As a lifelong lover of all things science and an amateur scientist, Not an Expert, See my recent post on experts, I have noticed a slow drift away from pure science articles in Scientific American to what I would best call scientific politics of the left.
When an article about genetics, stem cells, evolution, mutation, quantum physics, and many other things comes up they are written with a distinct anti conservative and certainly anti Christian viewpoint.
There’s a problem with that. Some of their readers like me are Christian and conservative. We approach science just as the liberal science journalist does. We just have one little bent. We believe in God. We believe that if you approach all science thru the lens of faith and the written word of God it makes more sense then without that perspective. Somehow this fact threatens science. They are like the Catholic Church in the time of Galileo. What if we allowed that thinking into our discussion? Wouldn’t it tear down the careful house of cards we have all struggled so hard to build? What if there were a God, it would wreck everything.
That fear is everywhere. Professors in Colleges, Science Writers, and others are rowing as fast as they can to keep from facing the idea that there might just BE a God and that he might have had SOMETHING to do with all this. That terrifies them.
I’ll give a couple examples:
In September there was an article called: The Future of Stem Cells
In the November SA a Norman Ende (who is in Medical School) writes in and asks why the Stem Cell lines from umbilical cords are being ignored. He asks, could it just be that an embryonic stem cell line can be patented and not those from umbilical cords? Why would this med school student have to ask such an obvious question when the literature is full of this question? It doesn’t fit the liberal line to ask this.
In October in the ISA perspective column they took Pharmacists to task for not filling Plan B and other birth control drugs on moral grounds. They related it to someone not being able to get their heart medicine. They asked, what’s next, not filling an aids medicine. Extrapolate please. Now we have a drug meant to put troubled 9 yr old Timmy or 90-year-old Grandma in the grave (euthanasia). Is it OK for that same pharmacist to refuse to fill that prescription? Or, what about the suppliers of Gas to Auschwitz during Hitler’s murder of the Jews. I want to hope that a few of my German brethren had the courage to not ship that barrel of toxic gas mix at the risk of their own lives. Where DO you draw the line? But in the world of SA that question is never asked.
There’s a book written by a Chris Mooney. The Republican War on Science.
It was reviewed in the October Issue of SA by a writer for SA without any critical analysis of his writings. I expect more from them.
At least Mooney’s honest about his intellectual dishonesty. He doesn’t couch it in Science terms. He says straight out:
1. Bush rejected the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming. Suppressing an EPA report which supported the claim. Excuse me but I don’t see near the consensus Mr. Mooney sees. It’s cold as heck here in IL. Coldest on Record. And, the measurements which “Prove” global warming are far from conclusive. We are talking a life change and relinquishing our government to global control if we go there. I’m not ready to do this. Neither should you be.
2. Bush “stacked” advisory committees with industry representatives and members of the religious right. Who should he seat? Liberal Science Writers?
He’s right and he’s religious. So What? Industry Representatives I don’t know about.
3. Bush deployed a Missile defense system without evidence it can work. OH? Show me where that is. We have shot a few in the air. It’s all theater. I don’t guess Mooney has ever played poker.
4. Defunded embryonic stem cell research except on 60 cell lines which turned out not to exist. That’s quite a statement. It’s absolutely false from word one. That’s the part of this whole debate that’s so incredible. The left can make an outrageous statement without any factual backup and the liberal media, even SA laps it up.
5. Forced the National Cancer Institute to say abortion may cause Breast Cancer. Show me ONE, JUST ONE place this was ever said. Its just a lie. There have been studies that have contended the same. But never was this put on the cancer institute.
6. Ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to remove information about condom use and efficacy from its web site. This one is true. Do you know what they were saying, that the use of a condom will prevent disease when used faithfully. Really? No qualifiers? No other measures? It was blatant political correctness gone awry.
So much of what is passing for science reporting today is slanted and in some cases just junk science.
For instance, in the Nov issue, there is a long article regarding the Genome research on Chimps. It was believed that we were only 1.6% differed in Genome pattern. Good for Evolutionists. Now they are saying it’s more like 2.4% and could be much higher. We are related to Chimps like snakes are to fish. Not good for evolutionists.
I have a idea, Maybe, GOD CREATED MAN. ooooooooo
That’ll never fly.
No comments:
Post a Comment