Opinion

How the “March for Science” Covered Up Real Science

The news is giddy over the latest march. This time it was the “March for Science” as if most Americans are against science. Once some group claims there’s a problem (whether it’s real or not) the government needs to do something to fix it. And what’s the number one way to save science from the growing so-called anti-science public? Money. “Give us more money, and we’ll fix everything,” is the liberal mantra.

Let’s get real. More than 95 percent of all children K-12 attend public (government schools). If science is in such a sad state, then it’s the fault of government education which is very well financed with confiscatory taxation at every level of government.

If we have a science problem in the United States, and most children attend government schools, then we don’t need to be marching for science. We should be marching against the failed policies of public schooling.

If a company is turning out an inferior product, then that company should be brought into the light. But identifying government (public) education as part of the problem would mean being against the largest union in the nation, the highly politicized textbook industry, colleges and universities that have education degree programs that rarely teach facts, liberal establishment media, LGBTQ pressure groups, and the Democrat Party.

Science is not a neutral fact-based enterprise devoid of human operating assumptions. It has never been. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote: “The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology.”1

Objectivity in science, as in everything else, has its limits:

“Beware of the man who tells you that he will explain — fully explain — any complex human action or event by resort[ing] to ‘coldly objective,’ ‘empirically verifiable,’ ‘statistical data.’ He is deceiving himself, and perhaps seeking to deceive you. For in the first place we do not all see the same event in exactly the same way, let alone interpret it the same way — not even events which do not involve the complicating factor of human purpose.”2

Try using tried and true scientific fact-based arguments against scientists who claim that there is no longer an argument regarding man-made climate change (what used to be global cooling then global warming). Of course, the climate changes, and there are multiple reasons for it.

Try arguing that transgenderism has no scientific validity, that people who identify as whatever sex they want are no different from delusional white people who identify as black. Most of today’s scientists know that transgenderism and racial identity claims are scientifically bogus. Most scientists won’t say anything to challenge the narrative for fear of being attacked and losing grant money and even their jobs.

Displaying FB_IMG_1492989832568.jpg

Science!

Try questioning the theory of evolution. I’m not talking about changes that take place within species. Long before Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Darwin presented their theories, cattle and horse breeding were commonly practiced. The theory of evolution I’m addressing is the question of origins. Evolutionary scientists have not shown scientifically – following the scientific method – that something came from nothing and that something spontaneously became living entities that resulted in the world we see today. As Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries noted in 1904, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.” (Quoted in Marvin Olasky, “Science, math, and worldviews,” World Magazine (March 18, 2017), 40.)) In fact, it can explain the arrival of anything.

Douglas Axe, author of Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life is Designed, offers examples whereby “functional coherence makes accidental invention fantastically improbable and therefore physically impossible. Invention can’t happen by accident.” He shows that the claim that evolution invented “proteins, cell types, organs, and life forms is scientifically legitimate only if we know how evolution can invent these things.”3 The thing of it is, “evolution” is not a “thing”; “it” can’t do anything. And neither can the ethereal “chance.”

Evolution has been described “as a fable for atheists, as reliable as the Apache belief that the universe began with a ball of dirt from which a scorpion pulled strands that became earth, sun, moon, and stars.” In his book The Kingdom of Speech, Tom Wolfe “calls that ‘the original version of the current solemnly accepted – i.e., “scientific” – big bang, which with a straight face tells us how something, i.e., the whole world, was created out of nothing.’”4

G.A. Kerkut writes that there are “seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of Evolution”: “The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred… This is still just an assumption… There is, however, little evidence in favour of biogenesis and as of yet we have no indication that it can be performed… It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available.”5

Given the materialistic assumptions that govern so much of science today, there is no way to account for morality. The purported Big Bang did not give rise to morality. If we are to take science wherever it leads, it sometimes leads down the wrong path. Can science say whether that path is dark or light? If so, based on what? It was science that supported the eugenics movement and the development of weapons of war like atomic and chemical weapons and everything in between.

Everyday science is showing that unborn babies are in fact babies. Instead, we have Tom Perez, the head of the Democrat National Committee (DNC) demanding, “Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health. That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.” (Huffington Post) Whatever happened to “choice”? There is no choice in the Democrat Party for anyone who does not support abortion on demand. I agree. Debating whether an unborn child should be murdered in his or her mother’s womb “is not negotiable” in the same way that it was not negotiable to enslave blacks or exterminate Jews.

Do Perez and the Democrats know that a 1952 Planned Parenthood pamphlet states that abortion “kills the life of a baby”? Was this a scientific fact in 1952 but not in 2017? What changed? Not the science. In fact, today’s science is confirming what we all knew in 1952 and as far back as biblical times (Gen. 25:22; Ex. 21:22-26; Luke 1:41).

If Perez knew anything about science, he would know that an unborn baby is not a part of a woman’s body and abortion is not about health, unless we’re talking about the unhealthy effect of abortion on unborn babies. It’s no wonder that the Democrat Party is described as “The Party of Death.”

The March for science made no mention of these facts. The march was a giant red herring – designed to draw attention away from the dismal state of science today that has been hijacked and politicized by the Left.

  1. Stephen Jay Gould, “In the Mind of the Beholder,” Natural History (February 1994), 103:14. []
  2. Sylvester Petro, The Kingsport Strike (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1967), 27-28. []
  3. Quoted in Marvin Olasky, World Magazine (March 18, 2017), 41. []
  4. From Chapter 1, “The Beast Who Talked” in The Kingdom of Speech. Quoted in Marvin Olasky, World Magazine (March 18, 2017), 41. []
  5. G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1960), 6, 150. []
Previous post

Promises to cut wasteful science funding draw protests

Next post

Christian themes in Disney's remake of "Pete's Dragon"


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.