Big Science Is a Subsidiary of Socialists and Global Leftists

When 95% of staff university staff are
leftists, what do you expect of their research?

Get over it. The old model of science as an unbiased search for truth
is so 1820. Today, in 2024, Big Science is a tool of socialist elites.

Like addicts drunk on public tax money, the Big Science Cartel always wants more. They spend it on projects that promote global leftism, or socialism (soft communism). They anathematize any conservative politician who gets elected. Like totalitarians that most socialists are, they censor anybody from the conservative right—especially those who believe in God. Their anti-religious creed is Darwinian evolution. Darwinism permeates almost every paper, article and project in the major journals. And their lackeys in Big Science Media uncritically parrot whatever they say. Institutional science today is a monolithic enterprise with near total allegiance to the progressive Left.

If you disagree, then please send us a science article, press release or paper from the mainstream media that promotes traditional values, conservative principles, or theism. Good luck. What passes our desk is all atheistic. Every item CEH encounters in our daily search for science news is pro-Democrat, infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome, and radically left. Take any cultural issue: abortion, “antiracism” (a euphemism for “hate whites”), climate change, diversity & inclusion (DEI), gender fluidity, government handouts, defunding police, global governance, support for Hamas and condemnation of Israel, or whatever: it’s all Democrat Party talking points massaged with pseudoscientific jargon to promote leftist causes. Whenever a conservative gets elected in the US or abroad, the Cartel piles on, accusing the candidate of being anti-science and hurting science.

It’s not that conservatives in science are failing to speak; its that they have no voice in Big Science media. The Big Science Cartel doesn’t just ignore skeptics of Darwinist materialist progressivism. It is out to marginalize them, silence them, and destroy their careers. Evolutionists were practically in tears at the Scopes Trial a hundred years ago, calling for freedom to discuss Darwin’s views. Once they got power, though, like totalitarian dictators, they ousted their opposition.

Clarification: Our accusation of socialist control of science is speaking primarily of the Big Science Cartel: the journal editors, academic deans, lab directors, bureaucrats and lobbyists who presume to “speak for science.” Tip: Nobody speaks for science. Science (knowledge) refers to reality apart from what any human thinks about it. Knowledge belongs to any lone researcher who gets close to reality, not to the Cartel. Science is not consensus, and consensus is not science.

There are a few honest researchers left, who try to seek the truth without bias. They usually work outside of biology. Occasionally some biologists will admit evidence of specified complexity, a reliable indicator of intelligent design (see The Design Inference, 2nd edition). Even then, however, one can find assumptions of Darwinism in their writings, as if the authors had to include it to get published. Politically conservative scientists, and those who (gasp!) still believe that God created life, have learned to keep their mouths shut if they want to keep their jobs.

Bold claims, we admit. How about some evidence?

No, An Anti-Racist Program in Schools Didn’t Stress Out Kids (NC State University, 11 March 2024). “Anti-racism” (a brainchild of Henry Rogers, aka Ibram X Kendi and other radical socialists is a euphemism for social Marxism. In practice, it means hate Caucasians, blame them for everything, and send them to re-education camps within their companies. Then re-institute segregation, indoctrinate children, and divide the public into antagonistic groups to foment a communist revolution. Notice that this press release exonerating school programs that teach Antiracism was echoed in Science Daily. Science? What science? The conductors of the survey had an agenda: to rebuke conservative politicians like Senator Ted Cruz and Florida governor Ron DeSantis who are trying to eliminate these programs that teach kids to hate whites, and to pre-empt their arguments. “Antiracism” is a profoundly hypocritical stance for Darwinian scientists to take, since their predecessors in the 19th and 20th centuries were staunch racists and eugenicists; see Dr Jerry Bergman’s documentation of this, such as in our 9 Nov 2022 article).

MAGA Republicans’ views of American democracy and society and support for political violence in the United States (PLoS One, 3 Jan 2024). This paper allegedly finds that “MAGA Republicans, as defined, are more likely than others to endorse political violence.” But of course; what does one expect from leftists at the University of California? They find ways to express their bias in “scientific” journals. Did they make any attempt to survey members of Antifa, BLM, or leftist sociologists in academia about their support for political violence? Did they investigate the views of criminals who actually participated in burning businesses, killing police and throwing Molotov cocktails in violent protests? Of course not. The population deserving scorn in Big Science consists of those who just want to make America great again. Be aware that surveys can manipulate questions and results to achieve the desired outcome.

After seeing the struggle of Palestinians in Gaza, TikTok users are learning about Islam (The Conversation, 18 Dec 2023). This quasi-science website printed an essay by a Muslim in Canada praising the fact that people are learning about Islam on TikTok after Muslim terrorists in Gaza murdered over a thousand Israelis on October 7, 2023. There’s no mention of the Israelis murdered, raped and taken hostage (still hostages today, 5 months later) but only on “Palestianians” who “struggle” living in Israel. Nahid mentions “the violence that has killed thousands since Oct. 7” but fails to state that it was Hamas terrorists who started it! They inflicted the equivalent of 19 “9/11” attacks on Israel adjusted for population. And when Israel went to war with the terrorist perpetrators, Nahid fails to mention that Hamas uses Palestinians in Gaza as human shields. What, therefore, are listeners to Tiktok really learning about Islam? She is only concerned about “harms of discrimination, violence and online hate against Canadian Muslims.” Some balance, please? Editors of The Conversation, how about some sympathy for Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East? A quick search of article titles at The Conversation about Israel since this one appears to show almost all of them critical of Israel. Coincidentally, that just happens to be the attitude of far leftists in the Democrat Party.

Should I have children? Why society’s idealisation of motherhood benefits no one (The Conversation, 4 Jan 2024). Here’s another gem from The Conversation. Just when western societies are threatened with extinction from falling birth rates, this “professor of social inequities and injustice” complains about “the falsehood that being with a child is a norm.”

‘Politicians in Robes’: How a Sharp Right Turn Imperiled Trust in the Supreme Court (Annenberg Public Policy Center, 6 March 2024). This blatantly anti-conservative article was also republished by a leading science news outlet. The leftists who wrote this “survey” of “trust” in the Supreme Court, offering no hint of balance at all, blame all the lack of trust on conservatives who they say drove the Supreme Court into a “sharp right turn.” Everything was fine, they imply, when leftist Democrats ran an activist court, making laws out of thin air (like Roe v Wade, acknowledged by court watchers as one of the worst decisions in American history, leading to the legalized killing of 60 million babies), but the scholarly, well-qualified conservative judges (Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett) are wrecking the planet, if one is to believe these elitist eggheads, and leading the US to civil war. This in a “science” news site?

Abortion medication is as safe over telehealth as in a doctor’s office (New Scientist, 15 Feb 2024). This is but one of many, many “science” articles justifying abortion, too many to list here. See our previous documentation showing this pro-abortion bias (e.g., 27 Feb 2023, 15 Aug 2022). Big Science never sheds a tear for the babies killed. And with “abortion medication,” the unborn baby thrown into the garbage is out of sight, out of mind. Needless to say, most Big Science organizations were outraged at the Dobbs decision, which did not outlaw abortion but returned the decision to the states. Some in Big Science are working to advocate for the reinstatement of Roe v Wade. Big Science has been one of the staunchest proponents of abortion. We have a dozen pro-abortion articles since December we could have presented; none of them give a right-to-life view of the unborn.

‘Despair’: Argentinian researchers protest as president begins dismantling science (Nature, 7 March 2024). This is the latest attack ad against a conservative president, this time Javier Milei of Argentina (who won an election fair and square). Nature had nothing but praise for open socialist/communist Lula when he won in Brazil in a questionable election. Any conservative who wins, though, has a target on his back from the Big Science Cartel, whether it be Reagan, Bush, Trump, Orban in Hungary, Meloni in Italy, and others in a “conservative wave” currently sweeping parts of Europe. Like political propaganda, Nature is good at selective evidence and other propaganda tactics to make socialists look as clean as a whistle, supportive of “science” (meaning, taxpayer money), while portraying conservatives to look as bad as Hitler.

How five crucial elections in 2024 could shape climate action for decades (Nature, 1 March 2024). This is another example of how Nature, a supposed “science” journal, has become a weapon of the Left. Their criteria to evaluate candidates? This: how much money they will take from taxpayers to fight climate change. Joe Biden is one of the least-liked presidents in recent memory, but Nature loves him. Donald Trump had 74 million supporters vote for him in 2020, more than in his first election. Nature hates him. Do you see why we claim that Big Science is a subsidiary of global leftists? The article worries about Europe’s “challenging shift to the right.” What in “science” gives them the mandate to intrude into the will of the people? Answer: Money. Power. Darwinism—the fountainhead of progressivism and materialism.  (See also, “Trump vs Biden: What the rematch could mean for three key science issues,” Nature 6 March 2024, where Biden is praised for his policies concerning abortion, climate change and open borders—the leading policies of the Democrat Party.)

Two truths and a lie about immigration (University of Southern California, 26 Feb 2024). Again, this was reposted on Phys.org, a “science news” site. Do conservatives stand any chance at institutions like USC that will publish openly biased articles like this, with no conservative rebuttal? It’s a tactic of the left to clothe their biases in the robes of “science” to give them an air of legitimacy. Illegal immigration is the biggest issue on American voters’ minds this year, but this USC egghead doesn’t care. Nina Roffio avoids the term “illegal” talking about “immigration.” That’s because calling them illegal (as Biden apologized the other day for calling the murderer of Laken Riley “illegal”) would unmask their bias. These immigrants broke the law to enter our country! That’s illegal! How is that different from strangers barging into your house uninvited? Is the Big Science Cartel in favor of lawlessness? The US has laws on the books forbidding illegal entry into the country that the Biden administration is flouting. Roffio appoints herself a judge of truth and lies, then writes lies. Is this “science”?

Beyond gender: The biological impacts of inequality through the lens of intersectionality (PNAS, 22 Jan 2024). The National Academy of Sciences printed this letter by Natalie Green that uses all the leftist terms political (structural discrimination, racial inequity, intersectionality, etc.), but no response or letter by a conservative that we have seen. Without debate, the impression is given the reader that the liberal view is scientific.

Sex and gender essentialism in textbooks (Science Magazine, 22 Feb 2024). What’s more scientific than sex chromosomes? The authors of this “study” try to squeeze the facts of biology into the trendy topic of gender, claiming that there is more to sex identity than chromosomes. No conservatives are pushing this new genderfluid ideology: it’s all coming from the political Left, and is destroying countless lives of young people down into kindergarten age. For a taste of how radical the new gender transitioning cult is, watch some of the promoters talk in their own words in messages uncovered by Libs of TikTok on X. Anyone with any sense will scream. And to think that these radicals try to hide what they are teaching from parents—that is a crime. What is the AAAS rag Science doing promoting such evil?

How stigma hurts trans health (University of Montreal, 2 Feb 2024). Nothing here about helping confused young people accept their sex chromosomes. They treat “trans” children as fixed in their current “identity” and focus on how hard it is to live with “stigma” if their confusion is not embraced. How about some information on the harm done by transgender surgery, and the regret that trans young people feel when they later realize the irreversible harm done to their bodies? Why is a conservative view on this issue not even addressed?

Envisioning a radical future: A more inclusive society begins with imagining audacious alternatives to today’s systems, argues a sociologist (Science Magazine, 1 Feb 2024). The AAAS published a favorable review of a radical book calling for a social revolution. Unbelievable. Just wait till the editors of journals find out that scientists, too, will be targets of Marxist revolutionaries if they get their way.

For a discussion of the decline of trust in science, listen to Stephen Meyer, philosopher of science and author of 3 books, talk to bioethicist Wesley J. Smith on ID the Future, 13 March 2024.

This is all we have time for today. I’m looking at a long list of articles like these from the last two months. It’s frankly discouraging to see this constant stream of leftist propaganda masquerading as “science.” Debate is supposed to be an essential part of science, but there is no effort to present balance in any of these articles. Their writing consists of nonstop attacks against conservatives when they are not ignoring them. Conservatives and theistic scientists are never allowed to say anything in response. They have their own outlets, of course, but “science journals” position themselves as organs of the scientific method.

John West traces the bad influence from Darwinism to abortion, criminality, and more.

The take-home message of this article is that Big Science is another subsidiary of global leftists, and must be treated that way. Conservatives who value the Constitution and the rule of law must not be fooled by its label of “science.” When the journals and science news outlets publish material that touches on politics, public policy or culture,* it is strongly biased against conservatism and theism. IT DOES NOT TAKE THESE POSITIONS BECAUSE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. It takes them because academia is flooded with leftists, and leftists censor conservatives. These leftists are also predominantly Darwinists. (Those who are not know to keep their mouths shut.) It’s not surprising to see this leftist bent, since Darwin himself was a liberal anti-theist, as were his early followers. “Darwin’s century” (the 20th century) was notable for its scientific racism, eugenics, and trashing of conservative family values in favor of licentious sex (e.g., Kinsey) and all the evolutionary psychology messes in Darwin’s wake.

It’s depressing to report on these articles, but readers need to understand that the ideals of science have been sacrificed to the Bearded Buddha, who alone is worthy of honor today. This is especially ironic in light of Robert Shedinger’s new book Darwin’s Bluff, which makes a powerful case, from Darwin’s own correspondence, that he never provided the evidence he promised for his theory of natural selection that has taken over the world. Did you know that the most vociferous criticisms of Darwin’s “abstract” (The Origin of Species) were from scientists? Darwin promised to all his critics and friends a “big book” to follow up on The Origin, providing the evidence, but he never published it! You should read Shedinger’s eye-opening book, after seeing what the disciples of Darwin have done to science.

We must not despair. On many fronts, Darwinism is unraveling. There are signs that Humpty Darwin is tottering on the wall. Vote to Make Science Great Again.

*Of course, we enjoy reporting on legitimate scientific research that deals with observable, testable, repeatable phenomena in nature, such as molecular machines in the cell and facts about animals and plants. But we point out the Darwinian assumptions in such publications (e.g., saying “it evolved”) when necessary.