We’ve just seen the culmination of a “week of action” that started with “The March For Science” on Sunday, April 22, 2017 and continued through April 29th. It was brought to us by the steely-eyed, unbiased defenders of reason and “settled science” at 600 locations worldwide. It was meant to sing the praises of scientific consensus. According to The March organizers, their mission was all about:
“A call for science that upholds the common good and for political leaders and policy makers to enact evidence based policies in the public interest.”
Which makes it a little confusing. I mean, how did the references to “political leaders,” and “policy makers” make it into the mission statement of a pure “call for science”? And get this: The March began with a fiery call to action by Bill Nye, a mechanical engineer and stand-up comedian who has proven over and over again to have trouble even pretending to be a scientist. It ended with another march that proclaimed its purpose with perfect clarity on its website:
On the 100th day of Trump’s presidency more than 300,000 people in Washington DC and across the country joined together in a powerful demonstration of unity for jobs, justice, and climate action.
In summary, we have a non-scientist posing as the spokesman for a weeklong movement to undermine the public policies of a politician by demanding “jobs, justice, and climate action.”
Maybe it’s just me, but this doesn’t seem all that “scientific.” In fact, it almost sounds like the whole thing has very little to do with science, and a lot to do with Leftist politics. If you happened to be one of the few who listened to the rhetoric of The March’s speakers, you would find that is pretty much all they talked about.
The truth is that this “movement” is meant mainly to empower the wielders of professional hatchets who are armed to destroy the careers and reputations of anyone who dares question the approved “scientific” narrative. These are people who disguise their political agenda not behind science, but behind a secularized worship of science called scientism.
As a lover of a pursuit of real science, I am compelled to point out a few glaring examples of hypocrisy I’ve observed from those who engage in this charade.
These are the same people who, in 1972, poured out their wrath on John Yudkin. Yudkin, a nutrition expert, made the mistake of claiming that “if sugar were treated like any other food additive ‘that material would be promptly banned.'” Sugar, he said, not fat, was the more likely cause of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.
For his efforts, Yudkin was branded a shill for the meat and dairy industries. His work was dismissed as “emotional assertions,” “science fiction” and “a mountain of nonsense.” Journals refused to publish his papers. He was uninvited from nutrition conferences and was ridiculed by the scientific community.
“Prominent nutritionists combined with the food industry to destroy his reputation, and his career never recovered,” writes Ian Leslie in a lengthy piece titled “The Sugar Conspiracy” that was published recently in The Guardian.
These are the same people who attempted to destroy the career of Guillermo Gonzalez, a PhD Astronomer who, in 2004, had the audacity to put forth the idea that the conditions that allow for life on Earth, as well as the those that allow for our discovery of those conditions, are fine-tuned to a degree that defies natural explanation. For his efforts, his employer, Iowa State University, denied him tenure even though he had never once brought up the scientific topic of intelligent design in the classroom.
These are the same people who brought a defamation lawsuit against columnist Mark Steyn for suggesting in a blog post that climate “scientist” Michael Mann manipulated and misrepresented global warming data in his infamous “hockey stick” graph even though that data has since proved to be scientifically fraudulent.
These are the same people have engaged in character assassination project against Dr. Paul R. Mchugh, a Johns Hopkins psychiatrist, who discontinued participation in sex-reassignment surgeries because scientific research showed that to do so was tantamount to “collaborating with madness” and that it led to more detrimental psychological results for the patients it was supposed to be helping.
These are the same people who defend abortion and embryonic stem cell research by denying the scientific fact that every human life begins at the moment of conception — when a unique human being comes into existence — and continues until natural death. This they dismiss as a “fetus” or “clump of cells,” pretending that their rhetoric somehow renders the unborn a non-human.
These are the same people who insist that biology becomes irrelevant when a person of one biological sex “identifies” as a person of the opposite biological sex and wants — no, demands — that all of us play along with their fantasy.
Sadly, there are plenty of cases where secular, Leftist politics trumps science among those who claim to revere scientific objectivity. They worship science as the arbiter of all truth even though they only seem to respect science when it matches their secular agenda. This occurs because Leftist secularism is a vacuous view of the world that cannot stand up to rigorous inspection. It can only survive by demanding that those who disagree with the approved scientific “consensus” be brought in line by force. It has to because the tyrants who try to enforce it rely on a worldview that denies reality itself.