Difference between revisions of "Rejection of science"
From Conservapedia
(science as a stalking-horse) |
DavidB4-bot (Talk | contribs) (→Abortion: Spelling, grammar, and general fixes, typos fixed: Joesph → Joseph) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | When [[science]] and [[ideology]] collide, | + | When [[science]] and [[ideology]] collide, advocates of science have shown a tendency towards the '''rejection of science''', by ignoring scientific research, or engaging in [[deception]] campaigns which obscure what science actually says. |
| + | ==Embryonic Stem Cell Research== | ||
In the context of {{link right|embryonic|stem cell research}}, [[Joseph Bottum]] wrote: | In the context of {{link right|embryonic|stem cell research}}, [[Joseph Bottum]] wrote: | ||
| − | + | <blockquote> | |
| + | I have long suspected that science, in the context of the editorial page of the New York Times, was simply a stalking-horse for something else. In fact, for two something-elses: a chance to discredit America's religious believers, and an opportunity to put yet another hedge around the legalization of abortion.<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010915] {{dead link}}</ref></blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Abortion== | ||
| + | Other groups ignore various fields of science in the context of [[abortion]]. As a supporter of abortion, the Worldwatch Institute claims: | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | The Institute's interdisciplinary research is based on the best available science and focuses on the challenges that climate change, resource degradation, and population growth pose for meeting human needs in the 21st century.<ref>[http://www.worldwatch.org/About#about/ Worldwatch Institute. ''About Worldwatch''; (2010)]</ref></blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | This is contrasted against the findings of Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Fundamental Genetics at the University of Paris Faculty of Medicine, who stated: | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence.<ref>Lejeune J. cited in Scott R et al. ''Fetal Development''; Health Care Ethics presentation, University of Kentucky; (n.d.) [http://www.uky.edu/Classes/PHI/305.002/fd.htm]</ref></blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | In addition, Joseph Howard, Director of the American Bioethics Advisory Commission said: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | Studies involving ultrasonography, electronic fetal heart monitoring, amniocentesis, chorionic villi sampling, radioimmunochemistry, fetoscopy, and contact embryoscopy all lead to one and only one valid conclusion: human life begins at the moment of fertilization.<ref>Howard, J.C. ''Personhood: Testimony before the Nebraska legislature regarding stem cell research recommendations''; American Bioethics Advisory Commission (2001) [http://www.all.org/abac/jch007.htm]</ref></blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Despite these statements, the Worldwatch Institute does not acknowledge that life begins at conception in its discussions on abortion. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | <references /> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==See also== | ||
| + | *[[Evolution syndrome]] | ||
| + | * [[Junk science]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Deceit]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Liberal Traits]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Pseudoscience]] | ||
Latest revision as of 15:13, June 24, 2016
When science and ideology collide, advocates of science have shown a tendency towards the rejection of science, by ignoring scientific research, or engaging in deception campaigns which obscure what science actually says.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
In the context of embryonic stem cell research, Joseph Bottum wrote:
I have long suspected that science, in the context of the editorial page of the New York Times, was simply a stalking-horse for something else. In fact, for two something-elses: a chance to discredit America's religious believers, and an opportunity to put yet another hedge around the legalization of abortion.[1]
Abortion
Other groups ignore various fields of science in the context of abortion. As a supporter of abortion, the Worldwatch Institute claims:
The Institute's interdisciplinary research is based on the best available science and focuses on the challenges that climate change, resource degradation, and population growth pose for meeting human needs in the 21st century.[2]
This is contrasted against the findings of Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Fundamental Genetics at the University of Paris Faculty of Medicine, who stated:
To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence.[3]
In addition, Joseph Howard, Director of the American Bioethics Advisory Commission said:
Studies involving ultrasonography, electronic fetal heart monitoring, amniocentesis, chorionic villi sampling, radioimmunochemistry, fetoscopy, and contact embryoscopy all lead to one and only one valid conclusion: human life begins at the moment of fertilization.[4]
Despite these statements, the Worldwatch Institute does not acknowledge that life begins at conception in its discussions on abortion.
References
- ↑ [1] [Dead link]
- ↑ Worldwatch Institute. About Worldwatch; (2010)
- ↑ Lejeune J. cited in Scott R et al. Fetal Development; Health Care Ethics presentation, University of Kentucky; (n.d.) [2]
- ↑ Howard, J.C. Personhood: Testimony before the Nebraska legislature regarding stem cell research recommendations; American Bioethics Advisory Commission (2001) [3]
