June 3, 2018 | David F. Coppedge

Big Science Has Become a Political Machine

Many individual scientists honestly pursue truth, but the institutions of science (universities, media and lobbyists) push a unilateral anti-conservative, progressive agenda.

Name any political issue that has a conservative side and a liberal side. Without exception, you will find Big Science promoting the liberal, leftist, progressive side. Why is that? Is it because the facts always align with leftism? Look at these recent examples and decide.

Harvard Study Explodes Puerto Rico Death Rate to Bash Trump (FrontPageMag). This conservative site calls out Harvard for inflating casualty numbers from last year’s Hurricane Maria in order to make President Trump look bad. They used flawed statistics and imprecise interviews to build a case, rather than report actual facts.

Handgun purchaser licensing laws linked to fewer firearm homicides in large, urban areas: States that adopt handgun licensing laws see fewer gun homicides in their urban centers (Science Daily). Statistics are fun; you can prove anything if you have an agenda. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in America. Checked the shootings there lately? Statisticians may differ about the effect of particular laws, but one thing is clear in the secular science media: you will never see a story confirming the conservative position on the Second Amendment.

‘Quiet revolution’ leads to abortion rights win in Ireland (Medical Xpress). What is it that makes science media always cheer more abortion, and lament less abortion? Is that a matter of science? What is “medical” about increasing abortions? Here’s another example on Science Daily: “Having an abortion does not lead to depression.” Tell that to the clients of Crisis Pregnancy Centers around America, who counsel the women misled by abortion providers. The headline is not a scientific finding; it is an assertion pushing an agenda. And here is the agenda: “With an increasing number of laws being enacted throughout the United States that aim to limit women’s access to abortion, the findings from the study Examining the Association of Antidepressant Prescriptions With First Abortion and First Childbirth provide important new evidence that can inform policy.”

US ‘right to try’ drugs law could hurt terminally ill people (New Scientist). Conservatives may differ among themselves on the merits of the new “right to try” law signed by President Trump this week (e.g., Wesley J. Smith at Evolution News), but New Scientist seems to be just taking one more opportunity to bash the conservative American president. Is there something unscientific about giving freedom to individuals and families? This article, notice, comes from the UK that killed Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans by forbidding their parents to leave the country for treatments that might have saved the children. That’s not Hippocratic; that’s totalitarian.

Immigration agents X-raying migrants to determine age isn’t just illegal, it’s a misuse of science (Medical Xpress). We can be lenient on this article to the extent that it’s about which empirical procedure is reliable, but once again, if there’s a conservative issue at stake (in this case, stopping illegal immigration), Big Science will predictably line up against it.

Older men with higher levels of sex hormones could be less religious, study suggests (Science Daily). Such a silly association study would never make it past peer review – that is, unless, it portrays “religious” people in a bad light. You know it’s flawed by turning it around. Do testosterone levels determine how prone a scientist is to write silly scientific papers? Case closed.

Infant mortality rates higher in areas with more Christian fundamentalists (Medical Xpress). Those stupid Christians; they must be killing their babies through anti-science attitudes and neglect. Why? Speaking with a broad brush, this reporter at a science website says, “conservative Protestants, including fundamentalists and Pentecostals, tend to be more insular and are more likely to reject science and health-related resources.” Presumably this is far worse than overtly murdering children by abortion.

Medicaid expansion produces significant health benefits, study finds (Medical Xpress). “Study finds.” What study? A study conducted by Indiana University leftists, that’s what. The wildly-unpopular Obamacare bill that is collapsing before our eyes gets positive vibes in this article that promotes socialized medicine, that progressive utopia they almost got under Obama. Guess who pays for Medicaid expansion? Taxpayers who work.

Money for nothing: the truth about universal basic income: Several projects are testing the idea of doling out funds that people can use however they want. (Nature). The leading world’s science journal here supports redistribution of wealth (i.e., communism). Where do the unemployed and poor get their unsought, unearned gifts? From government plundering the pockets of those who work. Don’t hold your breath for a study in Nature about the benefits of capitalism or free markets.

“Universal basic income” is surely opposite the Protestant work ethic, and the Bible that says, “If a man will not work, neither should he eat.” Occasionally we illustrate the leftist bias in the science media, to help our readers know that we’re not dealing with lily-white motives of scientists in white lab coats when they talk about Darwinism. They come from institutions where everyone is a leftist, where conservatives are shunned, and where “religiosity” (whatever that means) is treated like leprosy. Is it any wonder they embrace materialist theories of origins?

Be aware of this so that you understand the origins controversy’s worldview connections. If it is depressing, remember that these are the same people who believe in space aliens and that their brains happened by mistake.

 

 

Leave a Reply