Big Science Fights Christian Values

Secular scientists have more than just Darwinism to offer as an alternative to creation. They have political clout to fight traditional values with anti-Christian political and educational positions.

Christianity’s values, after loving the true Creator God pre-eminently and loving one’s neighbor, run roughly parallel to those in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (where “happiness” means “a life of virtue” rather than selfish indulgence). Life is sacred to Bible believers, worthy of protection and self-sacrifice. Liberty implies responsibility and duty. For these reasons, Christians value life, especially of the most vulnerable in society: the unborn, disabled and elderly. “Big Science” (a term enveloping scientific institutions, the media and its government advocates, not impugning individual scientists) often takes strong stands against “traditional values” and Christian views on policy matters. The powers in Big Science not only undermine Christian values through fake science, but actively work against them. Here are some recent examples.

Traditional Values: Guilty as Charged

Notice the wording in Phys.org‘s headline about adoption: “Too many professionals guilty of applying traditional values to same-sex adoption.” This article not only welcomes “new conceptions of family structure” that are “much more diverse and fluid” in Britain these days, but actually chastises those “clinging on to traditional ideas of what constitutes a family” – which would include Christians. Just a few years ago, it would also have included virtually everyone. The writer of this article appears disturbed that there are still “too many” professionals not comfortable with putting vulnerable children into the care of homosexuals. Is there any concern about the welfare of children losing out on the influence of a mother or a father? Is there any concern for professionals who might have conscientious objections to the radical new practice? Any concern over persecution that might come their way? No. All the concern goes to University of Huddersfield lecturer Kate Wood, whose smiling face begins the article. “Her research in the subject is leading her to call for a rethinking of family relationships.” It used to be that “research” was separated from policy and advocacy.

Worshiping a god Made in Man’s Image

It used to be that science kept itself out of theology. Live Science, however, did not hesitate to promote an article by “Seeker” Glenn McDonald, who says that the wave of the future may be to worship the god of artificial intelligence (AI). “You might soon be able — if you’re so inclined — to join a bonefide [sic] church worshiping an artificially intelligent god.”

Former Google and Uber engineer Anthony Levandowski, according to a recent Backchannel profile, filed paperwork with the state of California in 2015 to establish Way of the Future, a nonprofit religious corporation dedicated to worshiping AI. The church’s mission, according to paperwork obtained by Backchannel, is “to develop and promote the realization of a Godhead based on artificial intelligence and through understanding and worship of the Godhead contribute to the betterment of society.”

Levandowski, naturally, has declared himself president of Way of the Future. No application for High Priest is evident on the application, McDonald jokes. But the new religion is no joke; so why is this posted on Live Science? And why does McDonald give good press to other ‘forward looking’ cults like Mormonism and Scientology? Levandowski’s ‘godhead’ is utterly at polar opposites from Christian theology. It is the deification of self:

The concept of worshiping artificial intelligence even has a certain resonance with a major world religion, Cann said.

“From a comparative religion perspective, I think it feels the most like Hinduism, in which there are avatars of deities found on Earth,” she said. “In this way, I think AI can reflect the best of humans back to us, which are, in turn, worshiped.“

Even though ‘Way of the Future’ may not evolve into the ultimate religion for modern secularists, McDonald likes the idea. Both Seeker and Live Science gave him a platform to teach the worst form of idolatry. It’s not as revolutionary as it may seem, he says. (This implies that idolatry is already prevalent in modern culture.) Candi Cann, a professor of comparative religion at (formerly) Baptist institution Baylor University, had no real problem with it.

“For me, this is more like a new paradigm out of which new religious practices could emerge,” Cann told Seeker. “It doesn’t seem like a religion as much as a religious worldview. Along those lines, secularism is a religious worldview.“

Looking for Ways to Criticize the Bible

A large, elegant Museum of the Bible is set to open in Washington DC next month. Filled with priceless historical manuscripts and artifacts from antiquity to the space age, the museum, made into multiple stories from a converted warehouse, will present its huge collection with state-of-the-art technology. Don’t you think the AAAS could find something nice to say about this new venture that showcases the Bible’s undeniable influence on world history? Lizzie Wade seems to be hunting for things to find fault with in her review, “Original Sin” published in Science Magazine.

Next month, a lavish museum will open its doors here, just a stone’s throw from the Smithsonian castle and the U.S. Capitol. Flanking its doors are 12-meter-tall bronze panels inscribed with Hebrew text from the Book of Genesis recounting God’s creation of the universe.

The grandiose new venture is bankrolled by the Greens, the billionaire family that owns the Hobby Lobby chain of craft stores. Since 2009, the Greens, evangelical Christians known for their successful Supreme Court challenge to the Affordable Care Act‘s requirement that health insurance plans pay for birth control, have amassed a private collection of 40,000 artifacts—both ancient and modern—relating to the Bible and the ancient Near East.

Think of how this opening could have been worded in a more favorable way. She could have said it was ‘eagerly anticipated’ or mentioned the Bible’s positive influence on culture. Instead, she calls the museum ‘lavish’ and says it was ‘bankrolled’ by the Greens, who ‘amassed’ a ‘private’ collection, implying it is a colossal a waste of money from one family’s personal hobby horse. Would she have described the Carnegie Libraries this way? Wade immediately points to Hobby Lobby’s successful court challenge of “The Affordable Care Act” which is, as everyone knows, a misnomer of gargantuan proportions usually dubbed Obamacare.

“[If] archaeology is being used as a means of proving the historicity and accuracy of the biblical text, that is extremely problematic,” says Jodi Magness, an archaeologist at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and president of the Archaeological Institute of America.

The review degenerates from there. She calls their desire to support the Bible’s authenticity with archaeology ‘problematic’, bringing in some authority figure to voice that opinion. Wade questions the Green family’s mission and motives. She makes the acquisition of artifacts look dubious if not dishonest, possible products of looting. She questions the credentials of the museum’s analysts, and uses the power of suggestion to hint that some artifacts may be forgeries. Her chosen authorities find ‘red flags’ in the displays. And the museum doesn’t do enough, in Wade’s opinion, to allow viewers to have their beliefs challenged. Would she have similar concerns about museums that present Darwinian evolution?

More Liberal Bias Posing as Science

We continue finding a predominance of leftist bias in ‘science’ media. Here are some recent examples.

Decrying capitalism. The Bible depicts gardening—by extension agriculture as well—as mankind’s original good pastime. Darren Curnoe, at The Conversation, argues that it was “the greatest blunder in human history”. Agriculture takes advantage of human ingenuity to achieve higher productivity, implying scientific observation and testing. Agriculture presupposes private property rights, because the worker deserves to benefit from his effort. Freedom to grow and invent is behind capitalism. Curnoe could have accentuated the positives of agriculture, but instead, he paints a grisly picture of all the bad effects he can think of when our evolutionary ancestors left their hunter-gatherer lifestyle to become farmers. As expected, he appeals to “natural selection” to explain all the negatives. But logically, Curnoe must also employ natural selection to explain the first decisions to farm. How, then, can it be called a ‘blunder’?

Promoting communism. The former Soviet Union murdered pastors and put Christians in concentration camps with common criminals. Communism wherever it has been tried has led to economic disaster, starvation and dictatorship. You’d never hear that in a Phys.org piece titled, “Wealth redistribution, not tax cuts, key to economic growth.” Wealth redistribution is code for communism, taking from the ‘bourgeousie’ and giving to the ‘proletariat’ workers of the world. What on earth is a ‘science’ site doing promoting the worst system of misery distribution the world has ever seen? (At WND, see Bob Unruh’s list of communist horrors on the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, which, he notes, has no party celebration planned.) Look at the rank bias in this ending. It could have been written by Pravda:

The results suggest that current approaches to correcting economic problems by reducing government spending (austerity), while decreasing taxes for the wealthy to promote investment, are misguided. They may have been good policies in 1980, but they are long outdated today. It turns out that economic inequality is not just a social justice problem, but actually an economic problem. Fixing economic inequality will have dramatic benefits for economic growth.

Blurring genders. In the beginning, God created male and female: no exceptions. It was the basis for marriage and family. After sin and the curse intruded, as Christians believe, behaviors and genes started to go haywire, but that does not justify changing the original design that God pronounced ‘very good’. This article on Medical Xpress uses scare tactics and red herrings to promote political correctness. Discussing the rare cases of ‘intersex’ babies with indeterminate genitalia due to genetic abnormalities, the article promotes the misnomer of ‘gender fluidity‘ to accuse those who ‘stigmatize’ transgenders. Gender choice is very different from having a genetic abnormality. Notice how this spokesperson leaps from one to the other:

“Once you meet people directly affected by laws which discriminate against them, you begin to feel differently and I’ve become a passionate advocate for change in the law in this area. I began to question the way in which we seek to categorise people and apply labels. What right does the state have to classify people as male or female in official documents such as birth certificates and passports – and do we actually need gender categories?“

Denying women their existence. Another article on Science Daily nonchalantly discusses ‘gender fluidity‘ as if womanhood is a phantom. If women don’t exist as a biological reality, how can they have equal rights? “Healthcare providers need to recognize this new reality and incorporate it into their approaches to caring for their female patients.” Maybe they should say, ‘You’re not a really a woman, even though you have XX chromosomes, breasts and a uterus. You are whatever we decide you are.’

Rationalizing killing. In her piece on The Conversation, Caitlin Mahar examines “Euthanasia through the ages” to excuse it. Parts of the article provide historical details worth knowing about, such as the changing meanings of the word euthanasia, and the rise of palliative care. Mahar confuses, however, the idea of palliative care with euthanasia, as if they are aspects of the same concern for the dying: “Today, a primary goal of both movements aimed at care of the dying – palliative care and euthanasia – is to eliminate suffering,” she says. Nowhere does she hint of the slippery slope following the granting of permission for doctors to kill their patients.

Fighting the second amendment. When faced with the high-strung issue of gun ownership, you can count on ‘science’ to find a way to take the left’s position that gun ownership is the problem. Latest episode of this series: “More permissive concealed-carry laws linked to higher homicide rates” posted by Medical Xpress. This example of selective reporting runs counter to numerous other studies that show the exact opposite, so who is picking and choosing the studies? Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws in the United States, yet the highest murder rate. Where is mention of mass murderers who were stopped in their tracks by responsible gun-carrying citizens? Where is acknowledgement that criminals ignore gun laws? Amazingly, this article points to ‘public opinion’ as evidence. The last sentence is nothing more than speculation:

“The trend toward increasingly permissive concealed carry laws is inconsistent with public opinion, which tends to oppose the carrying of guns in public,” the authors wrote. “Our findings suggest that these laws may also be inconsistent with the promotion of public safety.”

Promoting abortion. Here’s a lesson on how to make evil look nice. In Science Magazine, three writers for a ‘Policy Forum’ do everything in their power to arouse sympathy for poor people denied the chance to kill their children. They use euphemisms for this grisly practice (watch this Live Action video by an abortionist), dubbing it ‘reproductive health’. Do they mention any alternatives to abortion? No, this is an anti-Trump screed, excoriating the president for extending the Mexico City policy (celebrated by the Family Research Council) that refuses US taxpayer dollars to be used to promote abortion overseas. The three science ‘experts’ who wrote this piece invent fears to make Trump look bad and killers look good. Yes, is it not a tragedy that African women are denied the opportunity to have doctors rip their children limb from limb inside the womb? A worse defense of evil using propaganda tactics could hardly be imagined.

Caught with their pants down. Big Science can hardly find any sexual deviancy worthy of condemnation, but now they have a problem: Harvey Weinstein. Is he the ogre he seems, now that his sexual escapades have become public, or is he a victim of a ‘disorder’ known as ‘sex addiction’ to psychiatrists? Political correctness demands that he be condemned, but secular theories excuse all behaviors as evolved strategies. So when Weinstein himself uses the strategies, what are evolutionists to do?

I’m not bad – I’m ill. In essence, that is the defence of disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, with his decision to seek treatment for sex addiction after the recent string of allegations about his appalling behaviour towards women.

That line by Clare Wilson at New Scientist fulfills the outrage requirement (‘appalling behaviour’) but leaves open the issue of evolution. Her solution is to question the designation of ‘sex addict’ as a controversial label. Stephanie Pappas at Live Science also takes this escape route. These men need to take responsibility for their actions, and confess that nobody (or nothing) made them do it. But on what basis? The Ten Commandments? It’s noteworthy that discussions of ‘selection pressure’ and ‘evolutionary strategy’ drop out of the discussion when scientists and science reporters become sufficiently outraged at some behavior.

What’s common about these entries? It is the explicit, intentional bias against Christian values. There is nothing in the ‘science’ in any of these articles that requires a leftist position. Leftism has become ingrained in Big Science and Big Media (and Big Hollywood) since the Darwinian revolution took root in the early 20th century. Secular materialism comes first; the presentation comes second. If you understand that, you will understand not only these left-leaning articles, but most of the Darwinian papers and articles masquerading as science.