I follow Scientific American on Facebook and they recently posted something that caught my eye. “There’s Still Time to Get Presidential Candidates to Focus on Science: The ScienceDebate organization is working hard to get science policy into the political conversation.” A fine sentiment. But the thing that irks me is the left’s insistence that they are the “Party of Science.” Comments such as these followed on the Facebook post:
“Has anyone foreseen the likely backfire from this with GOPs current record on science? ‘Focus’ for them will mean destroying it, not using it.”
“Unfortunately, time and time again the right has demonstrated their distain for education, science and facts!!”
I would like to humbly submit to you a sampling of articles from Salvo that counter this notion that those on the left are the righteous defenders of facts and science.
Schizophrenic About Science
The “Party of Science” Is Nothing of the Sort by Regis Nicoll
. . . These social constructions of “personhood” and “gender” reveal the intrinsic incompatibility of the left with modern science. In this regard, the left is epistemologically and ideologically postmodern. Science is based on the belief that objective truth exists and is discoverable through empirical observation and investigation. But despite its own dogmatism on certain matters, the left claims to be skeptical of truth and of people who claim to have it. . . .
Sci-Fact or Sci-Fi?
What We Won’t Learn from Hyped-Up Science News Headlines by Casey Luskin
. . . So why are such paltry and uncertain claims being hyped in the first place? Materialists are apparently desperate for such “good news” stories because they need them in order to convince their patrons, the public, to continue funding their work. The media willingly cooperates, printing stories that sound plausible but that are ultimately science fiction. The fact that materialist cultural elites are willing to hype such modest—and dubious—claims tells you everything you need to know about the state of the evidence. If they had something better, we’d surely know about it. . . .
Blinded by Science
Believe Science Has All the Answers? Evolutionary Biologist Austin Hughes Says, Open Your Eyes
. . . Science itself could disappear. I really believe that this is a possibility. There’s this ingrained belief in our culture that science will always progress, but we have no way of being sure that this will in fact happen. Civilizations collapse and disappear. Science is a unique phenomenon that really only appeared once in the history of the world—in Christian Europe. If its philosophical foundations are undercut, then it’s very possible that it will disappear. There’s also the danger that the misuse of science will become a tool for political tyranny. . . .
Can Science Explain “Origins”?
by Patrick Henry Reardon
. . . Let us instead bracket theology for the moment and look simply at Krauss’s neglect of logic. How is it, he asks, that we now have something? Well, says Krauss, there wasn’t always something. Until about 13.72 billion years ago, there really was nothing. (By the way, I love the scientific precision of that decimal, .72 billion. A lesser mind would simply have rounded it off to 14 billion.) Until then, nothing existed. Then—and rather suddenly, it seems—there was something. Well, okay, but how? . . .
A Closer Look at All the Factors & Views on Global Warming
by Regis Nicoll
. . . Every religion has its doctrines of Sin, Judgment, and Redemption. The current misanthropic strain of environmentalism, all the rage among cultural elites, is no exception. In this eco-religion, the Sin is man’s carbon footprint; the Judgment is the sizzling Eschaton of global warming; and Redemption can be obtained through carbon credits and population control. Pounding its pulpits, its prophets preach on the ecological Fall and the gospel of sustainability. One such prophet is Steven Schneider, who, early in the global warming debate, confessed: “To capture the public’s imagination . . . we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” . . .
When It Comes to Sex, the Left Hates Science by Hunter Baker
. . . In thinking about this public game of claiming to be the advocates of science against the knuckle-dragging illiterates who understand it not, I am often struck by the degree to which liberal materialists themselves are not scientific when it threatens their view of the good life. . . .
Medical Malpractice in an Age of Gender Denial Disorder by Terrell Clemmons
. . . If enough of the professionals involved had been strictly pursuing medicine as the art and science of healing that medicine should be, the whole debacle would have been written off as a failed experiment. “We tried changing the body to fit the mind” they might have announced, “but found that changing the body did not solve patients’ problems.” Transsexual surgery would have gone the way of leeching and lobotomy, as it should have. . . .
How Herbert Marcuse Convinced a Generation that Censorship Is Tolerance & Other Politically Correct Tricks by Robin Phillips
. . . Commenting on this new type of tolerance, Daniel Flynn wrote: “Tolerating what you like and censoring what you don’t like, of course, had a name before Marcuse came along. It was called intolerance. Intolerance had an unpopular ring to it, so Marcuse called it by its more popular antonym, tolerance. This word was often modified by liberating, discriminating, and true. Further corruption of language came via his criticism of practitioners of free speech as ‘intolerant.'” . . .
Utopian Creep & the Struggle for Human Rights & Freedom
by Terrell Clemmons
. . . Secularists who fancy twenty-first-century man as enlightened beyond hunter-gatherer savagery are hard-pressed to come up with an explanation for what Shin represents. But however they may try to explain him away, there he stands: evidence of contemporary man’s inhumanity toward his fellow man and a living result of utopian fantasies gone to seed. . . .
A Review of How the West Won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity by Rodney Stark
. . . Americans are becoming increasingly ignorant of how the modern world came to be what it is, says Rodney Stark. A generation ago, most college curricula included a course in Western Civilization that covered Western achievements in art, music, literature, philosophy, and science. Today those courses have all but disappeared, on the spurious grounds that the West is but one of many civilizations and that it is ethnocentric and arrogant for Westerners to study it. So Stark is out to educate us, its beneficiaries, in the “remarkably unfashionable” story of our own heritage. . . .
How Common Core Promotes Cultural Engineering by Killing the Imagination by Robin Phillips
. . . In his books Beyond Freedom and Dignity and Waldon Two, Skinner described what an ideal society would look like: it would be one in which all citizens, having recognized the terrible cost of freedom, voluntarily submitted to collectivist measures (including population control) for the greater good. Such a society could be produced with the right educational and environmental conditioning. . . .
If you appreciate what you read here and would like these articles in your mailbox, you should subscribe! We depend upon our readers to keep Salvo going. $19.99 for one year plus the Science & Faith issue.