Big Science: Lean to the Left
How does Big Science support the socialist cultural revolution going on in major cities? Let us count the ways.
Consider how opposite the leftist and conservative positions are on major issues affecting our country. Given Big Science’s total allegiance to Darwinism and its dismissive attitude about ID or any kind of theism, it’s time to connect the dots to see why Big Science and Big Media always lean left. Having abandoned its roots in western civilization, Big Science has lost its way. It is no longer an unbiased search for truth about nature. It has become a political advocacy group, whose views are indexed to whatever radical leftists want.
Abortion: Leftists want absolutely no restrictions on abortion at any stage, even after birth in some cases, and expect taxpayers to pay for it. Additionally, they want no restrictions on the use of aborted human tissue and embryonic stem cells for research. Big Science never defends the scientific fact that a fertilized egg is a unique individual.
Education: Evolutionists that they are, Big Science spokespersons are DOPE-pushing DODOs (Darwin-Only Public Education, Darwin Only! Darwin Only!). They have abandoned the liberal value of vigorous debate through logic and reason; it’s totalitarian indoctrination now, just the way radical leftists like it.
Race: Evolutionists were champions of Social Darwinism and Eugenics when it was popular (see Evolution News) but now, to look politically correct (PC), they pretend to have remorse. Even so, they only speak of their racist past in indirect generalities. The rest of the time, they join the Left in seeing every non-white as an oppressed victim of white privilege.
LGBT: Leftists have redefined not only marriage, but sex and gender as well. Big Science is in a quandary on this one. They know that there are really only males and females in the animal world, which they believe includes humans. But to appear PC, they agree with the very un-scientific position that sex and gender are separable and fluid.
Law and Order: Modern leftists Bolsheviks are screaming at police, insisting they be defunded, and championing the release of repeat criminals out onto the streets. Big Science is strangely silent on defense of law and order; they want to be “sensitive” to those who have been “oppressed” by cops.
Freedom: Conservatives consider liberty among their foremost values: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. Leftists see everyone in Collective terms. Everyone is a member of a group: either an oppressor, or the oppressed. No one is allowed to disagree with this in the totalitarian mindset of the left. If you disagree, you will be shouted down and called a racist or sexist or worse. “Cancel culture” will prevent you from getting a hearing. Those with different views from the Collective must be destroyed.
Global Governance: Conservatives believe in love of country and citizenship. They value the meaning of citizenship and the flag. They believe in Federalism, and say that decisions should be made at the local level as far as possible, and only promoted to higher levels as necessary. The Left wants open borders: anybody, as a citizen of the world, should be able to cross any national border at will. The Left would invest all political power in a global body like the United Nations.
The US President: Leftists hate President Trump with a visceral, irrational hatred that is so intense and unrelenting, they cannot bring themselves to say anything good about anything he does. Ever. Big Science is very comfortable in that hate-fest. They hate his policies. They hate his whole cabinet, too. They accuse them of being anti-science—even the credentialed scientists and doctors. The opposite was true in the Obama era; leftists could not find anything bad to say about his policies or personnel.
Now, the Evidence
Let us see how this left-leaning plays out in the recent headlines. These are all from “science” news sites.
Racist cop shows and biased news fuel public fears of crime and love for the police (Phys.org). Here’s the line being pushed: it is understandable why ethnic minorities commit crimes, loot, riot and destroy the country’s history. It’s conservatives’ fault for cop shows on TV that put police in a good light. Afraid of crime? You must be a racist. Crime isn’t all that bad, the article claims. The article specifically opposes President Trump. Why is a “science media” site pushing this leftist view from the University of Alberta without any balance from a conservative voice?
The price of taking a stance: How corporate sociopolitical activism impacts bottom line (Phys.org). This article from the University of Arizona pretends to be empirical about how taking any position affects earnings, but all the examples of “good” activism are leftist.
PNAS and prejudice (PNAS). This article buys the “systemic racism” charge hook, line and sinker. Commentator May Berenboam calls on the National Academy of Sciences to do its share of soul-searching on its guilt, but completely ignores the scientific establishment’s complicity in historic racism from the days of Social Darwinism and eugenics.
Study finds gay and bisexual youth more likely to abandon churchgoing as they reach adulthood (Phys.org). The biased wording in this article indicates that the authors are glad to see antagonism between churches and LGBT youth. “Religious beliefs have shaped societal attitudes toward sexual minorities, with many religious denominations vocally opposing expanded sexual minority rights.” Notice that phrase: “expanded sexual minority rights.” The wording is geared to make churches look like oppressors and gay/bisexual youth as oppressed. But how healthy is it for someone to become their own spiritual authority?
How racism functions and shifts during the COVID-19 Pandemic (Phys.org). This article assumes “critical race” theory that assumes white people are racists by nature. It speaks well of the Black Lives Matter movement, which was co-founded a woman who said she was a trained Marxist (9 June 2020). What does this have to do with science?
In some professions, women have become well represented, yet gender bias persists—Perpetuated by those who think it is not happening (Science Magazine). Consistent with leftist propaganda, this article buys the line that you are already guilty of sexism and racism, and the proof is that you deny it. You cannot reason with people who think that way.
Gender bias kept alive by people who think it’s dead (Phys.org). Conservatives may try in vain to focus on the progress being made in equality for women (or any other non-male “gender”). They could point to the record high employment for women achieved in the Trump economy. It’s no use. The Collective says the oppressors are guilty of gender bias, and facts don’t matter. There is no plea of innocence. The Inquisitors say you have two choices: resist and be destroyed, or confess your sin. You will still be destroyed, but at least you confessed it.
Mathematicians urge colleagues to boycott police work in wake of killings (Nature). Police are demoralized around the world after being called racists and killers of blacks for months now. They are having their budgets cut, being spit on and suffering injuries from bricks and bottles hurled at them. Their leftist mayors and governors are not supporting them, but are letting the rioters get away with mayhem and murder, as the cops are being told to stand down. In this discouraging environment, all they need now is for Nature and a mathematical society to boycott them. Big Science is asking mathematicians not to use their skills to help police departments work on predictive policing algorithms.
Persuasive words are not enough (Science Magazine). H. Holden Thorpe, the Editor-in-Chief of Science journals, poses with his smug and smirky expression to charge “science denialism” to anyone who doesn’t agree with the leftist positions.
American science denialism, in particular, persists, even at the highest level of leadership, with a president who denies climate change and a vice president—a devout creationist—who believes that Earth is only 6000 years old.
This in spite of the fact that President Trump and Mike Pence, whom Trump had appointed leader of the Coronavirus Task Force, had daily TV briefings throughout the height of the pandemic with Fauci and Birx, two of the world’s leading epidemiologists, who testified that they were never told what to say, and said that Trump always heard their recommendations and responded appropriately. The millions of masks and PPEs Trump obtained, and the ten-thousands of ventilators he had built and rushed to hard-hit states (that some governors never used), the nearly-instant hospital ships Comfort and Mercy he sailed to New York and Los Angeles, and the Javitz Center hospital Trump provided (which Governor Cuomo never used) — none of that qualifies for any merit in Thorpe’s opinion. He crumples all that evidence like a piece of trash and calls it “science denialism.”
Who is dishing out the misinformation here? Thorpe should eat his own words:
The scientific community is losing the battle against this digital leviathan of misinformation. A well-reasoned and highly placed op-ed on this topic is not going to move the needle, no matter how well it is crafted to adhere to the best practices in science communication. Neither is a perfect trade book, television appearance, or speaking tour by a scientific leader. The only way to win this fight is to harness the same sophisticated tools in the name of science that are being used to tear science down. With social media companies afraid to challenge the misinformation machine, even when their own platforms are being misused, the task is daunting. But we can at least move on from the idea that if we could just find those perfect, persuasive words, everyone would suddenly realize that facts are facts with no alternatives.
What is he calling for? Lying and rabble-rousing on social media? If he doesn’t want to use reason, what else is there?
#ShutDownSTEM strike was a start, but real action on racism is needed (New Scientist). Science lovers must be shaking their heads in disbelief to see this happening. The very institutions that should be promoting and advancing education in STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and math) are joining in a boycott of it, simply because somebody called it racist. And now New Scientist says that boycotting STEM is not enough! One brief ray of light was quickly extinguished: “An inquiry into the history of eugenics at University College London (UCL), for example, was criticised earlier this year for failing to investigate the issue in sufficient depth.” So why was it not investigated in further depth? Is it because it would reflect too badly on the scientific consensus in the first half of the 20th century, and on Darwin?
Coronavirus has brought the welfare state back, and it might be here to stay (The Conversation). Conservatives oppose the dependency class and support individual responsibility: work, not handouts. Sandher and Kleider seem only too happy to take advantage of the pandemic crisis to push a big leftist goal: a perennial welfare state (which requires big government and high taxes). Lest one think they bemoan that outcome as unfortunate, they say: “Just as with the second world war, ‘one happy consequence of this otherwise desperately unhappy experience,‘ may be a more generous welfare state that insures us all against the risks posed by illness and poverty.” Where is the conservative economist asking, “At whose expense?” Who are they calling ‘generous’ when the money for welfare is plundered from those who earned it? Redistribution of wealth is a communist ideal.
The WHO often has been under fire, but no nation has ever moved to sever ties with it (The Conversation). This article criticizes Trump for withdrawing the USA from the World Health Organization (WHO). What, exactly, did the WHO do to help at all with the pandemic? What is the US getting for its money? Is there some moral obligation to trust a leftist, globalist organization in matters of health, after they let China get away with murder for releasing a plague around the world?
Long-term survey reveals Chinese government satisfaction (Phys.org). This article sounds like official propaganda from the Chinese communist party. Many have seen sports organizations, movie makers and internet businesses kowtow to Chinese demands for censorship. Is that happening now to Big Science, too? Ask the prisoners in re-education camps, subject to forced abortion and forced labor, if they are satisfied with the government. Why were they not asked about the paradise Beijing dictators created? Articles like this make one suspect that Chinese operatives are infiltrating the media and scientific institutions to push their propaganda.
To fight US racism, research prescribes a nationwide healing process (The Conversation). This one is scary. What “nationwide healing process” are they talking about? Appel and Loyle advocate setting up “Truth Commissions” where the ones labeled “oppressors” must confess their sins to the “oppressed” class. There is no denying wrongdoing by the oppressors. There is no right to a fair jury trial. No; like the popular new book White Fragility now flooding schools, this is the fruit of “whiteness studies” which use racism to allegedly combat racism. In practical terms, a white person, who may be the kindest, most agreeable person to non-whites, and who may be completely unaware of any racist actions or words, must confess their racism simply by nature of having been born white. And you thought that discrimination was bad because it judged people by the color of their skin! A white student is already guilty and must confess before a tribunal. There is no defense. Whites must also pay reparations for wrongs committed well over a century ago, even if they never participated in them. “Typically, truth commissions create a forum where wrongs can be disclosed, examined and confronted through education, prosecution, compensation or other forms of redress.”
Confronting bias (Science Magazine). In a book review of Pragya Agarwal’s new book Sway: Unravelling Unconscious Bias, reviewer Calvin K. Lai has a little bit of trepidation over “concept creep” if the book’s thesis goes too far: i.e., how can a bias be totally unconscious? Agarwal’s mission is a kind of psychotherapy, to help the guilty realize their guilt. The guilt, moreover, is always one way: whites are always biased, but blacks are not. Conservatives are always biased, but leftists are not. Why do these people never look in the mirror? Why doesn’t Agarwal take seriously the possibility that she is guilty of a host of unconscious biases herself? Isn’t leftism a bias?
Getting Back to Sanity
John Stossel is more of a libertarian than conservative, but he is appalled at what he sees these leftists doing. They are imposing a new totalitarianism on western civilization. In his article “We must speak up against the New Totalitarians” at WND, he tells frightening accounts of how “woke” mobs are forcing individuals and corporations to cave into leftist demands, even when they are innocent. But he also praises some who refuse to be cowed for speaking the truth.
“The solution is to challenge these people,” says Soave. “We just have to speak up.”
Those of us who can, must.
Revolutions eat their own revolutionaries, and end up with ultimate power concentrated in the hands of dictators (consider Maduro in Venezuela, who would rather drive the citizens to starvation and poverty than surrender power). Big Science is coasting on fumes from the fuel of the scientific revolution that was birthed from the Judeo-Christian world view. Science will rue the day it bent to the leftists calling for complete overhaul of western civilization. The first signs of regret are already appearing: in a commentary in the Wall Street Journal, atheist cosmologist Lawrence Krauss—no friend of Christians or conservatives—complains about “The Ideological Corruption of Science” by leftist radicals. “In American laboratories and universities, the spirit of Trofim Lysenko has suddenly been woke,” his subtitle reads, a telling admission that the worst anti-science powers of all are communist dictators like Stalin and Mao, who used ideological science for propaganda, and in the aftermath, starved tens of millions of people. Commentators in the embedded video clip by The Journal Editorial Report find it ironic that some of the same liberals who recently felt smug watching conservatives getting the “Cancel Culture” treatment are now feeling the sting of being canceled themselves – an illustration of the maxim, “The Left Consumes the Left.” Once the Jacobins started targeting enemies of the French Revolution, nobody was safe from the guillotine: not even the Jacobins themselves. Beware, Lawrence.
The time to stop radical revolutions is in the early stages. Communists have a motto, “Two steps forward, one step back.” Even if they step back after the latest flurry of violent protests, they will return even stronger. This flurry has given the organizers more practice. They will be studying the results to become more radical next time, and will remain at the ready for the next suitable crisis to strike harder. Communists cannot be trusted with power. They will never give it back, and they will destroy the very institutions that originally thought it was politically expedient to yield to them.
Once again, readers are invited to present evidence of articles from Big Science or Big Media that are favorable to conservative values or give credit to President Trump for anything good he did.
A ‘scientific’ response to the current ‘cultural revolution’ would be to examine the historical outcomes of similar movements in the 19th and 20th centuries. The conclusion of that would surely lead to outcries, “Never again!” Instead, we see the very groups who should value unbiased search for truth above all else caving into the mob. The outcome cannot be any better than it ended up before. In fact, with modern surveillance technology, it could be far worse. China is taking DNA from innocent citizens now, and is building databases of the whereabouts of all its people. There will be no place to hide. Every man, woman and child must comply with the Dictator’s wishes or be “re-educated” in a concentration camp (this is happening now). Eugenics will come back with a vengeance. Aldous Huxley’s dystopic Brave New World will become a real possibility under the Left.
Christians can take heart that all this madness and evil was foretold, but is not the last word. “The Rest of the Story” is guaranteed.
Recommended Reading: Historian Victor Davis Hanson has spent his entire career within academia. He knows the factors that have led to the current rot in the universities. Read his “5 Radical, Long-Term Solutions to Leftist Academic Corruption” (WND) and see if you think they would work, even if by some miracle they were ever implemented. See also Michael Brown’s “5 ways to conquer the cancel culture” on WND.