Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 04, 2014

Secular Scientists Make a Hard Left

Science has become increasingly religious in nature, and Scientism is on the increase. People are enamored with what science can do (turning "science" into some kind of entity, which is the fallacy of reification), and scientists are looked upon almost as if they were priests of this religion. Doubtless, many scientists want to just do science stuff, but others seem to like the illegitimate status they are accorded.

Evolution is a foundation for many kinds of evil thinking and practices, and it is equivocated with science; if you dispute particles-to-people evolution, then you are labeled as a "science denier". Similarly, evolutionary thinking is at the root of global warming hysteria (again, if you deny global warming, you are a "science denier"). People believe in evolution and global warming because scientists said so, and scientists must be right. Right?


Much of the political spectrum around the world is decidedly leftist. The United States is becoming more so every day. The secular media has a blatant leftist bias, misrepresenting biblical Christianity and Conservatives. (One example is the way an article about George Washington Carver conveniently neglected his faith, which was the most important thing in his life. Another is how Bill Nye the Propaganda Guy is revered by leftist media as an expert in evolution, global warming and other things.) The high priests of Scientism (who are almost all Darwinists) are supported by the media and politicians in upholding causes that not only uplift leftist ideology, but attack biblical Christianity. These scientists are pontificating on matters that do not concern real scientists, and the ruling elite are ignoring and even suppressing contrary views by other scientists.

You can read details and several examples at "Secular Scientists Continue to Push Leftist Agendas".


Anonymous said...

I think you are looking at the world leaning left in the wrong light. People are not starting to lean left because of some agenda or bias in the media and science community, the world is going that direction because those ideas are standing up to criticism and peer review.

radar said...

Only the peer reviewers who are predetermined to have the Darwinist/Econut/Socialist agenda are the ones doing secular peer reviews. I am sure that the fox community will unanimously agree that foxes are uniquely gifted to watch hen houses. So it is with secular science. If you do not agree with the lockstep stupidity of the majority, you cannot be a peer-reviewer and they will toss your papers out when they detect a whiff of dissension. Typical of such nonsense is a paper published in PNAS called "Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system" that is a fairy tale with no real observational foundation.

The so-called equation for the Big Bang is missing 96% of the energy and entropy and yet secular science applauds.

The climate has been in a slight temperature downturn this century despite the deliberate gaming of weather stations but global warming Chicken Littles still cherry-pick or make up data to pretend man is able to cause the climate to warm or cool. Better tell the Sun and the volcanoes, since they actually DO have those abilities. Not us. Look at Al Gore's lifestyle and tell me he even believes his own BS?

Socialism/Fascism/Communism is always the direction elites want to take government and it always fails. The middle class is eliminated, the serfs wind up being the vast majority of people whose lives are in the hands of a handful of incredibly rick and powerful elites. How do you think people like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton live like kings and queens without having experience with holding down a real job outside of politics?

We threw off the yoke of kings and queens back in the 18th Century but the brainwashed average American has voted them back in.

Anonymous said...

You seemed to have ignored the central point of my comment earlier. The science community is not some liberal clubhouse, it is intelligent people looking at issues without bias and seeing where the data leads them on a given issue.

radar said...

No, you seem to be happy to make blanket statements with no evidence to bulwark them. Evolution would have been long-discarded if it was not so important to the Secular Humanist/Atheist/Naturalist worldview. We now know that life is a sophisticated set of organic "hardware, operating system and software" with contingencies and redundancies built in so that a dog will always produce more dogs (with a rich set of pre-existing genetic materials from which to allow for large variation within kind). We have seen the abject failure of any attempt to demonstrate any possibility of overcoming the established Law of Biogenesis. Yet foolish secular scientists and academics continue to pretend that Darwinism is science rather than a foolish religion.

The work of Behe and Dembski, the work of Kirschner and Gerhart, the work of Stephen Meyer and John Lennox and Jonathan Sarfati and Werner Gitt have combined to destroy Darwinism evidentially and logically. I have used this blog to demonstrate this by presenting evidence.

Meanwhile, Darwinists continue to lie about whatever they think they can get away with, such as the "Mono Lake bacteria" and the nylonase-eating bacteria." They used to scramble to hide actual flesh and blood found in dinosaur fossils, but now that the cat is out of the bag they find themselves scrambling to explain away evidence they used to claim was impossible.

The basics of geology and biology are taught on a set of lies. If you are comfortable basing your life on lies, that is your free choice. But your blind faith in people like Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott and those of their ilk is not wise.

Anonymous said...

I did some brief research on all of the people you mentioned. Each of them clearly had a bias towards the young earth creation model, although I should have expected that.

The part you don't seem to understand is that the scientific community is not banding together to hold some irrational beliefs by virtue of a liberal scientific clubhouse, that is specifically what the people you all referenced are trying to do. Let me be clear, as this continues to be the source of our miscommunication:

Firstly, the currently held scientific beliefs in the public spectrum are not the result of an elite clubhouse, they are facts arrived at by the careful examination of the data that we can observe.

Secondly, the misguided views of young earth creationists are held by people with a point to prove outside of the actual age of the earth, namely that there is a god as described by the Christian bible.

The very first person you mentioned, Michael Behe (the originator of the term "irreducible complexity" which is a key argument for the proponents of intelligent design), even he was basically laughed out of the courthouse when presented with compounding evidence. Book after book after article after article. It was never "good enough" he would continue to reply, despite any amount of evidence given to him.

Go ahead and check it out for yourself here:

Piltdown Superman said...

Did you even read the article? Despite your arbitrary, unfounded assertions, scientists are not dispassionate observers, guided only by the facts. They have motives, and many are political, moral and spiritual leftists.

AmericanVet said...

I actually made a blog post in which I reviewed the Kitzmiller vs Dover case. It was a Kangaroo Court! The judge welcomed the press acclaim and was lured by the idea of winding up in the news and even the Rolling Stone. He had no training in science and it was obvious he was a rubber stamp for the Darwinists, so much so that he took word-for-word language from the NCSE opinion on this case and used it in his ruling. This was one case in which the plagiarized source was not going to complain.

That court case was an insult to the intelligence of mankind and a clear sign to Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents that the courts, like secular science organizations and most academics, were all worshiping at the feet of a Naturalist god - unwittingly in some cases. After all, public schools indoctrinate students in this garbage.

Behe's findings on irreducible complexity and the inability of mutations to make big enough changes to the DNA code of offspring to bring about evolution-style changes from kind to kind are real science. That court decision was just the proof real science needed that the courts would do more harm that good.

Anonymous said...

Could you explain in brief why you think the work of K&G does anything to undermine evolution?

radar said...

I have explained in blogposts in great detail why the work of K&G makes the idea of Darwinism seem outdated and invalid. There are several key points:

Life (once in existence by unknown means to them) would have to have "jumped" several types of organism, including three so-called domains to have produced the wide variety of life found today. For instance a jump from prokaryotes to eukaryotes is postulated.

"lineage towards humans, these innovations include:

the processes in the first bacteria [all the machinery in a bacterial cell],
[the processes in] the first eukaryotes [all the machinery in a eukaryote cell],
[the processes in] the first multi-cellular organisms [cooperation between cells, specialization of structure and function of different cells, and integration of specialized cell complexes into functional organs and organisms],
[the processes in] large bilateral body plans in metazoans (including chordates and vertebrates),
[the processes in] neural crest cells in vertebrates [which allow diversification of the head region],
[the processes in] limbs in the first land animals,
[the processes in] the neocortex [the key region of brain development]."

There are built-in "shortcuts" within the genetic material of the organism to aid in variation from one feature to another. For instance, wing spots on butterfly wings are turned "on" or "off" by a distal-less gene already present in the genome. We call this Facilitated Variation. There are switches to vary features in organisms that are found in the genome and not created by mutation. Mutation sometimes removes a portion of the DNA strand and causes the variation, but the variation is simply a loss of information and not creative.

The actual "mechanics" of sexual reproduction prevent evolution of one kind of organism to another. The mother lays the framework for the child. The father donates half of the DNA to the child, but that organism is going to be the same kind as the mother.

It is hilarious to read a biology textbook and see the explanation that a simple prokaryote swallowed another one and the result was, voila, a eukarote! Ouch! So I suppose if a bird eats a worm it becomes a giant flying snake?

radar said...

Then there is Genetic Redundancy. Study of genomes has shown that the loss of a gene is not uncommon and more often than not makes no discernible difference to most organisms. Often two or more genes are redundant for each other. So when scientists deliberately remove a gene in laboratory tests in mice and breed them in order to identify the function of the protein created by the gene, they often find the offspring are unchanged or only slightly changed despite having a gene "knocked out" of their genome.

"Knock-out Genes" illustrate that organisms were actually designed, just as Facilitated Variation does. Organisms have rich gene pools from which to select, gene pools that have myriad feature sets and redundancies. The result is that organisms can and do "react" to changes in environment in order to sustain their kind. Yet not one kind of organism becomes another kind.

K&G shed much light on the reproductive process in organisms but they did also unwittingly (I would suppose) give more ammunition to those of us who realize that life is designed. That non-creationists/intelligent design people would provide insight into organisms that is yet another blow upon the dead horse called evolution is ironic, is it not?

Eventually the accumulation of mutations would be so severe in the human genome that we will not be capable of survival. Our genome has become less robust due to mutations - who was suffering from peanut allergies sixty years ago, for instance? I said "would" because this world will end when the Creator decides to end it, just as it began when He made it.

radar said...

Last, before you claim I have made a religious claim, consider that the assertion that there is no God and the Universe created itself is also a religious claim. No one owns a time machine to go back and watch it happen.

The idea of a Supernatural Creator creating the natural world ex nihilo is logically sound - cause and effect. A God-created Universe would have logical laws that could be understood and this idea caused the first real scientists to study physical processes to reveal how they operate and why. That the majority of scientists today have abandoned God as the Creator reveals their lack of understanding of the history of science and the basics of philosophy.

The idea that the Universe made itself naturally in complete violation of natural laws is not logically sound. It is the desperate last resort of the mind that is in rebellion against God or the uninformed opinion of the ignorant or the favorite toy of the stupid.