sexual development), biological sex is determined by the presence of XX or XY chromosomes? Can a man have fallopian tubes? Can a woman have a prostate gland? The gender-identity fad is quite new, so why did “science” jump on the leftist bandwagon? Couldn’t one imagine rational psychologists supporting efforts to help the gender-confused come to accept their biological sex for their own health and society’s well-being? Can’t rational physiologists say that boys pretending to be girls at athletic events have an unfair advantage? Can’t Dr Piper point out that transgenderism is anti-feminist because it implies that women don’t exist? Where are those voices? Is ‘political correctness’ (an oxymoron) shutting them up?

Euthanasia. The horrific implications of an article on Science Daily are bypassed with shocking indifference: “Potential number of organ donors after euthanasia in Belgium.” It doesn’t take much logic to realize that rationalizing killing because it might reduce waiting lists for organs will create a market for the culture of death. Why is this article silent about the concerns of many conservatives who oppose euthanasia? Where are their voices in “science daily”?

Terrorism. Here’s the political divide in a nutshell about terrorism. Leftists are concerned about ‘Islamophobia.’ Conservatives are concerned about protecting life. Which side do you predict Phys.org will take? Reporter Andy Dunn shows your prediction is correct: “Responses to terror attacks helping to fuel Islamophobia in society.” So maybe the real scientific finding here is that science media is predictably leftist. But that shouldn’t be a law of nature. Dunn quotes only academic elitists for his views; no debate, no comeback arguments from other Islamic terror experts like Dr Sebastian Gorka, Bridgette Gabriel, or Robert Spencer. They would have a lot to say on the subject in response to Dunn’s favorite experts, but they never get the Phys.org microphone.

Evolution. It doesn’t need repeating that the jihad against Darwin doubters continues in the press. Do we even need documentation? Every article on the subject assumes Darwinism as fact, and ridicules skeptics. Any suggestion evolution is controversial triggers the boilerplate propaganda that opposition must be religiously motivated. Here’s a somewhat unusual combo plate with anti-Trumpism, anti-Biblical-ethics and pro-Darwinism all mixed together: on The Conversation, Neil Mclatchie argues on evolutionary grounds that pride is good. Donald Trump’s pride, of course, is a form of narcissism, he says, but “From an evolutionary perspective, the tendency to experience pride likely benefited our ancestors in a number of ways.” Thus evolution justifies the sin of the serpent that led our race into destruction, according to Christian theology, requiring the death of the Son of God to remedy. We assume Mclatchie is proud of what he has done. He has no shame, because he knows that as an evolutionist he can tell any just-so story he wants, without the prospect of anyone else joining “the conversation” to debate him.

You have to understand the creation-evolution controversy in a wider context than just how species change over time. Darwinism is a package: it is a repudiation of design, and embracing of selfish pride. Darwin wanted out of Moses, Paley, and Jesus. He wanted to abandon a Creator for a creation that makes its own rules. The people who follow him, except for some dupes who don’t understand the issues and think evolution is ‘scientific,’ tend to have the same mentality. The vision of personal liberation is very attractive to people – at first. But followed to its logical conclusions, it leads to despair, as Francis Schaeffer so often emphasized in his books (also as C. S. Lewis did). Before the despair stage, though, it creates the illusion that we are in charge of our own destiny, responsible to no one but ourselves. We can cast off traditional values and make up our own. To leftists, that prospect seems very attractive. Never was Solomon’s warning more appropriate than in our day, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Proverbs 16:25).

It’s not surprising, therefore, that the world follows Darwin, resulting in this leftist-liberal bias we find in the media. But there are a couple of things that can be done. For one, these leftists (some of them) still believe in “fairness” and can be shamed into realizing just how unfair they are. So in tough love, pour on the shame. Leftists tend to hate hypocrisy, so hold up a mirror to them, and let them see what hypocrites they are for preaching tolerance but acting intolerant, for preaching equality but acting extremely biased, refusing to even let their opponents have a hearing. They should be ashamed of themselves, and we can help them in that process. Recently, CNN was publicly shamed for admitting to having repeatedly published fake news. That did some good, but only if the public keeps up the pressure for accountability. The National Park Service was shamed into granting a permit to Dr Andrew Snelling after a clear case of discrimination. Needless to say, the ones doing the shaming should be above reproach themselves, but leftists continue to write and speak shamelessly because they aren’t hearing us inside their media echo chamber. That must change. It can change in this age of alternative media; help us and others like us not let the leftists get away with their bias. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

The other thing that can be done is to push the leftists toward the implications of their worldview. The end is despair, Schaeffer said, and death, Solomon said — not the progress they seek. If leftists seem excited and happy about their views, show them the end of the road. If they have any rationality left at all, they will be repulsed by the sight, and begin to question the path they’re on. (I’m beginning to wonder if there are enough of those left.) If you find one, consider it an act of love to help them be ashamed of their hypocrisy and to look down the road to where their path is headed.

The current situation is lamentable, but not beyond repair. Some prominent science leaders have openly admitted their unease with how lopsided their institutions are, and how out of touch many scientists appear to the public. Shame is good when it is deserved. Pour it on. We do not advocate shutting them up, or we would be as guilty as they. We want openness, transparency, and honest debate. Who could be against that? Let’s fix this.

Leave a Reply