commentary: The Real Science-Deniers
Who is Conducting the War on Science?
Richard T. Ritenbaugh
Given 11-Aug-18; Sermon #1446c; 14 minutes
Richard Ritenbaugh, acknowledging the chasm between the Creationist Christian community and the science-evolution establishment, proclaims that the liberal media consistently portrays conservatives and Christians as "science deniers," castigating any faith-based group for not acceding to "settled science." Actually, the real "science-deniers" are those on the far left, where God-denying scientists established a so-called consensus of "settled science" by manipulating data, as any objective analysis of peer-reviewed scientific papers will indicate. The climate change hoax is not the first time the far-left has tried to promote false science. According to John Tierney in his article "The Real War on Science," the fallacious 'food pyramid,' which militated against fat in favor of carbohydrates, has been a major contributory cause in the alarming rise in obesity and diabetes. The God-deniers also deny the biological reality that every cell of the human body contains the code of one's biological gender. John Stossel explains that the far left 'scientists,' pundits, and politicians are transferring their nefarious motives onto their opponents. As God's called-out ones, we have to exercise care that no one deceives us.
Most Christians—and I would say that the world would lump us in with that group—tend to have a jaundiced view of science. After all, for many years now, science and the so-called “scientific community” (as if it is some monolithic institution) have stood in opposition to Christian beliefs, particularly in its vocal and intolerant promotion of godless evolution. Christians have bristled at other “scientific findings”—things having to do with areas of learning like biblical history, health, creation, and marriage and that family. A lot of these "findings" were later shown to be, not just untrue, but completely fabricated, because many of these scientists—or those in the scientific community—have an innate anti-biblical bias. So they don't want their findings to support what the Bible says; they want them to be against it, so they can thumb their noses at God.
If we listen to the mainstream media—verifiably slanted leftward in this country—we could become convinced that conservatives and Christians are anti-science—in fact, many of these pundits would say that conservatives, particularly, with Christians lumped into that group, are waging a war against science. Almost like we are out there with our swords, shields, and spears, and we are trying to decimate anything that is scientific. Talk about incendiary language—that we are actually at war with science! Pundits say this is happening because conservatives are afraid that science will undermine their “archaic” beliefs and political positions, which of course those media people do not agree with. So, then, according to liberals and their allies in the media, many people on the political right—many people in the conservative camp—are “science deniers.”
Many on the political left, including former President Barack Obama, have castigated and accused conservatives and Christians of ignoring and denying “settled science.” They say the scientific community has reached a "consensus"—another important word—on vital, earth-saving knowledge, and conservatives are doing all they can to halt humanity’s evolutionary progress by clinging to unsupportable dogmas and ancient myths. That is how they categorize us and our approach to these things. Conservatives, they say, are completely out of touch with reality and need to conform to the consensus view. That is what they think. That is what they say.
Have you ever heard the saying, “The pot calling the kettle black”? Objectively, the real war on science is not coming from the right, but the left. Their dogmas and myths are informing the way they do science. So, instead of seeking to find out what is factual, or what is true and can be proven by the scientific method, they are manipulating science and their findings to support their beliefs, and then telling us, through the media, that this is the way we should think—like them.
For instance, climate-change literature and political figures widely claim that there is a 97% consensus among scientists that humans are the cause of global warming (which assumes the fact that global warming is even happening). The 97% number was popularized by two articles that came out within several years of each other based on analyses of earlier scientific papers. One 2004 article analyzed 928 scientific papers containing the keywords “global climate change,” and according to the article, “None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position,” that is, that humans cause global warming. However, in 2007, it was revealed that only about 235 papers (of the 928), or 25%, actually endorsed the so-called consensus position. Only 25% were actually saying in their papers that humans cause global warming. An additional 50% were interpreted by the writer of the article to have implicitly endorsed it simply because they discussed environmental impacts of global warming. Thus, they get a higher number.
The other article analyzed—listen to this number—11,944...papers? No, abstracts of papers. They did not even get into the nitty-gritty. They just did the abstracts. Of those 11,944 abstracts, only 3,896 (32.6%) of them endorsed the “consensus” view that humans contribute to global warming, while just 1% of them either rejected that position or were uncertain about it. That means that a whopping 7,930 (66%) took no position on man-made global warming. The author of this analysis threw out the 66% and based his 97% “finding” only on the papers that stated an opinion. This analytical sleight of hand gets a pass by the media and by scientists who support such thing because deniers must be silenced. If they can come up with a good statistic that the media will run with, hey, go ahead. They think that's great.
That's not the only thing. The left has also collaborated with government for more than 50 years to get their beliefs enshrined into law or policy. Consider dietary fat. It's not something we like to consider, but it's one of those things that has come up over the years. Dietary fat became a public enemy—maybe not #1, but it was pretty high up on the list—in the 1970s, through the advocacy of a handful of scientists and activists who allied with Democrats like George McGovern and Henry Waxman. These men helped push things through Congress. According to John Tierney in his article, “The Real War on Science,” in City Journal, Autumn 2016:
The supposed link between high-fat diets and heart disease was based on cherry-picked epidemiology, but the federal government endorsed it by publishing formal “dietary goals for the United States” and creating the now-infamous food pyramid that encouraged Americans to replace fat in their diets with carbohydrates. The public-health establishment devoted its efforts and funding to demonstrating the benefits of low-fat diets. But the low-fat diet repeatedly flunked clinical trials, and the government’s encouragement of carbohydrates probably contributed to rising rates of obesity and diabetes. . . .
Finally, I have three other examples here to give you:
Many liberals deliberately deny simple biological facts. The reason for this is that the simple, biological facts contradict their political beliefs. If there is a difference between fact and political belief, they will take the political belief every time. As an example, transgender advocates will not concede the scientific fact that every person who has taken high school biology should know, that each cell of a human body contains the coding of that particular body's sex (or gender). Every cell! No amount of hormone therapy or surgery can change the fact that a man is a man and a woman is a woman (and always will be). "No," they argue, "gender is a social construct and therefore a choice." Now they have made...I don't know how many choices—53 or something. Who knows; it is some totally bonkers number.
Another one, which you all know, is that many liberals deny the biological fact that the fetus in the womb is alive. They still consider it a "non-viable tissue mass", not a human life.
Third, a recent survey found 70% of self-identified liberal scientists believe homosexuality has a biological basis. That is, they expect anytime now for scientists to find a homosexual gene that predisposes one to homosexuality. The same survey found that only 43% of these same people accepted evidence that real differences exist between men and women in communication and spatial skills—because that would undermine feminism. Men and women have to be biologically the same, but anybody who knows human anatomy should know that men and women are very different.
These examples are hard to find on mainstream news. Maybe you might hear them on FoxNews every once in a while. John Stossel is good at bringing things like these up. But these kinds of accusations against Christians and conservatives are what psychologists call transference, that is, accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of. The conservative/Christian "war on science" is another example of “fake news.” It is not true! It is the left that is at war, against tradition, against society, not the right. The right is, by definition, trying to hold onto—conserve—what has been in the past, and slow down the "progress" of these people who are hellbent on going forward into the "brave new world." Jesus tells us—and this is the first warning that comes out of His mouth in the Olivet Prophecy in Matthew 24:4, “Take heed that no one deceives you.” It is very, very important that we get to the bottom of these claims, and understand what is right and good. Making sure that no one deceives you happens to be a full-time job these days!