Purifying Slanted Science for Fun and Wisdom

This is a skill anyone can develop
to sharpen their critical thinking
and purify news of embedded bias

A regrettable reality of today’s science news is this: except when an article or research paper from the “mainstream” media limits itself to the evidence and the data, it will be bugged with leftist ideology, evolutionary assumptions, or both. This is a pervasive defect in academic writing.

You don’t have to take the spin. You can mentally clean up the biased words and phrases and learn what the evidence really means. And when leftist ideology is present, you can reframe the statements with a conservative view. This is a fun pastime. Let’s look at some examples in the news.

Masculine behavior bad for the planet says new research (University of Huddersfield via Phys.org, 5 May 2026). This article comes from the hating-men genre, where “toxic masculinity” is viewed as the cause of all social problems in the world. If only men would let their feminine side take over, we would have world peace. Example:

Professor Hearn, professor of sociology in Huddersfield’s Department of Social and Psychological Sciences, says, “There is now plenty of research that shows clear negative impacts of some men’s behavior on the environment and climate; what is astonishing is how this aspect does not figure in most debate and policy in a more sustainable world.”

The blame-men viewpoint is a clear case of the half-truth fallacy. Sure there are plenty of men who set bad examples, but logic would suggest that both sexes in a fallen world exhibit toxic behaviors (ever heard of Karens?). It also commits the fallacy of glittering generalities.

The professor indicts gentlemen and service-oriented males in this article, even though he leaves an exit door by declaring the only “some” men have bad behavior. Let’s reframe this statement without the leftist bias:

There is now plenty of research that shows the clear negative impacts of some women’s [or some humans’] behavior…. 

and

What is astonishing is how university professors tend to blame men for everything. -or- What is astonishing is how academia refuses to engage in balance when debating environmental policy.

Professor Jeff is worried primarily about climate change and radical environmentalism. Among the list of sins committed by men, he includes this one:

Men tend to be more involved in owning, managing, controlling heavy, chemical, carbon-based, industrialized agriculture, high environmental impact and extractive industries, and of course militarism, with its own devastating environmental effects.

Let’s reframe this to balance out the biased assumptions.

By their created nature, many men tend to be natural leaders, aspiring to manage large enterprises for the common good, such as agriculture and industry, creating jobs and prosperity. They also put their lives on the line for protective services and, when necessary, just wars. When evil nations wreak havoc on the environment, it is men from peaceful nations who most often rise to the occasion, eliminating the evildoers and cleaning up the mess. Honorable men from such societies also use science to find more environmentally-friendly solutions to human needs.

See? This can be fun. Turn the statements around and neutralize the toxin.

NIH grant cuts disproportionately hit minority and female scientists (Nature News, 5 May 2025). Nature is incorrigibly leftist and infected with TDS. Let’s discover what minorities and females they are most concerned about:

The abrupt termination last year of thousands of research grants by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research, didn’t affect all groups of scientists equitably. A survey suggests1 that it disproportionately hit researchers from groups that have been historically under-represented in the biomedical sciences, including women, people of colour and investigators from sexual and gender minorities (LGBTQ+).

Wait a minute: aren’t leftists confused about what is a woman? Well, let’s clean up this quote:

The Editors praise the Trump administration for its efforts to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in government, including where it occurs in grant applications. Instead of pandering to special interests that have nothing to do with science, it’s good to see a renewed focus on applicants’ qualifications instead of their membership in special-interest groups, particularly when those groups engage in protests and flaunt sexual behaviors at work that distract other members of the science team.

Time out for a joke! The Final Judgment has come. Nature reports the story: “Earth burned up! Women and minorities hit hardest.”

A skull full of surprises: Discovering the evolutionary secrets of fish brains (Harvard via Phys.org, 5 May 2026). Postgraduate researcher Rodrigo Figueroa decided to examine hundreds of fish skulls, which is fine. He found quite a bit of diversity on their sizes and shapes. The data look like dots on a scattergram, but drunk on Darwine, Dr Figueroa used them to perform divination on the skulls, looking for phantom images of the Bearded Buddha as he tried connecting the dots into a story of evolution.

“How can we pretend that we understand how evolution, and especially brain evolution, works if we know almost nothing about half of the vertebrates?” asked Rodrigo Figueroa, postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology (OEB) and biodiversity fellow in The Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ) at Harvard.

Expecting to find evolution, he conjured it up. The data look like dots on a scattergram. Figueroa figured to connect the dots into an evolutionary story.

The study, led by Figueroa, used a special CT scanning technique to peer inside the heads of 87 ray-finned species across more than 70 families to map their internal structures in three-dimensional detail. The findings revealed a surprising neurological landscape where brain size and shape, as well as endocasts—the mold of the internal skull cavity—vary wildly.

Unfortunately, the data raised more questions than answers to poor Dr Figueroa. As in other such projects, the data points allow for an infinite number of evolutionary solutions. Darwinians don’t mind disappointments like this, thought, because it gives them job security in evolutionary Fantasyland. His career in futureware is secure!

Let’s help him look at the data differently.

Each species of fish is well-adapted to its environment, showing ultimate engineering. Research into the diversity of fish brains increases our understanding of the Creator’s love of diversity and leads us to experience awe at His wisdom in filling each habitat on earth with living creatures appropriate for their roles in the ecosystem, showcasing intelligent design.

The world is a need of more Baloney-Detector-equipped thinkers who can purify science of its left-leaning, evolutionary bias.

We hope these examples gave you a short tutorial in purifying science. Try it on the next science article you read in the mainstream media.