To Improve Credibility, Science Must Get Out of Politics

Big Science journals need to either balance their coverage of political issues or drop them altogether to avoid losing half their audience.

More people are looking askance at Big Science because of its political adherence to leftist causes. We refer to “Big Science” (which can be abbreviated B.S.) as the institutions, reporters and lobbyists who promote the “public image” of science in the media. Day after day, their biased coverage reveals the following political posture by BS and their uncritical reporters in Big Media (B.M.):

• If evidence favors the Trump administration or Republican policies, BS is against it.
• If evidence favors conservative positions on social issues, BS is against it.
• If evidence supports intelligent design, BS is against it.
• If evidence favors anything favorable to Christianity, BS is against it.

The converse of each point is also true: if evidence discredits Donald Trump’s policies, BS is all for it, and so on down the list. Many science articles that get into politics really aren’t about science at all. They are written as if to give a scientific aura to leftist, globalist, atheist positions. They look like they were written by political liberal hacks. Even in social issues like abortion and transgenderism—where leftist positions are anti-science—BS and BM consistently take the leftist stance. Their in-your-face bias is bound to make non-leftists consider BS and BM as special-interest groups that amount to political enemies. This is not good for science. There needs to be objectivity and balance to extricate BS from politics. Better yet, science should just keep out of political policy matters altogether. Whatever happened to the unbiased study of nature?

People who see men and women as fundamentally different are more likely to accept workplace discrimination (TheConversation). As a quasi-scientific website, The Conversation is a hotbed of liberal, leftist, anti-creationist, anti-ID, anti-Republican, anti-Trump sentiment posing as a forum for scientists. Its posts are usually uncritically shared by Phys.org. Here’s a good example. Nobody wants to be accused of “discrimination” these days for anything; even claiming “discriminating taste” in clothes, music, or food risks a sour glance. Given the loaded word, who, you might ask, tends to “see men and women as fundamentally different”? The answer is clearly conservatives and others who believe God created sexes for distinct (yet equally valuable) roles, like Genesis 1:27 says. Prepare for Cordelia Find and Nick Haslam to commit the Association Fallacy linking conservatives with bigots. To add the aura of science, they appeal to a rigged “study” whose outcome was predictable by these two, who see no problem sending the less-enlightened conservatives to re-education camps:

Our findings raise some important questions for human resources practitioners working to reduce gender-based discrimination in organisations. Are programs that promote the essentialist view that women and men have fundamentally different and complementary skills impeding rather than improving workplace equality? Might programs that challenge inaccurate gender-essentialist beliefs be more effective than unconscious bias training programs?

Emergency department visits after abortion extremely rare (Medical Xpress). Planned Parenthood (you remember, that organization that sells baby body parts) has no better partner than BS and BM, who regularly offer excuses for killing babies in the womb. Those conservatives who complain that abortion centers are dirty, filthy, unsanitary places, as seen in Kermit Gosnell’s house of horrors, must be stopped. Enter another “study” by biased “researchers” to speak up abortionists with their nice, sweet, pink-and-blue rooms where women can safely dispose of their children: “Given the low rate of major incidents, perceptions that abortion is unsafe are not based on evidence,” the authors of the “study” conclude.

Arkansas abortion pills restriction remains on hold (Medical Xpress). Democrats and other leftists love it when unelected judges cross the will of the people. Citizens of Arkansas, through their elected representatives, tried to restrict abortion pills, but a judge issued an injunction from allowing the law to go into effect. The reporter, Alicia Gallegos, appears delighted that this happened, writing like a Planned Parenthood defender would. “Attorney General Rutledge will continue to defend Arkansas law and fight to protect the lives of women across the state.” The little girls in the trash can weep.

Religion-free church lifts your spirits (Phys.org). What on earth is a “science news site” like Phys.org doing promoting secular “church” meetings? Natural science has no business promoting atheism, but this article heartily endorses the benefits of fellowship apart from “religion” (which they equate with belief in God). The reporters could have said that these “secular congregations” are just as religious as church congregations. The reporters could have noted that the phenomenon points to a God-shaped vacuum in the human heart. That, however, would not fit the leftists’ secular narrative. The article, posing as “science news,” looks like a free ad for drawing people out of real churches into fake churches. “Secular congregations may be a good alternative for non-religious people who want the health benefits religious communities traditionally offer.”

Report: Trump administration needs to step up on ‘Obamacare’ (Medical Xpress). Well, if a “report” on a science news site says something, it must have more cred than a tabloid, right? The wildly unpopular and unsuccessful health program based on Obama’s lies (“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”) gets not only positive coverage (as if socialized medicine is sweet); it also launches an attack on Trump, too. It’s Trump’s fault, the writer implies, that Obamacare rates are skyrocketing. Trump needs to be doing more to shore up the failing system!

Donald Trump’s Space Force Isn’t As New Or As Dangerous As It Seems (Space.com). Isn’t this an item that defends Trump? Notice that the implication is that the Space Force is dangerous, but it’s not “as” dangerous “as it seems”— to whom? Obviously, to the leftists that liberal reporters Cameron Hunter and Bleddyn Bown assume are their readers. Some defense. Trump is undoubtedly flattered. This article’s defense of Trump is about as tasteless as the redneck’s compliment, “You don’t sweat much for a big girl.”

Hey America, you can finally choose to elect people who rely on facts (New Scientist). The leftist progressives in Britain here brazenly intrude into US politics in the name of “science” and “facts.”

Whenever we can, we need to complain to BS and BM to stop this persistent bias. “Get back to natural science!” we should insist. Turn them off. Complain to their advertisers. They are betraying the good name of science with their leftist propaganda. They deserve no more respect than Antifa – maybe less, since they are more sneaky about it.