War on Science

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The War on Science is the Leftist expropriation of natural science to promote crackpot social science theories.


The Age of Enlightenment ushered in an era of secularization and blind faith in science as the final arbiter of truth. This atheistic approach is responsible for some of the most horrific crimes in history. Among them were the holocaust and segregation.


See also: Evolutionary racism and Social effects of the theory of evolution

Evolution establishes a "scientific" rationale for racism by extending the "great chain of being" to humanity. Just as animal species are ordered into a hierarchy according to development, so too the "races of men" are described as being more or less developed than others.

Evolutionists then extend the doctrine of survival of the fittest to humanity. Pulitzer Prize winning author Marilynne Robinson wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of Harper's Magazine:

While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent.

Dawkins deals with all this in one sentence. Hitler did his evil "in the name of. . . an insane and unscientific eugenics theory." But eugenics is science as surely as totemism is religion. That either is in error is beside the point. Science quite appropriately acknowledges that error should be assumed, and at best it proceeds by a continuous process of criticism meant to isolate and identify error. So bad science is still science in more or less the same sense that bad religion is still religion. That both of them can do damage on a huge scale is clear. The prestige of both is a great part of the problem, and in the modern period, the credibility of anything called science is enormous. As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it.

There is indeed historical precedent in the Spanish Inquisition for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science."[1][2]

Joseph Stalin was greatly influenced by the work of Charles Darwin.[3]

Dr. Josef Mengele's evolutionary thinking was in accordance with social Darwinist theories that Adolph Hitler and a number of German academics found appealing.[4] Dr. Joseph Mengele studied under the leading proponents the "unworthy life" branch of evolutionary thought.[4] Dr. Mengele was one of the most notorious individuals associated with Nazi death camps and the Holocaust.[5] Mengele obtained an infamous reputation due to his experiments on twins while at Auschwitz-Birkenau.[5]


So-called "Jim Crow laws" were for the most part state and local public health ordinances,[6] such as segregated bathrooms, based on science. Hard sciences such as eugenics and racial biology were used to justify mistreatment of Blacks.[7] It was the social sciences that overthrew the natural scientists' "facts" in the Supreme Court.[8]

President Franklin Roosevelt's Georgia Warm Springs Polio Rehabilitation Center maintained a Whites-only admission policy. This discrimination was sustained by a scientific argument about polio itself - that Blacks were not susceptible to the disease.[9] The center continued to practice racial discrimination into the 1960s until it was finally struck down by a federal Appeals Court ruling and changes made in the Civil Rights Act.

Then there's the notorious government-funded medical research in the Tuskegee Institute syphilis experiments.

Modern times

With the replacement of God by science, courts and legislators have looked to psychiatrists, psychologists, physicists, chemists, and with the growth of technology, mathematicians and computer scientists for guidance. Even the legal field has taken a backseat to the political power of natural scientists. This of course often puts public policy at odds with others in scientific fields of study, such as economists and historians.

Increasingly, natural science has become a cudgel wielded by leftists in the sociological field and political science, not to "save the planet" or species, but in an abusive drive for political power and control for themselves. After all, they claim to be so much intellectually "superior" than the rest of humanity.[10]


Economist Thomas Sowell observed:

The Marxian contribution to economics can be readily summarized as virtually zero. Professional economics as it exists today reflects no indication that Karl Marx ever existed...The development of modern economics has simply ignored Marx. Even economists who are Marxists typically utilize a set of analytical tools to which Marx contributed nothing... In professional economics, Das Capital was a detour into a blind alley...[11]

Global warming

See also: Global warming and Climate change

"Global warming" began as an anti-capitalist movement in the 1980s to oppose President Ronald Reagan's defense modernization program, which ultimately bankrupted the Soviet Union. Anti-capitalists attacked the booming auto manufacturing,[12] oil drilling and refining industries as responsible for the destruction of the planet. This leftwing socialist sentiment was taught in schools and universities, where faculty salaries are dependent on statist largesse and who feared Reagan's budget cuts. The Soviet KGB, known for its propaganda campaigns such as the AIDS virus being "invented" by the Pentagon, mounted one last ditch effort to save Communism and fight capitalism.[13]

Of course, the theory of Russian influence and meddling in American politics was dismissed by the Left as "utter lunacy" at the time.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal is an effort to hijack natural science and the elimination of fossil fuels as the basis of legislation to create a basic income, a federal jobs workforce, reparations for the descendants of slaves, and Medicare for All.[14]

Genetically modified foods

With science being the ultimate arbiter of truth, and lawmakers and courts on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean bowing to their claimed "superior" knowledge and wisdom, and their final judgement, yet it remained a mystery how scientists in the European Union banned genetically modified foods as dangerous and unhealthy while American scientists exonerated genetically modified foods of all defects and claimed they are an improvement over natural foods.[15]

But the explanation is quite simple: natural scientists have given cover to EU politicians to ban competitively priced U.S. food imports and protect European farmers.[16] Here, once again, economic science trumped natural science. To hold together the European Union as an economically viable experiment, natural scientists were only too willing to prostitute themselves to government research grants.

The Left has been criticized for its opposition to genetically modified foods which stifled research into what could be used to feed the growing population of Africa.[17] The environmental organization Greenpeace led the anti-science movement.[18] Liberals believed it was an agenda to place agricultural production in the hands of a few corporate giants like Monsanto through seed patents and deny small farmers control of production.

Doubling down on error

Given the record of excesses and abuses, natural scientists and their advocates are in the awkward and embarrassing position of arguing that alleged "pure science" has, at times in the past, been colored by ideological trappings. So, scientifically speaking, there is no legitimate claim that today's science cannot likewise be prejudiced by non-scientific and unscientific factors, as well. Nevertheless, it appears science advocates have doubled down on a flawed premise.

In 2017 Eric Armstrong wrote in New Republic:
"in the modern liberal mind, whether someone can be called a science-denier has taken on a scope limited to a small subset of scientific concepts: climate change and evolution. In essence, if you accept these concepts, you are pro-science; if you deny them, you are anti-science. True as that may be, this myopic view ignores a wide world of science, some of which is at odds with many beliefs popular on the left. The time has come for Democrats to remove the beam from their own eyes, so to speak. Taking up the mantle of scientific liberalism—that is, adopting an evidence-based view of reality in pursuit of progressive policy—would serve both the strategic purposes of the Democratic Party in the menacing face of Trumpism, as well as the existential interests of humanity.[19]
Armstrong goes on to criticize leftists who believe in homeopathic cures, then puts himself at odds with the best minds of science in the European Union by claiming genetically modified foods are completely healthy, and finally adopts Thomas Sowell's argument of the difference between liberals and conservatives in relation to nuclear power - that liberals seek perfect solutions while conservatives see only trade-offs.[20]

The pursuit of science as the font of all wisdom and knowledge gave the human species nuclear weapons and the constant overhanging threat of complete destruction. More recently it gave us the opioid crisis. Science itself, without morality, is not a solution to problems, and can threaten life on this earth.[21]


Left-wing pro-abortion activists ignore and deny the numerous scientific evidences that the unborn are fully human, preferring instead to advance their pseudoscientific ideology.[22][23]


See also: Social experiment

The most recent leftist manifestation of the War on Science is the teaching that gender is a social construct. In the field of gender studies, social scientists now preemptively dictate how natural science is taught. Cultural Marxists invaded and took over the American academic world well before the Soviet Union collapsed and the international communist revolution supposedly came to an end. The guiding light no longer dwells in the Kremlin, but within the hallowed halls of American academia.

Nowhere did this "change you can believe in" become more pronounced than in the politicization of gender psychosis under President Barack Obama.[24] Using "science" as a basis, Obama signed Executive Order 13672, barring discrimination in hiring against persons suffering with gender dysphoria in federal employment and among government contractors, and allowing them to use restroom facilities of another gender in federal buildings and in the places of employment of government contractors.

Facebook, which is an NSA surveillance contractor and receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal money,[25] was among the first to make a company-wide shift in policy.[26] Facebook recognizes 58 genders,[27] although there is little or no science behind it.[28] 20% of all Facebook users are under 25 years of age, and 45% are under 35 years old.[29] The implication is clear, using no science, far leftists seek to raise a generation that consider gender a matter of choice, not biological science.[30]

Toxic masculinity

The official position of the American Psychological Association is that naturally generated testosterone produces anti-social behavior (at least in Western, predominantly white societies), treatable by surgery, drugs, and female hormone replacement (see Transgenderism).

Animal research

Main article: Animal rights

The Leftist war on science sometimes is used as fads in marketing campaigns. For example, a common hairspray product bares a label, "Not Tested on Animals." While this type of liberal "feelgoodism" is common, it's no consolation to the casual observer that a major manufacturer boasts of using human guinea pigs to test its products.

Burrowing a little deeper, one would discover that it is illegal to test products with various combinations of chemical compounds on human beings before approval by the FDA, this isn't Nazi Germany after all. The product actually is tested on animals first before fragrance is added, allowing the manufacturer to label their product in such a way to accommodate leftist virtue signalling.

How leftists can use hairspray, look in the mirror, and take pride in the fact that the same scientific method that Dr. Mengele employed was used to develop the product, science has yet to explain.

Nuclear power

Eric Armstrong points out nuclear power plants produce zero greenhouse gases, whereas liberals have warred against the expansion of nuclear power plants for 50 years.

Since its commercialization in the 1970s, nuclear power has prevented about 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths. Nuclear reactors have caused the lowest number of fatalities per unit of energy generated when compared to fossil fuels and hydropower.

New Atheism Movement

See also: New Atheism Movement

According to PZ Myers, the intellectual roots of atheism is science (See: Atheism and science). Myers claims people can "find enduring meaning in science and evidence-based reasoning." Myers complains that science was stolen to bolster rationalizing prior bigotries.[31] Myers conflates humanism with atheism while in the same breath criticizing Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins for looking at "everything from a political perspective." Myers claimed that people drawn into the New Atheism Movement "rather than being enlightened about the unity of humanity, they instead learned that bastardized evolutionary theories could be weaponized to justify all kinds of abuses."

Further reading

See also


  1. http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20
  2. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/someone-finally-said-it-dawkinss-hysterical-scientism/
  3. http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism
  4. 4.0 4.1 http://www.posner.com/book1.htm
  5. 5.0 5.1 http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm
  6. The Jim Crow encyclopedia, edited by Nikki L.M. Brown and Barry M. Stentiford 2008.
  7. American nightmare: The History of Jim Crow, by Jarrold Packard, St. Martin's Press, 2002.
  8. How a Psychologist’s Work on Race Identity Helped Overturn School Segregation in 1950s America, By Leila McNeill, smithsonian.com October 26, 2017.
  9. Race and the Politics of Polio: Warm Springs, Tuskegee, and the March of Dimes, Naomi Rogers, PhD. American Journal of Public Health, May 2007.
  10. Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent, S Kanazawa - Social Psychology Quarterly, 2010 - journals.sagepub.com
  11. Thomas Sowell, Marxism: Philosophy and Economics (Taylor & Francis, 1985) ISBN 0043201717, p. 217.
  12. The legacy of the global Cold War economy can be seen in that the losers of World War II - Germany and Japan - as of 2019 remain the world's largest auto manufactures. Germany and Japan were allowed to rebuild their economies around the automobile - provided the two refrained from competing in the global aircraft industry. World War II proved the military doctrine of the superiority of airpower - whoever controls the skies controls the ground. While Germany and Japan do produce aircraft, including military aircraft, it is strictly for their domestic markets and not for export. Germany and Japan certainly have the manufacturing and technical capabilities to compete with Boeing, Airbus, Northrup Grumman, and others, but by previous trade agreements are prohibited. By contrast, the United States, UK, France, Italy and others have ceded much of their domestic auto markets to German and Japanese manufacturers. The fraud of the global warming hoax can be seen in the disproportionate lack of pressure on Germany and Japan to cease auto exports, as has been applied throughout the rest of the West.
  13. https://youtu.be/bX3EZCVj2XA
  15. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28283-more-than-half-of-european-union-votes-to-ban-growing-gm-crops/amp/
  16. EU GMO ban was illegal, WTO rules Published 12 May 2006.
  17. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/08/04/matters-liberal-validators-say-gmos/#.XDPudWllD24
  18. https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/nobel-prize-winners-declare-war-on-greenpeace-for-its-anti-science-attack-on-gmos/
  19. Are Democrats the Party of Science? Not Really, By ERIC ARMSTRONG, New Republic, January 10, 2017.
  20. Reality is Not Optional: Thomas Sowell's Vision of Man and Society, by Dr. Edward Younkins, The Social Critic, Fall 1998.
  21. Simple logic concludes that it takes faith in men like Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, Kim Jong-un, Adolph Hitler or the Ayatollah will not one day launch a nuclear weapon, for a person to reject God, religion, morality, and argue that science is the best hope of survival of the species.
  22. Williams, Thomas D. (November 5, 2017). Abortion Lobby Denies Science Concerning Beginning of Human Life. Breitbart News. Retrieved January 7, 2019.
  23. Freiburger, Calvin (January 4, 2019). Liberal ‘fact-checking’ site claims it’s ‘problematic’ to call abortion a ‘cause of death’. LifeSiteNews. Retrieved January 7, 2019.
  24. Physiological evidence exists suggesting Barack Obama's domestic partner, Michelle Obama, may have undergone a sex change operation at some point.
  25. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-paying-us-companies-for-access-to-communications-networks/2013/08/29/5641a4b6-10c2-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html
  26. https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/us/nsa-social-networks/index.html
  27. https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/13/tech/social-media/facebook-gender-custom/index.html
  28. https://afa.net/the-stand/culture/2017/05/molecular-genetics-department-just-two-genders/
  29. https://www.statista.com/statistics/187041/us-user-age-distribution-on-facebook/
  30. Bokhari, Allum (April 23, 2017). 5 Scientific Facts The ‘Science March’ Has Yet to Acknowledge. Breitbart News. Retrieved January 8, 2019.
  31. https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/01/25/the-train-wreck-that-was-the-new-atheism/