July 8, 2018 | David F. Coppedge

Big Science Tracks Political Correctness

So much for objectivity. Take any social cause that is politically correct, and you can count on Big Science to endorse it, and to condemn the Christian or conservative view.

There’s something people need to know about science in the 21st century: it has become deeply politicized. In a recent post (20 June 2018), Dr Jerry Bergman related how lopsided the science faculty are in academia, with Democrats outnumbering Republicans in overwhelming numbers (sometimes 100%). Only the naive would think this kind of culture would never influence their scientific papers and theories. The further a study gets from observable, repeatable, testable matters, the more it is likely to reflect—not steer—the political ideology of its cultural milieu. In each of the following news stories, so-called scientific experts always take the leftist position—even when it intuitively contradicts expectations that Darwinism—which they hold to religiously—would intuit. Watch:

Same Sex Marriage. Christians are struggling with the political aftereffects of same-sex marriage, legalized in a narrow 5-4 decision by retiring justice Anthony Kennedy in 2015, because they consider it a transgression against God’s design for marriage as clearly taught in the Bible. Indeed, all who embrace conservative ‘family values’ would never have dreamed of legitimizing such a thing with the word ‘marriage’ before the media blitz that shoved it down society’s throats since the 1970s, turning the traditional view into ‘hate’ or ‘intolerance’ while celebrating homosexuality with pride. The success of this social coup is a matter for historians and social commentators, but the point to understand here is that homosexual relationships are intuitively un-Darwinian. Evolution relies on offspring. You can’t mix egg and sperm and thereby pass on evolved genes without males and females. To first order, homosexual unions are evolution-stoppers! Darwin’s disciples respond by coming up with auxiliary hypotheses to explain the phenomenon. But to embrace homosexual ‘marriage’ as socially desirable is another thing entirely. We see Big Science going out of its way to lend pseudo-scientific support to same-sex marriage, as in this post on Medical Xpress, “No difference in outcomes for children of same-sex versus different-sex parents.” Where is the objectivity? When does Big Science or Big Media ever report the harm done to children by depriving them of the balanced, natural influence of a mother and father? Instead, science goes out of its way to legitimize same-sex marriage with ‘studies’ where the politically-correct outcome is pre-ordained by social expediency.

Gender Confusion. Christians adhere to Genesis 1:27, “male and female [God] created them.” God created Adam and Eve, they say, not Adam and Steve. Science backs them up. Except in rare cases of genetic disease, males are XY, females are XX. Secondary sexual characteristics follow naturally in development. Occasional gender questioning in childhood usually resolves itself naturally in the teen years with maturity and parental guidance. Now, Christians are fighting for political legitimacy of this clearly scientific position in California, trying to oppose a new law that would punish them for offering counsel to homosexuals or transgenders, even if they want help. Former transgenders testified at the state capitol last month, offering proof that they can change, and wanted to change, but would be deprived of such counsel by AB 2943. Some felt the state law would condemn them to a lifestyle that has a high percentage of depressions and suicides (California Family Council). A few LGBTQ activists, with the help of a compassionate media, have convinced state legislators that gender confusion is politically correct and perfectly normal, and anyone who doesn’t think so is a hater. Predict what Big Science will say. That’s easy; just follow the bouncing PC ball.

Georgiann Davis at The Conversation notes that transgenderism is growing across the US. Notably, she puts under a subsection, “Evolution? Not So Fast,” implying that this is not a case of Darwinian progress. For one thing, the trend happened rapidly by the media. Davis, a sociologist at the University of Nevada, appears semi-objective about the trend, and yet says nothing about its harm. “There is no way to predict how large the sex- and gender-diverse population will get,” she says. “But there is evidence that society is changing from the simplicity of male or female.New Scientist writer Alison George overtly supports ‘gender fluidity’ despite its anti-genetic basis, using the Orwellian headline, “How to Think About Gender.” and Andy Coghlan at New Scientist argues that banning ‘gay conversion therapy’ is good policy whether or not it succeeds in the UK. Notice the bias in the opening sentence: “The UK government has announced plans to ban controversial and long-discredited “gay conversion therapies” that claim to help gay people become straight, and transgender people revert to the gender they were designated at birth.” And what does he cite for support that it is ‘long-discredited’ therapy? Big Science, of course: the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association, which de-listed homosexuality as a disorder decades ago, and just de-listed ‘gender dysphoria’ as a mental disorder. “Such treatments, also known as reparative therapy, have long been denounced [by whom?] as pseudoscience [loaded word] and potentially harmful [fear-mongering],” he says, not quoting a single spokesperson in opposition to the PC view.

Climate Change. Without getting into details about global warming and its causes, the point to note is that ‘anthropogenic climate change’ is overwhelmingly believed by the political left, and doubted by the political right. If science were truly objective, it would encourage skeptics of the PC view to present their arguments. Instead, the PC view is promoted by leftists and globalists in Big Media and Big Science who have determined that developed countries like the US must redistribute their wealth to under-developed countries in order to address the problem. The PC view, however, is un-Darwinian because it overlooks huge swings in climate change over geological ages that they themselves believe in. It is also un-Darwinian in the sense that ‘Stuff Happens’ in the Darwinian worldview, and whatever happens is not morally right or wrong. So even if humans are causing global warming, Darwinians can have no rational moral stance about it. Instead, we see, as in this PLoS paper, that Big Science is fishing for ways to manipulate the public. “Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus [bluffing, bandwagon], a sizable minority of people doubt that human activity is causing climate change. Communicating the existence of a scientific consensus has been suggested as a way to correct individuals’ misperceptions about human-caused climate change and other scientific issues,” the authors begin. If you don’t follow the consensus, you will be targeted by PC police who have weaponized science to enforce conformity.

Free will and free speech. All but the most extreme Calvinists believe in free will to some degree, at least in the moral responsibility of individuals in everyday life. Free will is tied to free speech, in that only morally free individuals can conceive of and communicate propositions and support them with arguments and evidence. Conservatives, as of late, have been alarmed at the ‘speech codes’ at universities, and the alarming attacks on conservative speakers on campus. Leftists have a pretty sorry track record on free speech, evident from socialism, communism and the totalitarian regimes past and present that enforce the State’s messaging. Predict now what Big Science will say about this. Will they defend the very rights that give them freedom to speak for the consensus? Look at this piece by David Edward Tabachnik at The Conversation, a reliably leftist PC podium for scientists wearing D-Merit Badges. His headline: “The strange origins of the free speech warriors.” By ‘warriors’, he means the likes of Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter and other conservatives whose speeches have been met with riots on campus fomented by leftist radicals. Tabachnik tries to defend the absurd dictum that liberalism actually supports the suppression of free speech. In effect, he defends the rioters against conservatives! You will not find Tabachnik advocating suppression of speech by jihadists or communists; those get a pass.

As for free will, Peter Gooding denies it. On The Conversation, he speaks of “disturbing dualism,” the “absurdly dualistic” belief that humans have a soul in addition to a body. Evolutionists have a long tradition of materialistic determinism, denying that we are anything more than our physical brains. But of course, psychologist Gooding chose to write this piece, denying his own premise. Watch him contradict himself with his own dualistic tontologism: “It is not that our brains make decisions for us, rather we make our decisions with our brains.” Who’s “we,” Paleface?

Christians, conservatives: face reality. Big Science is against you. They amass words and stack cards to announce to the world their message: Darwin is all. There is no God. There is no soul. There is no intelligent design. Progressives own science. Science is truth; don’t be misled by facts.

This is not the science of Newton, Boyle, Kepler and the dozens of other God-fearing scientists whose biographies you can read here on CEH. This is Big Science—PC science—wedded to the other Big’s in modern culture: Big Education, Big Labor, Big Law, Big Entertainment, Big Media and Big Government. We don’t include in this definition the many individual scientists who still hold to the ideals of natural knowledge, doing good work with testable, repeatable experiment. Good scientists stay out of politics, following the evidence where it leads. The Big Institutions that pretend to speak for them, though, want to pull you down with them as they slide into totalitarianism once again. If they could, they would put you in re-education camps. At least, they want to silence you. You are not allowed to think outside the consensus.

It’s a challenge to be pro-science (in the true sense) while being opposed to the leftist authorities in Big Science. One way to do it is to shame them by pointing out, objectively, the contradictions between the actual observable facts of nature and the positions they espouse.

Keep in mind that to those halfway down a slippery slope, those clinging to the top look like reactionaries.

 

 

Comments

  • Gorglesprout says:

    Dear all,

    I am so disappointed you lump “Climate change” in with other leftist policies. I totally agree with pretty much all your articles about creation, philosophy, epistemology, etc. But Christians should be at the forefront of environmental protection, instead they are facilitating our planet’s destruction. It is a well-established fact that the main reason there is so much global-warming skepticism in the USA is due to the MASSIVE oil-and-gas lobby who bow only to the god Mammon, i.e. short-term profit. They have paid fake (or pseudo-) scientists for decades to make bogus claims to oppose the idea of man-made climate change.

    Normal scientists have NO vested interest in “promoting” anthropogenic climate change. Fossil fuel companies have EVERY vested interest in fighting it tooth and nail, which is precisely what they have done for decades.

    President Trump is dismantling environmental protection laws for one reason : money. He bows only to the god Mammon. But this is a short-term view. It is in everyone’s interest to develop non-polluting (or less polluting) forms of energy, including in the economy’s interest. And fossil fuel exploitation does terrible environmental damage, regardless of the effects on the climate : fracking pollutes soils and destroys ecosystems; oilspills regularly kill millions of seabirds ; fumes from cars cause health problems; etc. You do NOT need even to believe in anthropogenic climate change to see that it makes more sense to develop cleaner energy. The price of solar energy is rapidly coming down, likewise for wind energy.

    But politics in the USA is so polarized that bible-believing Christians (of which I am one) believe that ANYTHING the left says must be wrong. Please, please, please, try to see that this is not necessarily so ! There is excellent evidence for anthropogenic climate change, which opposes IN NO WAY our biblical convictions. If you agree that mankind is responsible for the extinction of most megafauna (another of your excellent articles confirms this), WHY does it seem so improbable – from a theological, sociological or historical viewpoint – that burning trillions of tons of dirty dead stuff should have an impact on our climate ?

    The only reason I can conceive of for you to oppose measurable, modern science in this matter – we are NOT talking about “millions of Darwin years” ago – is political influence.

    I concede that some of the current warming may come from other sources. But if there is a chance – and it is extremely high – that we are in some way responsible, should not Christian responsibility demand we try and do something about it ? What is there to lose, after all ? Countries that have developed cleaner energy have reaped nothing but benefits. Portugal now generates almost 100% of its electricity from renewable sources, and is no longer dependent on foreign imports, no longer needs to worry about oil wars, etc. Why can the USA not show the way in this ? Even if it turned out you were right and I was wrong, the world would STILL be a better place for the changes we would have made !!!

    I find your opposition to anthropogenic climate change, so well-documented and with NO atheistic reason to back it up, reduces credibility in the rest of your claims – which as I say, I thoroughly agree with.

    I have met many American christians who have read little or nothing about climate change but who viscerally reject it because they associate it with the left. Anthropogenic climate change has no political color, other than the fact that oil lobbies have won over the Republican party to their cause. It could have been otherwise; Republicans could have led the way in being responsible, in realizing that we need to “balance the environmental budget”. This makes me terribly sad.

    • Hello and thank you for commenting, although brevity is the soul of wit.

      We keep saying that we do not take a position on anthropogenic climate change. You are free to have have your own opinion on it irrespective of views on Darwinian evolution. We only report on it for purposes of discussing philosophy of science: how a scientific consensus becomes self-perpetuating and self-reinforcing, to the point where it must not be doubted, as it has become with Darwinism. We also point out instances from the consensus-science literature that might cast doubt on what the climatologists think they know. It’s important for critical thinkers to recognize the difference between consensus and fact. When new findings come to light that were not included in highly-politicized models, don’t you think people should know? Notice that we don’t quote climate skeptic sites or Republicans on these (only rarely); we quote the true believers themselves. That’s important. Out of their own mouths they will often say that current models need to be reconsidered in light of new findings.

      As for the “chance” that humans are responsible, some SETI believers feel there is an extremely high chance that we have offended space aliens. We don’t see them because they have quarantined us. I don’t think you would agree that is sufficient reason to “do something about” that. Actually, based on philosophy of science alone, as we have repeatedly stated, it is extremely difficult to attribute human causation to something as complex as climate change. Read our reports about that (see https://crev.info/?s=climate+change# ). Even pro-consensus climatologists accept historic climate swings that were even more drastic long before humans started burning fossil fuels. I therefore dispute your evaluation that the chance is “extremely high” that we are responsible.

      As for alternative energy and ecological responsibility, CEH is all for those. More power to the inventors of clean energy, clean air, clean water! —especially if they can make it marketable. You can see this theme often in our articles about Biomimetics. Government coercion, however, is another issue, especially when led by globalists seeking redistribution of wealth (communism) as the solution.

      Again, thanks for sharing your views. I hope you will keep reading. Just make sure you understand what we’re saying and what we are not saying. I urge you to go back and read our list of articles with these thoughts in mind.
      —Editor

Leave a Reply