Big Science Leftist Bias Is on Autopilot
Science journals and mainstream science reporters take leftism for granted so instinctively, they aren’t even aware they do it.
It’s important to know where the Darwin-saturated media are coming from politically. Name any position on any political issue, and you will find the same evolutionists taking far-left positions. Here are a few recent examples on matters of life and death.
Dr Bergman’s book explains the rise of eugenics from Britain to America to Nazi Germany
Eliminating injustice imposed by the death penalty (Phys.org). Views on capital punishment can divide conservatives as well as liberals, but which political persuasion is likely to use “Black Lives Matter” as an authoritative source? In this piece from the University of Chicago, it’s not hard to tell where they are coming from. “In ‘Black Lives Matter and the Call for Death Penalty Abolition,’ published in Ethics, Michael Cholbi and Alex Madva defend the central arguments of the Black Lives Matter movement’s abolitionist stance on capital punishment.” Questions of unequal application of capital punishment deserve to be addressed, but shouldn’t scholars use more scholarly sources? David Horowitz says that “Black Lives Matter was created actually by three Maoists—literally—and is embraced by the Democratic Party” (FrontPageMag.com video). Remember that Phys.org presents itself as a ‘science’ site. Is that the right venue to promote a leftist political movement? And yet when you look at the history of scientific racism, as Jerry Bergman documents in his book The Darwin Effect, it was rooted in evolutionism.
Before reading the next articles, watch the videos at AbortionProcedures.com, especially the first one on D&E.
Report: Abortion is safe but barriers reduce quality of care (Medical Xpress). Hardly any issue today divides liberals and conservatives more sharply than abortion. Most of the time, in our reporting experience, the secular ‘science’ sites take the most extreme pro-abortion stance, and they do it instinctively, without even being apparently aware they are doing it. This article is a case in point: instinctively, Lauran Neergaard, who wrote it, thinks that restrictions on abortion are automatically bad. She stresses the safety of abortion (certainly not safe for the baby!) while bemoaning the poor women who face delays for various reasons. This article could have been written by Planned Parenthood as a fund raiser to fight conservatives.
Mississippi imposes 15-week abortion ban; nation’s toughest (Medical Xpress). This article by Jeff Amy and Sarah Mearhoff is a little more balanced, giving mention to both opponents and defenders of Missouri’s new law. The underlying bias, however, is clear. Greatest coverage is given to the opponents:
The state is bracing for immediate lawsuits. Abortion rights advocates say the law is unconstitutional because it limits abortion before fetuses can live outside the womb. The owner of Mississippi’s only abortion clinic in Jackson opposes the law and has pledged to sue.
“We certainly think this bill is unconstitutional,” said Katherine Klein, equality advocacy coordinator for the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi. “The 15-week marker has no bearing in science. It’s just completely unfounded and a court has never upheld anything under the 20-week viability marker.“
After that, Amy and Mearhoff only mention two organizations that support the bill, and give them one quote. The damage, however, was already done with the loaded words rights, unconstitutional, no bearing in science, unfounded, and fetus (instead of baby). The impression is that abortion is supported by science, but opposed by the clueless on how safe and good it is.
New report examines scientific evidence on safety and quality of abortion care in US (Science Daily). Can any practice on a human being be more ghastly than dilation and evacuation? Look how this article treats it. Written again as if it could have been a fund-raising letter for Planned Parenthood, it defends abortion in cold, clinical terms. The bad guys in the story are not the abortionists, but the conservatives who try to defend human lives about to be ripped apart:
Abortion-specific regulations in many states create barriers to safe and effective care. These regulations may prohibit qualified providers from performing abortions, misinform women of the risks of the procedures they are considering, or require medically unnecessary services and delay care, the report says. Examples of these policies include mandatory waiting periods, pre-abortion ultrasound, and a separate in-person counseling visit. Some states require abortion providers to provide women with written or verbal information suggesting that abortion increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer or mental illness, despite the lack of valid scientific evidence of increased risk.
“Safe and effective care”? This writing could be used as a case study on sophistry. To see why, imagine a similar article being written in 1780 to explain to Parliament why slavery is safe and effective, and then complains about those people like Wilberforce who set up ‘barriers’ to the economically-vital practice. Wilberforce wanted to show members of Parliament what it was really like on the slave ships, but he was staunchly opposed. In the same way, pro-abortionists oppose ultrasound because they don’t want women to see the life that is inside them. When people on the street say they are pro-choice, then watch a demonstration of dilation and evacuation, many quickly change their minds. They had no idea it was that awful (see Live Action video).
To conservatives, this article is ghastly, but it gets a free nod in this “science daily” site. No debate allowed. Abraham Lincoln must be rolling over in his grave at the concluding paragraph:
The study was sponsored by the Grove Foundation, The JPB Foundation, Packard Foundation, Susan Thompson Buffet Foundation, Tara Health Foundation, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, technology, and medicine. They operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Lincoln.
This is standard fare for the mainstream media science sites. To get a conservative point of view, one must go to conservative sites, like WND (e.g., “Horrible development: Abortions based on chromosomes”), or Prager University (hear Lila Rose tell about Planned Parenthood’s lies and deceptions).
Darwin was a leftist, and so were his disciples, like Huxley, Galton, H.G. Wells, Karl Pearson, Havelock Ellis, Margaret Sanger, and numerous others through the 20th century and into the 21st (see Dr Bergman’s book The Darwin Effect for numerous references and quotes). People need to see Darwin+leftism as a package deal. You can’t be a conservative and be a Darwinist (a consistent one, at least). If you are pro-life, you are anti-Darwin. If you are pro-religious liberty, you must fight the Darwin Lobby as one of your worst enemies. If you care about science, you must expose the Darwin racket of just-so storytelling as a sham masking a political agenda.
Big Science and Big Academia don’t have to be this way. One could imagine balance and open debate, the way the university was meant to be. Academia became lopsided to the left because Darwinists are intolerant bigots. Marxist-Leninist totalitarians that they are, they weep and plead for fairness (like they did at the Scopes trial) until they get power. Then they kick everyone else out and call them stupid, ignorant and behind the times. Then they set up rules that prevent debate. Don’t believe it? Read Dr Matti Leisola’s new book Heretic, where he documents case after case of that kind of behavior.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. We must laugh harder at their phony ‘science’ that they use to support their worldview. That will blow on the bottom floor of Darwin’s House of Cards.