The Politicization of “Science”
I’m not telling anyone anything new when I say that “science” has become a political football, mainly used by the Left to push its ideology. We all (should) have a healthy respect for science. But that depends totally upon the scientist. Scientists are humans, too, which means they are fallible creatures given to the same lusts, enticements, temptations, peer pressures, greeds, and personal selfishness as any other human being. Science has done wonderful things in history. It has also told countless lies and made countless mistakes.
A recent “study” has concluded that the surge in cardiovascular deaths is related to “climate change,” warming temperatures. These temperatures apparently hurt black people and senior citizens in disproportionate numbers. Sad.
Maybe heat does cause cardiovascular disease. And maybe black people, for some reason, are more susceptible to it. I have no clue about it. But I do know, from plenty of evidence, that “man-made climate change” is problematic, at best. Some scientists say it is happening. Many scientists disagree. Scientist vs. scientist. Who is right? The best evidence, at least as far as I can determine, is that in the last 30 years or so global temperatures have risen slightly. But the best evidence, as far as I have been able to determine, indicates that the sun is at fault, not man. NASA said, back in the 1950s, that the sun is the major causal agent in weather patterns. That is hardly surprising, since earth couldn’t exist with its sun.
But “man-made climate change” makes for good politics, especially if you are a totalitarian Leftist who believes in global government. I do not trust the above study on the rise of cardiovascular disease simply because those who made it apparently had an a priori belief in man-made climate change. Such an unscientific basis for a study makes any conclusion they draw “unscientific” and extremely doubtful. I’ll wait for more objective evidence. The problem is, that is becoming more and more difficult to find. Ideology, not truth, rules nearly every discipline nowadays.
It basically started when the “scientific community” accepted Darwinism, and thus divorced science from its true source, God, Who is the source of everything. There is a difference, folks, between Darwinism and “evolution,” though Darwinians want to say there isn’t. Every species (“kind”) changes and adapts. No one has ever denied that, nor could they. It is the reason why we have different breeds of dogs, cats, pigs, birds, and every other kind of life. There are minute, “evolutionary” changes inherent (created) in every living creature.
That isn’t Darwinism. Darwinism says those changes can lead to transmutations across phylogenetic boundaries—new species arising. In other words, given enough time, fish become amphibians, amphibians become reptiles, reptiles become birds and mammals, etc. That kind of “evolution” has never been witnessed, has never been “scientifically” proven. There is no test tube or “scientific method” that has ever proven Darwinism. No, the fossil record does not prove it, in fact, the fossil record is a direct refutation of the kind of slow, gradual change from species to species that Darwin himself said had to take place if his theory was correct. Incremental adaptations within kinds, yes. Scientific. Undoubted. Macro-evolution of the scale proposed by Darwin, no. Totally unscientific and never proven. And it never will be proven because it doesn’t happen and never will.
I get a kick out of “natural selection,” the supposed “key” to Darwinian “evolution.” As if nature has a brain and can “select” the best “adaptation” or mutation to improve or create a new species. Nature doesn’t have a brain and cannot think. If it did “select” anything, it would be a 50-50 random chance and be wrong half of the time. Yet, this is supposedly how every, incredibly complex organism now in existence arrived at its current state. If it wasn’t so stupid, it would be laughable. It is mind boggling to me that anyone would believe that.
But then, why DO people believe it? Why do most scientists believe it? Well, most people (even scientists) believe it mainly because they have been told that most people (especially scientists) believe it, and they have never studied the evidence for themselves. But there is another reason why people believe Darwinism.
Any port in a storm. Any excuse to reject God and refuse to submit to His will. Man has done that for his entire history, and Darwinism is just one of the modern excuses to do so.
Modern science. A man can become pregnant. A man can become a woman. Climate change. Covid masks. Man-made climate change produces heart disease. Scientific socialism. Marxism. Darwinism.
Please pardon my skepticism when any scientist opens his mouth now.