As with most of the leftist inspired movements definitions get rewritten and redefined. What people expect them to mean gets reinterpreted to mean in many cases the polar opposite of what is commonly accepted to mean.
Take for example, the term free trade. We all think that “free trade” means that the trade is a voluntary exchange of the goods or services of one nation with the people of another unimpeded by the interference of government. The goods and services flow freely between the parties involved and all benefit equally.
That is far from the truth. Very far.
You see, with the label “free trade” in these so called “free trade” agreements comes a transfer of national sovereignty to the WTO by all parties involved in the agreements through the GATT 1994 agreement for example. The GATT agreement is the very source of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO is an active agency of the United Nations.
In short, what takes place is not free trade but rather trade that is no longer regulated by the parties involved but also now subject to the dictates and whims of the UN under the WTO.
It is no longer “free” trade but trade that is ultimately regulated by the United Nations. National sovereignty has been replaced with globalism and a step towards one world government. This can hardly constitute free trade but rather regulated trade under a different body- a global one.
It is a redefinition of the term “free trade” and, in fact, the trade involved becomes just the opposite of free but rather is now very heavily regulated. See this article for more details.
The same has been done with the term science. The left, as they have redefined the term “free trade”, have also redefined science.
First of all, they conflate everyday operational science which has produced many inventions and advances in technology to benefit human beings with origins science. They are not the same type of science.
Origins science is historical in nature. It is speculative and must rely on projections from existing evidence to make best guesses as to how life arose. There is nothing set in cement when it comes to our origins. It necessarily involves speculation since none living today or even during man’s recorded history were present at the beginning.
So to lump origins speculative, historically based assumptions with everyday operational science which is based on empirically proven steps and procedures is a bit more than disingenuous. It is downright deceptive and well….a sneaky way of bringing a badge of authenticity to a speculative group of assumptions about how life arose.
This has been going on for a while. Students from the elementary school level to graduate school level have been taught that the theory of evolution is based on empiricism and is the real and only acceptable “scientific” approach regarding our origins worth consideration.
All else, most particularly anything pointing to an immaterial Creator, is labeled as anti-science. That is, “anti” their speculative assumptions about how life arose.
The Truth of This World View
However, this approach and attitude is quite simply a flat out lie. Evolution fails the test of empirical evidence on a number of significant levels. These can be fleshed out, but not in this article in order to keep it to a manageable length.
However, the claim that evolution is proven science (like everyday science) is given traction by those who pose themselves as “experts” or spokesman scientists. This group in academia aggressively bars any opposition which includes firing any teacher, professor or scientist who dares to question their conclusions in any way. This is especially so if their colleague claims that the universe reflects design and, heaven forbid, points to a supernatural potential rather than a strictly material-based, natural origin. That is simply not real science they cry. The attack and funeral drumbeat then begins.
For a number of reasons, neither students nor professors are permitted any option of choice when it comes to questioning evolution as a proven and real science. All other views or opinions are excluded. In reality, this attitude expressed by a large number of academics is really not that of a scientist open to further examination and discovery, rather it is the approach of a dogmatist.
They cling to their conclusions based on what is rapidly becoming outdated data, particularly in the DNA/RNA arena. They discard any evidence or data that does not agree with their conclusions. If their dogma is contradicted by evidence or inference, they ignore it or attack it as superstitious nonsense regardless of its scientific merit.
The Danger of Dogma
Now, this degenerated landscape would be academic except that these left leaning dogmatists control powerful positions in our universities and schools. That being the case, they possess the ability to strongly influence the young minds they pander their views to under the threat of failing a course by presenting their view only and attacking any other. In that realm, you give in to get along or get banned.
If a student questions what is taught as origin science, aka evolutionism, they receive anything from chastisement, denigration and censorship to a failing grade or worse. A professor or teacher questioning it and particularly those offering alternative routes of consideration can be flat out dismissed and black balled. That is hardly an imaginary whim unfortunately. It is a fact, with many examples.
So, the real question is, why the strident aggressive disregard for those questioning the conclusions of the current origins paradigm? Why is any opinion other than that professed to be the “One”, i.e. evolution, pounced upon as heretical and immediately labeled anti-science?
Some clues arise from this so-called March for Science.
March for Science or Rather a Specific World View?
In a recent article written on April 17th entitled, The Phony Diversity of the ‘March for Science’, the author. John West, writes that “the upcoming march is not defending science. It’s undermining it.”
West notes that “March organizers say they believe that “science works best when scientists come from diverse perspectives.” They also claim that the “scientific community is best served by including voices and contributions from people of all identities and backgrounds.”
When the Discovery Institute asked to become a “partner” for the March, they were turned down flat. Is it because the institute represents a bunch of crack pots making silly claims with no evidence behind them? Are they lunatics pushing a dangerous world view that could lead to immoral behavior or worse?
No, actually not. The Discovery Institute is a group of scientists, some highly credentialed, who believe there is evidence of intelligent design in nature. Steven C. Myers, PhD Cambridge University in the History of Science, for example has written two rather well researched books on the issue Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt.
When the author of the aforementioned article, John West asked the March co-chair, Jonathan Berman, to explain why the Discovery Institute was banned from the event, Berman emailed West that “it is not our policy to advance specific worldviews or ideas outside of current consensuses of scientific fields.”
Sounds kind of like a totalitarian government rather than a scientific community doesn’t it? They get to define what constitutes a “worldview” and what constitutes “scientific” as well. And, well…if you don’t meet their criterion, you are censored.
However, as West notes, “march organizers were happy to accept a number of high-profile groups that use science to debunk God. These include the Secular Student Alliance, the Secular Coalition for America, and even the American Humanist Association.”
Kind of hypocritical, isn’t it? The March for Science shut out scientists who use current scientific evidence such as the information systems found in every living thing as a means of pointing to design in nature by labeling them as having a specific “worldview” which outside of the current scientific consensus.
Yet, they embraced groups which happen to use what they label as science to attack faith based worldviews. (In reality, origins evolutionism requires even more faith in magical happenstance than creationism, but that is too much to cover in this particular article.)
The American Humanist Association (AHS) claims that “unguided evolutionary change” is proof against the supernatural. In short, they believe that their scientific model disproves God.
Nevertheless, since the March’s leadership obviously accepts the idea that science disproves God, AHS is not a “specific worldview” which they deem goes beyond their science “consensus”. Even if it is actually essentially a world view rather than actual science.
Berman also mentioned the word consensus as though that were the determinant of authenticity. The history of science shows that consensus science has been dead wrong numerous times in human history. Louis Pasteur, the father of biological medicine, when first presented the germ theory was considered a crack pot.
Ignaz Semmelweis, who attempted to get surgeons to wash their hands to prevent infection eventually suffered a nervous breakdown as a result of the shunning and abuse he received from his colleagues.
Then we have the practice of bleeding patients which had the consensus of the medical community at one time which is now considered primitive medicine along with other now discarded myths and misinterpretations.
The point is consensus science can be wrong- sometimes dead wrong. So, that is certainly not a strong argument for censorship of a potential new set of ideas about a theory particularly if you claim to welcome diverse backgrounds and viewpoints.
Bill Nye- Honorary March Co-Chair
The article’s author West, also mentions the March’s honorary co-chair Bill Nye, the “Science Guy.”
“A few years ago, Nye was named “Humanist of the Year.” He claims “evolution is not guided by a mind or a plan.” He also invokes science to argue that humans are “insignificant” and “suck.”
So according to the leaders of the March for Science, if you argue that science provides evidence of purposeful design, you are anti-science. But if you argue science disproves God and shows humans “suck,” that’s fine.”
Seems to me that being narrow minded and oppressive is what really sucks, particularly in light of the fact that ALL of the major founders of modern science believed very strongly in God including, in many cases, a biblical description of human origins and history.
Science as a Tool to Oppress Theists
The March for Science organizers complain about “under-represented” groups in the sciences. However, the biggest underrepresented group among the ruling class of scientific elites by far appears to be those who are theists.
As West points out:
Therein lies the real heart of the matter.
This so-called March for Science has an agenda, unstated, but an agenda nevertheless.
Its unstated agenda is to promote their own world view over any potential others.
A world view which endorses that of a universe which made itself up apparently out of nothing. A pantheistic view creating a green religion using assumptive science to replace God. Anything outside of that could not constitute real science according to scientific elite of the AAAS.
Who died and Made Them Gods BTW?
The real agenda of the March for Science is to foster a culture where it’s okay to misuse science to bash religion or a claim of a Creator, otherwise why would they so readily allow groups who use science to bash God, yet dismiss scientists who embrace Intelligent Design as outsiders.
Real Everyday Science was Built on the Assumption of Design
The true irony here is that it was intelligent design, not secularism, which gave rise to modern science.
Science grew in large part because early scientists believed that nature was the product of a rational agent. That is, they believed in a supernatural Creator.
Based on this assumption, the natural world could then be studied as something based on logic and order rather than something that arose from a mindless, chaotic process of undirected disorder.
Even today, scientists tend to assume that nature is rationally designed, not the product of chaos.
In fact, what was once considered to be junk DNA has now been discovered to have very critical functions in the creation of RNA and sub programs which provide us with our human individuality. Had scientists not assumed it was there for a reason and not junk, this process of discovery would never have happened which leads me to the next point.
Shutting Down Discovery
As previously noted, the March for Science has shut out scientists who see design in nature and embraced groups that use science to attack faith. That’s not defending true science. It is undermining it.
For those who value true discovery and real science, that is a way of shutting down exploration and new insight. If we believe that we have all of the answers, why bother to look further? Junk DNA would have been written off as useless flotsam derived from the random mutation process that supposedly created all of life. (Note: Mutations do not create information but rather eliminate it. Species differ so markedly from a DNA standpoint that new information is critical. How could random errors generate all the new information needed to create new species? Do typos create new, more complex papers or books?)
Science’s Real Needs Are Not This March
So called “junk DNA” is now found to have programming capabilities far beyond previously assumed, supplies each of us with our unique individuality and, in fact, is not “junk” at all.
Science needs to allow for dissent. It needs to allow students and teachers to go to where the evidence points. And let’s face it, programmed information systems which are being revealed as far more complex and intricately orchestrated than anyone ever previously imagined is not pointing to dumb matter as a source of origin. Minds produce information systems, not matter!
The Heart of the Matter
The real key to this March for Science is not really science. It is a prejudice based upon a world view. It is a battle of the world view of atheism vs. God. It is not a March for Science. It is a march for the replacement of the world view which embraces a Creator with what the non-believers who hold the power in academia embrace. It is a conflict of ideas not evidence nor even logic for that matter.
In truth, it is a march for Godlessness centering the evolutionist/atheist world view on science and secularism, which is to reject God and place man or an amorphous, impersonal “nature” at the center of the universe.
In truth, it really has little to do with everyday operational science which leads us along the path to many new technological discoveries. Rather, it is the promotion of a world view which rejects God and attempts to replace God with man or an impersonal “nature” which acts with no regard for human beings as having a place of dominion on the planet.
In the March for Science world view, human beings are simply objects of nature, created by accident, with no privileged standing in this world. A view which leads to, in the words of Bill Nye, an opinion of purposelessness eventually leading to Bill Nye’s expression of “I suck”.
Not very elevating in the end. Who does one turn to? A fellow meat puppet perhaps? And one wonders why suicide in growing among our youth?
They shouldn’t. These so-called “science” advocates are knowingly or unknowingly cultivating the meat puppet ideology. A world view which replaces a personal God who vested man with a stewardship dominion over this planet with their sterile, highly biased view of science reducing man to just another accident of undirected forces of matter.
P.S.- You will find this same emphasis in the Communist ideology of Marxism. Think it through. Do your own research with an open mind. It may be outside of the accepted consensus but it is not outside of logical conclusion. Question authority and see for yourself.