Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 05/14/2025 1:41:22 PM PDT by DeweyCA
The last few years have not been kind to America’s scientific establishment. From COVID to climate change to the medical abuse of gender-confused children, scientific elites have squandered their moral authority by politicizing scientific pronouncements and fusing scientific research with their own ideological agendas.
As a result, many Americans are now skeptical of claims made by elite scientists, and the Trump administration is proposing dramatic reforms to how science research is funded and evaluated by the federal government.
The reaction of the scientific establishment has been to circle the wagons and rally the troops. That was the point of the “Stand Up for Science” events held earlier this year. Those rallies weren’t so much about standing up for science as they were about insulating science from reforms and accountability.
Francis Collins, the former head of the NIH, headlined the rally in Washington, DC. Surrounded by signs with messages like “Trump Trashes Science” and “Diabolical Oligarch Grifting Efficiently,” Collins called “for strong public support” of science “at a time when serious threats of harm are happening.”
“Science Is God” — Or Rather, “Good” Now a group founded by Collins, the BioLogos Foundation, has answered his call by announcing a “Science Is Good” campaign. The apparent goal is to restore public trust in science, especially among Christians.
As I document in my book Stockholm Syndrome Christianity, BioLogos was started originally to convince evangelical Christians to embrace Darwinian evolution and delegitimize scientists like biochemist Michael Behe who think there is evidence of intelligent design in biology. The group later expanded its portfolio to include issues like COVID and climate change.
In its new “Open Letter to People of Faith about Science,” BioLogos decries our “age of polarization and misinformation,” lamenting that we live in “a cultural moment marked by distrust of institutions, suspicion of expertise, and a sharp decline in public investment in scientific research.”
One would need to be blind to miss the political context of the BioLogos statement. Its letter warns ominously that “Federal cuts to life-saving programs and the vilification of scientists are not just political developments, but symptoms of a deeper crisis.”
A Pro-Forma Acknowledgment BioLogos is right that science is a good thing. When pursued honestly, humbly, and ethically, it has been one of the great engines of human advancement and flourishing. But here’s the rub: The growing crisis of confidence in science isn’t because people believe “science” is bad. It’s because they believe the current scientific elite is untrustworthy. BioLogos largely ignores the legitimate reasons many people have become skeptical of elite scientists. Other than a pro-forma acknowledgment that “Of course, science can be misused for profit or power,” its open letter shows little interest in dealing with the abuses that have fed the public’s lack of confidence in elite science, especially among people of faith.
Yet those abuses in recent decades have been legion.
Consider how Darwinian evolution has been employed as a battering-ram against traditional beliefs about God by atheists and “theistic” evolutionists alike. Atheist scientists like Richard Dawkins loudly proclaimed that Darwinian evolution disproved the existence of God. They further insisted that questioning Darwinian evolution was “anti-science,” tantamount to questioning the sphericity of the Earth. “Theistic” evolution groups like BioLogos, meanwhile, also suggested that questioning Darwinism was anti-science. Unlike Dawkins, of course, they did not think that Darwinian evolution disproved God. Nevertheless, they did argue that Christians had to reshape their beliefs to make them consistent with the teachings of evolutionary biology. The end result was similar: Both atheistic and theistic supporters of evolution wrapped their metaphysical views in science while trying to shut down legitimate debate over their claims as “anti-science.”
Is it any wonder that many people of faith responded negatively?
No Debate Allowed Or take the controversy over climate change. In the name of science, we have been told not only that our planet is warming because of humans, but that the warming will lead to catastrophe unless we abolish the use of fossil fuels. Claiming to speak for “science,” climate change alarmists bundle together a lot of distinct claims and then insist that “the science” is settled for all of them — no debate allowed.
But even if the planet is warming, that doesn’t necessarily mean the warming will be catastrophic or even a net negative. That’s a separate question. So is determining the cause (or causes) of the warming. So is deciding what we can or should do about it, if anything. If reducing the temperature by one degree would eliminate 100 million jobs and throw 500 million people into starvation, which choice would be right? That is a question for society as whole to debate and decide, not just a handful of spokespersons for “science.”
Unfortunately, if you raise questions like this, you are likely to be branded anti-science or worse — even if you have scientific evidence on your side. According to Francis Collins, if you dissent from the climate consensus, you likely have bad motives. Perhaps you “have a special interest in seeing continued use of fossil fuels,” or maybe you “wish to create as much disharmony within our population as possible,” or perhaps you are one of the “politicians who see climate change denial as good for votes and campaign donations.” Ironically, Collins’s own views on climate change aren’t very well grounded in science.
The Real Threat So is skepticism of climate change alarmism truly “anti-science”? Or is it an understandable reaction to the one-sided — and often unscientific — dogmatism of alarmists who try to suppress debate over their claims? Who is the real threat to science here?
The COVID pandemic supplies another example of how scientific elites themselves spurred increased public skepticism of science. Remember how we were initially told that wearing masks to protect against COVID was unscientific and even harmful? A few weeks later, we were told precisely the opposite: Not wearing masks was now unscientific and would lead to catastrophe. Now that’s a great way to build public confidence in science!
Then the public heard repeated commands that “the science” required everyone to stay six feet apart, no matter what. Except it later turned out this “science” was illusory. In testimony to Congress last year, Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci both admitted that the distancing rule wasn’t based on any science they knew about.
The rollout of the COVID vaccines created its own issues. Early on, Collins assured the public that mRNA from the vaccines wouldn’t stay in the body “beyond probably a few hours.” That was false. A subsequent study showed that the mRNA could persist in a person’s lymph system some two months after vaccination.
Vaccine mandates provided another reason for increased public distrust. In April 2021, Collins emphatically promised the public that “There’s not going to be any mandating of vaccines from the U.S. government, I can assure you.” A few months later, he was praising the imposition of mandates as a “forceful, muscular approach” and demonizing those who didn’t want to take the vaccines as killers on the wrong side of history.
From Bad to Worse Was it wrong for thoughtful Americans to feel they had been lied to by the nation’s top scientist? It gets worse. We now know that leading scientists like Collins failed to acknowledge in public during COVID what they knew in private: There was no scientific justification for requiring those who already had COVID to get the COVID vax.
So was increased skepticism by the public during COVID irrational and anti-science? Or was it a legitimate response to false statements, broken promises, and junk science promoted by leading science officials?
Post-COVID, Francis Collins has advocated bestowing even more power on the public health bureaucracy, and he has recommended that the government do more to preempt dissenting views during the next pandemic. Are people irrational to be concerned about such proposals?
An Even Bigger Issue Apart from COVID, there is an even bigger issue that many people are beginning to recognize: How federal funding for science research has been hijacked to promote a variety of left-wing causes, including abortion, DEI, the LGBTQIA agenda, and more.
Under the leadership of Francis Collins, the NIH provided nearly $3 million in tax dollars to support the harvesting of baby parts from late-term aborted babies by the University of Pittsburgh in its “quest to become a ‘Tissue Hub’ for human fetal tissue ranging from 6 to 42 [!] weeks gestation.” The NIH likewise funded gruesome experiments utilizing aborted baby body parts to create “humanized mouse and rodent models with full-thickness human skin.” For the experiments, researchers sliced off skin from the scalp of the aborted babies and then grafted the fetal skin onto the mice.
Under Collins, the NIH also funded researchers and hospitals that promoted puberty blockers and sex-destructive surgeries on minors. It also spent millions of dollars to test transgender treatments using mice.
Under Collins and Fauci, federal money ended up funding dangerous gain-of-function research on pathogens, which some think played a role in the start of the COVID pandemic. Thankfully, the Trump administration has now cracked down on such research.
Under Collins and Fauci, the NIH also operated a lab that performed horrific and unnecessary experiments on beagles. Mercifully, the Trump administration has shut it down.
Are we required to endorse anything the government funds to be considered “pro-science”? That seems to be the implication of today’s uncritical boosters of the scientific establishment.
Many of the federal grants for “science” research being canceled by the Trump administration are grants made to advance ideological agendas opposed by the majority of voters in the last election. They include grants that promote DEI, climate change activism, and lots of NIH grants to advance the transgender agenda, including research projects such as “Defining the neovaginal microbiome after gender affirming vaginoplasty” and “Personalized 3D avatar tool development for measurement of body perception across gender identities.”
Free Money! Canceling these grants is not an attack on science. It is an attempt to rescue taxpayer-funded science research from the ideologues. It’s also an effort to re-prioritize federal science funding in an age of massive budget deficits. Should every grant dropped by the Trump administration have been canceled? Probably not. Moreover, reasonable people can differ on what the funding priorities should be for taxpayer-funded science research. But decrying the curtailment of government grants without acknowledging the abuses that led to the current situation is not a serious position.
In addition to grants on questionable topics, there is the issue of whether taxpayer funds for science are being well spent. Universities currently charge the federal government an “overhead” fee anytime they accept federal research grants. Say the actual cost of your research is $1 million. If your university’s overhead rate is 25 percent, the university will get an extra payment of $250,000 just for accepting federal money. This additional payment is not tied to the direct costs of the grant. It goes to amorphous “indirect” costs that are easily inflated. It’s perfectly understandable why the scientific establishment is so protective of overhead rates. It’s the golden goose that provides massive subsidies to America’s most elite universities, many of which charge the federal government overhead rates of 54-70 percent — or more. Harvard’s top overhead rate for federal research grants is actually 89 percent! That means if your research at Harvard costs $1 million to conduct, Harvard will get an extra payment of nearly $900,000 to sweeten the deal. Who wouldn’t want that kind of free money?
By the way, the Trump administration is not proposing to eliminate overhead rates altogether. It is merely trying to reduce them to a standard 15 percent. This, again, is not an attack on science. It’s an effort to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely and efficiently.
Contrary to BioLogos, America’s scientific establishment doesn’t need a PR campaign to inspire trust. It needs accountability, transparency, and open debate. Fortunately, the new head of NIH, Jay Bhattacharya, seems committed to real reforms.
In the long run, that will do a lot more to inspire trust in science than any PR campaign.
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
John G. West Senior Fellow, Managing Director, and Vice President of Discovery Institute Dr. John G. West is Vice President of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and Managing Director of the Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. Formerly the Chair of the Department of Political Science and Geography at Seattle Pacific University, West is an award-winning author and documentary filmmaker who has written or edited 12 books, including Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science, The Magician’s Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society, and Walt Disney and Live Action: The Disney Studio’s Live-Action Features of the 1950s and 60s. His documentary films include Fire-Maker, Revolutionary, The War on Humans, and (most recently) Human Zoos. West holds a PhD in Government from Claremont Graduate University, and he has been interviewed by media outlets such as CNN, Fox News, Reuters, Time magazine, The New York Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post.
Cue the music
I was blinded, by pseudo science!
$CIENCE!
It is not “science” if your purpose is to squash, cancel, intimidate and try to silence the skeptic. Those acts are the acts of a theocratic orthodox religious elite, not “science”.
This looks like a job for Dr. Science!...”He knows more than you do.”
Basically, this guy is a class A ideologue and hypocrite and the sort of person who fossilizes science rather than allowing it to explore new ideas and advance.
Just another man made climate change cult hoax and mafia style fear, shakedown, payola for "protection" money laundering scheme.
Why aren't we prosecuting with R.I.C.O. charges the perps running all of these country destroying man made climate change hoax "scientists", "non profits" and NGOs?
Ditto the perverts going after the kids.
Heavily fine and jail all of the grifters running them.
For what it's worth, I rarely hear from fellow Christians that they believe God created us through natural selection (sometimes referred to as theistic evolution). And I'm an old earther, as well as most of the people I've had conversations with on the topic of the age of the earth. For the most part, we believe the earth is billions of years old and God had a direct hand in creating each phase of creation -- He just did it billions of years ago, not 6,000 years ago, and He decided to take his sweet time doing it (a lot longer than a week). And we also believe God very directly created man, not with natural evolution and God just sitting back watching man just spring up on our own. WE just believe that He did it way more than 6,000 years ago.
We tend to discuss things like the Cambrian Explosion occurring 500 or so million years ago, and 50% to 70% of all known phyla ever knowing to exist all of a sudden appearing in the fossil record within a half a million to a million years. That seems to blow a hole in the belief that natural selection required billions of years of speciation to gradually evolve from simple organisms to advanced life. Basically, if the Cambrian Explosion accurately records the appearance of new species/genus/order/class/phylum as mostly occurring within 1 million years (instead of across billions of years like Darwinism projects), then the math of natural selection is off by a factor of over a thousand. To me, that's one of many examples that make it seem more plausible to believe that we got here through creation, not accident.
These are among the grants that were cut!
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/4/16/stop-work-orders/
Without “indirect costs”, there would be no labs for scientists to work in!
Post -year 2000 research is broadening the scope of evolution research beyond Darwinism (e.g.,”:junk DNA” is not junk).
Trump-administration science policy leaves a lot to be desired.
If they think for one moment they can restore any faith in the scientific community, they are nuts. One thing they can do is STFU. All day every day. And take Fauci with them. How much global cooling did it take to pile on 2 miles of ice on Michigan? And how much heating did it take to melt it all?
This is not about science per se not about theology, but about MONEY.
As the article notes, "Contrary to BioLogos, America’s scientific establishment doesn’t need a PR campaign to inspire trust. It needs accountability, transparency, and open debate. Fortunately, the new head of NIH, Jay Bhattacharya, seems committed to real reforms. In the long run, that will do a lot more to inspire trust in science than any PR campaign."
This entity is a 5-1(c)3 charity.....
The Biologos Foundation Inc Form 990 for fiscal year ending 2023The Form 990 "BIOLOGOS EXPLORES GOD'S WORD AND GOD'S WORLD TO INSPIRE AUTHENTIC FAITH FOR TODAY." ( Part III, line 1 )
President Deborah Haarsma took in $189,786 pay and benefits. ( Part VII, line 1a )
Other salaries of $1,059,622, with total expenses of $2,428,715. And they carry $1,875,214 in publicly traded securities.
Actually, atheist scientists disliked Collins, because he is an evangelical Christian!
Perhaps even worse than the “science community” driven by “academics” feverishly getting behind every leftist cause du jour is their ability to worm their way into government, co-opt it, and get the government to put out regulations requiring things like windmills and solar cells that are dirtier and more deadly to animal life than what they replaced. The “scientists” get on the government payroll to get grants to churn out more graduate students who swallow the Kool Ade. Their only interest is to keep the gravy flowing.
After corrupting government, their next step is to co-opt and corrupt industry. The power and pharmaceutical industries fall in line with the liberal dogma and new orthodoxy.
The whole damn machine gets spun up, goes into hysterical overdrive, and there are hardly any voices yelling “Stop, this is ALL WRONG.”
I saw all of this from the inside when I was in the power industry for almost 30 years. It was so insidious because this corruption and co-opting took decades and moved almost imperceptibly. But at the end of the 30 years, it was all over. It made me so sick to watch utility execs fall in line to kiss regulator and fed gov butt that I finally left the industry.
For a long time, I thought that the power companies were doing JUST ENOUGH to appease the alligator. But after a long period od appeasement, new executive staff became true believers and hired more true believers from top to bottom.
It was sickening.
Earlier, he speaks as if to "develop a new theology." Odd.
The “science” of COVID was a joke.
The “science” of climate change is a joke.
And — I’ll say it — the “science” of Evolution is a joke. It’s not observable. It’s not testable. It’s not repeatable. It’s a swell idea. It’s a religion. It’s NOT science.
Although it is scientists who need the grants, it is nonscientists who make the political problems at universities!
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/5/5/mansfield-harvard-science-humanties/
Cutting grants for cancer and Alzheimer’s research will not stop pro-Palestinian riots!
There may be atheists who carp about his platitudes towards a satanic form of deism (since he believes in a god who is the author of all death and suffering and directly responsible for evil, all contra the Bible). But most of them know perfectly well he's playing for their side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.