Woke Science Is Dead Science

If Big Science continues its descent into
leftist values, things could get ugly real fast

 

Nebraska declared July “Victims of Communism Remembrance Month” (Epoch Times), in hopes of educating its citizens about the human toll from countries that followed the radical left into their hopeless utopian dreams of an equitable society. The commonly-cited death toll of 100 million citizens killed by communist regimes is probably a very low estimate. It could be as high as 164 million. Yet today, followers of Marx seem to have forgotten all about the catastrophic failure of his theories.

Karl Marx was a dirty, womanizing, freeloading, lying scoundrel who never held a job and cared nothing about actual working people (see Prager U book review about The Intellectuals by Paul Johnson). In his day, the strategy for revolution was to pit economic classes against one another. In our day, the strategy is to pit races against one another (see America Rewritten, a new documentary on Epoch Times TV). The spread of hate, fear and distrust foments the revolution. In theory, it ushers in a better world of green grasses, fresh air, tweeting birds and loving couples all sharing the fruits of a promised utopia, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. What actually comes is blood, war, death and tears. All power gravitates to an elite class who live lavishly like kings, while the powerless are shoved into hopeless work projects for no reward. Non-cooperators are forced into re-education camps and gulags. The individual means nothing; the state is supreme. That is still going on now in China and North Korea. You wouldn’t want to know what they do to people even today. If you can stomach it, browse this gallery of communist torture methods (Epoch Times) they use to coerce people to hail communism and renounce their faith.

To the Marxists/Leninists, communism was the ultimate evolutionary stage of a society that was evolving upward toward “progress.” In case after case, whenever it was tried, communism brought dystopia: a regress that resulted in terrorized masses of people crying under the boots of tyrants. Rudy Giuliani pointed July 7 in his TV podcast Common Sense that the three founders of Black Lives Matter are avowed Marxists. If black lives really mattered to them, they have done nothing to help improve the lot of black lives, who are being terrorized by gangs, drugs, fatherless homes and rising crime. Their goal, instead, like that of Saul Alinsky, George Soros and other radicals, is to destroy society, foment a revolution, and rebuild it into a communist utopia.

The Darwin-Progressive Connection

Darwinism fits communism like a hand in a glove. In Darwinism, as in Marxism, the population matters, not the individual. Individuals must give up their liberty for the success of the collective. In chapter 2 of his book Twenty Evolutionary Blunders (ICR, 2017), Randy Guliuzza reminds readers of the horrors of eugenics that sprang out of this Darwinist ideology.

It’s possible that the eugenics moral disaster is not merely the misapplication of Darwinian natural selection but rather the actual consequence of that mindset. Death, survival, fitness and selection are core characteristics of Darwin’s concept of natural selection. (p 22)

For an example, he quotes Karl Pearson’s “influential 1912 address to the British Medical Association” in which Pearson, a world-renowned biostatistician, chastised the medical establishment for caring for the weak and sick. Pearson argued that

medical science has to face the fact that the upward progress of man in the past has been largely controlled by stringent natural selection. We shall gain nothing for racial efficiency by neglecting that central fact of human development…. we can show from isolated instances that medical science has led to a survival of the unfit. (p 23)

To the eugenicists, Darwinism’s priority was to let nature take its Malthusian course: leave the weak and sick to die, and let the strong succeed. It’s noteworthy that today’s leftists, even those ashamed of the history of eugenics, still call themselves “progressives.” Embedded in the word is the Darwinian idea of progress, which in nature he believed comes through struggle and death – the elimination of the unfit.

Even more troubling is the fact that

The scientific consensus, including prominent faculty from Harvard University and Johns Hopkins Medical School, promoted eugenics as the view of science’s progressive thinkers. International Eugenics Congresses were held in 1912, 1921, and 1932, attended by some of the world’s leading scientists. Supporters were bestowed high academic honors, while dissenters were usually excluded. (p 26)

Does that sound like the scientific consensus on Darwinian evolution, and on climate change? Notice that the scientific consensus took evil, unscientific positions for decades. Eugenics didn’t become shameful till after World War II when the atrocities of communism and Nazism (both totalitarian ‘utopias’) had fully come to light. There are rattlings of a new eugenics arising in the evil winds of today’s materialist science.

Godless Science Is Dead Science

On May 27, Laura Hollis wrote at WND, “No God, No Science.” The farther Big Science slips into leftist materialism, the sooner it will collapse.

Contrary to those who claim that faith in God is an anti-intellectual delusion, the refusal to acknowledge a source of absolute truth ultimately results in the abolition of belief in absolute truth. In other words, a world without God is not merely one where science can run rampant and unfettered by moral constraints; it is a world where science will ultimately hold no sway at all.

This is already happening. Look at the headlines in ‘science news’ sites and major journals. They are stepping over themselves in an effort to show their support of anti-racism, critical race theory, and other initiatives designed to foment racial hatred. All of them follow the tutelage of lead radical and race-hatred bigot Henry Rogers, a.k.a. Ibram X. Kendi, who teaches that if you are white, you are already racist and there is nothing you can do about it, even if you confess it and humiliate yourself before others. The color of your skin makes you evil. It doesn’t matter to him that his ideas are patently racist. The way to fight racism, he says, is with more racism, which he calls anti-racism. This is the basis of his Critical Race Theory (CRT).

CRT is the polar opposite of Martin Luther King’s call for a color-blind society, where people are judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. MLK simply wanted America to live up to its founding document, that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” There is no Creator in Marxism; Marx and Darwin were atheists or agnostics at best, and certainly had no use for any God or absolute moral standard in their thinking. There are no natural rights endowed by a Creator in Marxism or Darwinism: rights are conferred by the State, and if the State grants rights, it can take them away. The tyrants are at the top because nature obviously selected them as the fittest.

The role of Marxist science is to support the revolution. In this “post-truth” culture, it’s all about power. Get the upper hand; shut down the opposition, educate the masses in the revolutionary doctrine, and worship the Dear Leader. Will science as we know it survive in such a toxic atmosphere?

Woke Science Joins the Revolution

Researchers Ask: How Do White Parents Talk About Race? (University of Vermont). In this pseudoscientific New Teacher analogue (see 21 Dec 2005 commentary), the U Vermont psychology department positions itself as facilitators and conditioners of the regime. They investigate families to make sure they are teaching their children the proper way to acknowledge how racist they are. If anyone doubts they are following Kendi’s anti-racism program, look how the university brags about its “Critical Race and Ethnic Studies” program.

Five shifts to decolonise ecological science – or any field of knowledge  (The Conversation). “Social movements such as Black Lives Matter have also increased awareness of significant economic inequalities along racial and geopolitical lines,” three academic bigots begin, applying smooth euphemisms. “People have new tools and new ways of working, many of which have heightened awareness of systemic inequalities in everyday life, work and research.” You know where this is going.

Banning extreme views on YouTube really does help stop their spread (New Scientist). This article justifies censorship! Chris Stokel-Walker sounds like he just walked out of Pravda headquarters in 1935. What are “extreme views” you ask? Why, anything the State doesn’t approve of. Censorship is a huge scandal these days, and it’s all happening on the Left against conservatives. Big Tech banned a sitting president of the United States in January, and now former President Trump is suing them over it (WND). Why is “New Scientist” taking the side of the censors? Is “new” science communist science? Is new always better? Time to check out Gettr.com and the other alternative social media platforms that promise freedom of speech.

Mispronunciation: why you should stop correcting people’s mistakes (The Conversation). Here’s the short answer by Jane Setter, professor of phonetics at University of Reading: correct pronunciation is racist. While it’s true that standards of pronunciation, spelling and grammar change over time, Setter denies that standards might be a good thing. “Correcting pronunciation can actually be an act of linguistic prejudice,” she says, implying that you people who try to pronounce things right are bigoted racist enemies. “Issues of linguistic prejudice linked to race and class are still alive and well,” she says. OK. Let’s re-pronounce some of her writing. Here goes. Try this on the TV news.

<inclusive> Zuh whey peoples speek and pernounce wordz is verry mush depennent on zhar langich backrun an experiments. Buy creccting a pernunciashun that U have aculy unnerstood but somewhy object to, U could be innaverently – or evun porpoisely – pinting out perseeved deffishuncies arisin’ from diffs in soshul class, cluture, rays, genner, and sew awn.</inclusive>

Why gain-of-function research matters (The Conversation). The scandal over SARS-CoV-2 continues to unfold, leading to a likely conclusion that the Chinese leaked the virus out of the Wuhan lab. Whether intentionally or not remains to be seen. These four authors justify the gain-of-function research that led to the deaths of 4 million people! Is there no shame? Is there no sackcloth and ashes? Are they really trying to say that taking down world economies for over a year and causing global death and suffering was worth it? “How do experts determine which gain-of-function research poses too much risk?” they ask. “There are multiple ways to answer this question… The main point is that our understanding is constantly evolving.” Oh barf. Remember that this is the same “consensus” that went totally anti-science on masks with totalitarian fervor (7 July 2021).

Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy (Scientific American). This “Evolution|Opinion” piece is so wrong it is the opposite of truth. CEH has been documenting Darwinian racism for years now, with original quotes and images (e.g., 3 June 2021, 9 June 2020). For Allison Hopper (a white filmmaker) to try to pin racism on Biblical creationists is so disingenuous and demonstrably false, it’s inconceivable that “scientific american” would let it disgrace their pages. Expect a backlash. David Klinghoffer at Evolution News has sent over the first salvo, calling it a “war against the truth.”

Why insisting you’re not racist may backfire (Berkeley Haas). This piece is right out of Kendi’s CRT (critical race theory). ‘You are a racist, because you are white. You just don’t admit it yet. Confess.’ Prejudice is “unwittingly spread” between white people, these “researchers” say in the name of science. It’s like this demon, you see; it’s a spirit in the trees, a bad omen. It’s written in the stars. It’s your sign. You have the wrong mix of humors.

The ghost of Lysenko snickers. The souls of victims the Ukrainian mass starvation shudder. “Never again!” is back again.

Watch out for totalitarians. Stand against them while there is time. Once they get power, it is too late. Theologian J. Gresham Machen warned about this back in 1912. “What is today a matter of academic speculation begins tomorrow to move armies and pull down empires,” he said.  “In that second stage, it has gone too far to be combatted; the time to stop it was when it was still a matter of impassionate debate” (Christianity and Culture, 1912, italics added). See our 15 March 2005 article about ‘Darwinian Law.’

.