Creation Moment 3/7/2017 - Politicizing "Science"

For the love of money is the root of all evil...

1 Timothy 6:10

"Before reading the news about Big Science’s involvement with politics, let’s review some intuitive principles about science:

1. Science has nothing to do with politics. Scientists are supposed to investigate the natural world.
2. The taxpayers and their servants in government owe nothing to scientists. Anything scientists get is gravy.
3. The government has every right to determine the amount and use of any taxpayer earnings redistributed to scientists.

As radical as those principles sound in today’s culture of Big Government, Big Science and Big Media, they are true. A look at the history of science proves it. Although governments have occasionally chosen to support scientific research, most of the work was done privately (e.g., by Robert Boyle and James Joule) or by private institutions (e.g., the Royal Institution that sponsored Michael Faraday).

Since Big-Government Democrats position themselves as friends of ‘science’ with few qualms

about national indebtedness, Big Science (and their uncritical lapdogs in Big Media), tend to lean left in politics. That’s where they think the money will flow easier. (Whether or not that is true is a separate question.) Leftists and Democrats also tend to be less religious, favoring the materialist bias so prevalent in the Darwin-worshiping academy. American scientists, disavowing the American exceptionalism propounded by conservative Republicans, find kindred hearts in European socialist countries, where atheism rules.

So closed to alternative viewpoints are university science departments and science reporters now, they can’t even think outside the Democrat box any more. The Pavlovian response (“vote Democrat, get money”) is evident in the following news items, where instinctively anything Republican or Trumpian is viewed as evil, anything Democrat or Clintonian is viewed as good. It’s a package deal. Once aligned with a political party, an institutional scientist will tend to support everything on that party’s platform, whether or not it has anything to do with science.

Ring the Democrat bell: watch Big Science salivate. Ring the Republican bell: watch Big Science growl. For this reason, those few scientists outside the leftist echo chamber tend to keep their mouths shut.

Trump’s policies set to damage health and science, warns The BMJ (Medical Xpress). This blatantly partisan article presents Democrat talking points in the guise of a science story on a science news site. It claims Trump is evil on immigration, wrong in wanting to overturn Obamacare, and a liar because of talk of ‘alternative facts’ by an aide. All his reform proposals are wrong before even getting out the gate.

Demise of stream rule won’t revitalize coal industry (Science Magazine). If Trump is for it, the AAAS is against it. “Environmentalists were outraged earlier this month after the Republican–led Congress used an obscure law to erase a new regulation aimed at reducing the environmental damage caused by coal mining…” yada yada yada. Author Warren Cornwall is certainly welcome to his opinion on coal as he favorable quotes Sierra Club laywers, but is it inconceivable for a science society to present a balanced presentation, perhaps to include another view by a pro-energy-independence Republican scientist? In a looking-glass world, couldn’t a science society be outraged at Obama’s ‘attack’ on the coal industry? Couldn’t scientific institutions show concern for the thousands who lost their jobs? Instead, the AAAS publishes this piece as if it’s the only possible position for ‘science’ to take.

Trump’s policy changes put women’s sexual and reproductive health at risk, argues expert (Medical Xpress). So terrible to possibly limit access to abortions. So bad to threaten the ACA. So evil to discriminate against the gender-confused. This broken-record presentation of Clinton/Obama talking points, as expected, employs the Orwellian phrase “women’s reproductive health” as a euphemism for abortion. The reporter shows absolutely no concern whatsoever for the constitutional right to life for the unborn (half of whom are female). Fathers, of course, are ignored completely in the equation;" CEH