Assign a 'primary' menu

How the Left Has Redefined Science to Make It “Politically Correct” – Part Two

You are here:
Home
Blog
collectivism
How the Left Has Redefined Science to Make It “Politically Correct” – Part Two

When you are an activist on the left, if you have an obstacle that is hindering the adoption of your movement towards State dominance, you change its meaning.

For example, during Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign, people started supporting his campaign phrase – Make America Great Again with MAGA hats.

To the wearer, the hat meant let’s get back to the America that was the world’s biggest producer of goods, the America that was a moral leader, minded it’s own business, took care of ALL of its citizens and generally good things like that.

So, Hillary and the Democrats lost the 2016 election. Shocked, the Democratic left reeled from day one. What to do to get back their power over the people through government which they knew Donald was going to take away was their dilemma.

Solution- Redefinition

Phrases were then drawn out of context and redefined to label Donald Trump the oft-used racist label. And it was repeated, again and again and again and……well, I’m sure you know what I mean.

Now, if you wear the MAGA hat?

Well, all those well-intended good meanings have been redefined. The foolish and uninformed are now reacting to it with extremes like it is a NAZI symbol or the equivalent of a KKK hood. Suddenly, you have been transformed for some from a person who wants our nation to get better to a KKK, NAZI racist.

Insanity? You betcha. Does it work? Apparently so because it keeps getting used and bandied about all the time these days.

Now, let’s apply this redefinition mentality to science and how the left has used the same kind of tactics to redefine

As covered in part one, redefining science to support and encourage the leftist collectivist model is a problem the left faced. After all, science has become like a modern day religion with its own lab coated priests and technological idols that people practically worship like their IPads of smart phones.

With this kind of nearly addictive interest, there is a powerful admiration that can harnessed there. So, harnessing themselves to the science bandwagon can add a great deal of credibility to a movement whose track record really has well…..none.

Let’s now take a look at how the left has resolved that problem in the realm of science. Using the framework we clarified from part one, this a basic outline of how they do it.

The Blending

First, the left took the commonly used and accepted operational science and threw it into their idea blender.

Everyone accepts that part. Heck, we all use it daily. We all know if it wasn’t for the advancement of operational science, we wouldn’t have all of the conveniences of modern life.

No one would argue that. So, it is a socially acceptable marketing partner.

Next, the lefties threw in their version of historical science in there with it. That would be evolution, of course.

You know, the one with matter just stirring around (which must have come from somewhere- perhaps a Big Bang they say). Then, through the laws and forces of nature (which just must have already been there too) all this random matter somehow just made itself into a universe with fixed laws and living things on this planet with minds that must apparently alsos must have spontaneously arisen from mindless matter.

Then, with both models of science in the blender, they hit the button. Whizzzzzzzzz……..!!! Blend the two all up and viola! Out comes “real” science! Pretty simple huh?

In essence, they lump speculative, historical origins science with everyday operational science which is based on empirically proven steps.

Then, they repetitiously label it- the real science. They being their leftist leaning professors in Universities, high schools and even grammar schools. Leftist in the educational publishing business and in the media etc. until it has come to permeate every level of our culture from our National Parks and children’s books to our graduate schools.

Eventually, without you even knowing it or questioning it, the real science is this blend of empiricism and speculation called evolution.

But….Is It Real Science?

The fact is, it isn’t really- real science. If it were, it could easily be proven with real, repeatable experiments and replicated. But, it can’t because some of it is real and some is a best guess speculation.

It is simply a hybrid blend of speculative science and empirical science based on a world view assumption that everything just made itself up by itself over a long period of time from nothing. No Creator. Just matter. Everything begins and ends with this assumption- matter made itself up- like it or not!

Never mind that no one could possibly know how this happened. It simply did. That is real, so they say, regardless of whether they have direct, empirical evidence to support their claim for it or not.

One would be tempted to call this downright deceptive and well….a sneaky way of bringing a badge of authenticity from empirical operational science to a speculative group of assumptions about how life arose. You would be correct. It is sneaky.

Not Really Modern Either

This “No God” has been going on for a while now all over the planet, even before Darwin’s time. In fact, since the Greeks and Plato or thereabouts.

Today however, 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 only real and acceptable “scientific” approach regarding our origins worth consideration.

All else, most particularly anything pointing to an immaterial Creator, is labeled as anti-science. Which is to say, against their speculative assumptions about how life arose.

It is based on an old argument, updated with today’s terms and called new and improved, but really its been around for thousands of years.

The Truth of This World View

However, the truth is that this approach and attitude is quite simply a flat out lie. Evolution fails the test of empirical evidence on a number of significant levels.

For example, the claim is that the universe formed itself from matter without directed intent.

So, where did the matter come from in the first place? Supposedly, we are told, from a Big Bang which allegedly began with a “singularity“. However, what caused matter to form in the first place to allow for the singularity?

Then again, if the universe from from a singularity, what is a singularity?

Supposedly, it is a point or region in space-time in which gravitational forces cause matter to gather in an infinite density.

Really? Well, that claim raises a few questions then:

Where did the matter come from in the first place? Is it eternal like God is claimed to be? Matter without beginning or end?
Where did the gravitational forces come from? They are usually associated with objects but then where did the objects come from? The chicken or the egg problem.
Why would this “eternal matter” condense into an “infinite density”? A Big Bang into a vacuum of nothing would just keep moving outward from the singularity wouldn’t it?
Just what the heck is a “infinite” density anyway? Things are finite. They begin and they end. Infinite or not finite means they never end then….
How can something that never ends become dense to the point of never ending or infinitely dense?

If it seems a bit confusing and well…..speculative and non-empirical, that because it is. This is probably why there are a number of Big Bang models, all mathematical and all non-empirical and speculative as they should be since no one could really know.

But Wait….There’s More

In addition, we have the annoying little problem of information in living things.

As we know scientifically from operational science, the difference between living things and non-living things is coded information systems.

Systems which transform the information found in DNA into proteins for life.

[youtube_advanced url=”https://youtu.be/gG7uCskUOrA” controls=”no” rel=”no” theme=”light”]http://bit.ly/2ukACda[/youtube_advanced]

So then, where did the information systems come from?

Systems like these need and already have coded nano-machines like ribosomes to translate RNA into amino acid chains which ultimately become usable proteins and enzymes to help initialize the actions which get their energy from the ATP synthase nano-machines found in the cell mitochondria?

And it really is far more complex than even this. (Watch the 2:41 second video above for a brief idea of what DNA replication, transcription and translation involve.)

So, if evolution is “real science” where is the empirical evidence to answer the questions posed above which would be necessary to confirm its claim as “real” science?

Not to worry. There is always assumption and repetition. Where there is a will and a properly conditioned mind, there is a way.

Conditioning the Mind

As the philosopher-psychologist and leader of the pragmatist movement William James said:

There’s nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.

So one way to condition a mind is through repetition. It begins when we are young. as it did with the Hitler Youth.

Students from the elementary school level all the way up to the graduate school level have been taught that the theory of evolution is based on empiricism. It is the real and only acceptable “scientific” approach regarding our origins worth consideration. A potential supernatural foot is not allowed to enter the sacred realm of material empiricism.

All else, most particularly anything pointing to an immaterial Creator, is labeled as anti-science. That is, “anti” or against their speculative assumptions about how life arose.

This assumptive claim that evolution is proven science (like operational science) is given traction by those who pose themselves as “experts” or spokesman scientists.

This group in academia which are decidedly leftist and atheist or agnostic in orientation aggressively bar any opposition to their accepted world view.

This may includes firing any teacher, professor or scientist who dares to question their conclusions in any way. Or it could involve the denial of a degree to a student who has determined that this evolution stuff just doesn’t make any sense and accepts the possibility or reality of a Creator God.

God forbid!

Should a student or colleague claim that the universe reflects design and, heaven forbid, points to a supernatural potential rather than a strictly material-based, natural origin….well that is scientific heresy! The attacks and academic funeral drumbeat then begins.

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. For details on how this works I refer you to the book, Slaughter of the Dissidents by Jerry Bergeman, PhD.

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.

This being the case, they possess the ability to strongly influence the young minds they pander their views to, under threat of failing a course, by presenting their view as the only one acceptable and attacking any other. In that realm, you give in to get along or get banned.

If a student questions what is taught as the “real” origin science, which would be the theory of evolution, they are disregarded or receive chastisement, denigration and censorship to a failing grade or worse.

A professor or teacher questioning the dogma of evolution, 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 as Slaughter of the Dissidents reveals.

So, the real question is, why the strident aggressive disregard for those questioning the conclusions of evolution? Why is any opinion outside of evolution, pounced upon as heretical and immediately labeled anti-science?

The answer is not complicated. It doesn’t fit the left’s collectivist narrative.

It places an authority over and above the collective of the State. That just doesn’t work- for the leftists who control academia.

The so-called “March for Science” showed how this worked in the real world more visibly. We’ll take a look at that issue in the final part 3 post which shows how these techniques are played out in real life.

Go to Part 3

Go Back to Part 1