Discovery Institute article image.
Posted on 02/11/2015 8:45:30 AM PST by fishtank
New Edition of Darwin Day in America Exposes the Rise of "Totalitarian Science" in the Age of Obama
Is America entering an era of "totalitarian science"? In the expanded paperback edition of Darwin Day in America (ISI Books, February 2015), political scientist John G. West describes the growing misuse of science to curtail basic freedoms, erode time-honored ethics, and circumvent democratic accountability. The paperback edition includes a brand new chapter titled "Scientism in the Age of Obama -- and Beyond."
"Our culture is witnessing the rise of what could be called totalitarian science -- science so totalistic in its outlook that its defenders claim the right to remake every sphere of human life, from public policy and education to ethics and religion," says West. "Science is a wonderful enterprise, but in the Obama era, it's being twisted in ways that are unhealthy for both science and society."
Developments discussed in the new edition of Darwin Day include:
Human Experimentation in the Name of "Science." Researchers funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) used thousands of premature infants as human guinea pigs, subjecting them to dangerous experiments with oxygen that could cause blindness and death. When the research was exposed, NIH Director Francis Collins waged a PR offensive to defend the research and stifle criticism.
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
Discovery Institute article image.
More from the article:
.
.
.
***Government Secrecy in the Name of “Science.” The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) repeatedly refused to disclose to Congress the scientific data the agency used to establish sweeping new pollution standards, claiming it was protecting the data “from those who are not qualified to analyze it.”
.
.
.
***Curtailing Free Speech in the Name of “Science.”
A growing number of politicians, professors, and journalists are advocating the forcible suppression of dissenting views about climate change, evolution, and other science issues. In the words of one journalist, climate change skeptics “should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits.”
.
.
.
*** Bashing Religion in the Name of “Science.”
Atheist scientists are increasingly aggressive in evangelizing for their views in the media as well as the classroom. For example, last year’s Cosmos television series hosted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson — and introduced by President Obama — portrayed religion as the enemy of science and claimed to show how life developed due to “mindless” processes.
.
.
.
*** Coercive Population Control in the Name of “Science.”
Evolutionary zoologist Eric Pianka at the University of Texas has urged the reduction of the Earth’s human population by up to 90 percent and has called on government to confiscate all the earnings of any couple with more than two children.
Why choose Darwin as the whipping boy for science? Better to choose Marie Curie or Newton or Nobel or even Einstein.
If you are going to go after core science, be honest about it and go after core scientists.
Of course, there will always be yahoos who think the need for vaccinations and fluoridation aren’t “real science.”
I can scientifically prove AGW is not science (see my tag).
This is nothing new. Both the Soviets and the Nazis did the same thing.
When will POTUS #44 receive his Darwin Award? That’s the most deserved one not yet in his trophy case.
And where do the majority of theoretical scientists draw their paychecks? Hijacked institutions of higher education. Any more questions?
What is new is the rapidly increasing numbers of people in the US that support it.
I have said it before. Global warming is caused by government grants.
“Why choose Darwin as the whipping boy for science? Better to choose Marie Curie or Newton or Nobel or even Einstein.”
Because the Scientism liberal totalitarians use Darwin, not Madame Curie, Newton or Einstein.
Your comment is odd in that this appropriation of Darwin by the left is rather obvious.
Your contention that this article is using a whipping boy to attack science is bizarre as well.
No matter what one thinks of Discovery Institute’s scientific views, eg Intelligent Design, the issues raised here are separate and address social and political concerns.
Do you think Discovery Institute is wrong about What they call Scientism and their claim of the abuse of science by the Liberals and leftists for political or social goals?
... Cosmos television series hosted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson — and introduced by President Obama — portrayed religion as the enemy of science and claimed to show how life developed due to “mindless” processes.....
1. Evolution is true!
2. We understand VERY LITTLE about how evolution works!
3. Any clam that “life developed due to ‘mindless’ processes” is impossible to make based on real science, and is therefore almost entirely based on ideology!!!!
>>Because the Scientism liberal totalitarians use Darwin, not Madame Curie, Newton or Einstein.
Your comment is odd in that this appropriation of Darwin by the left is rather obvious.<<
I have seen no mention of Darwin in any article — using science in general is just abusing science in general.
>>Your contention that this article is using a whipping boy to attack science is bizarre as well.<<
Yet, that is what the author did.
>>No matter what one thinks of Discovery Institute’s scientific views, eg Intelligent Design, the issues raised here are separate and address social and political concerns.<<
Yes, and anything including science can be abused that way.
>>Do you think Discovery Institute is wrong about What they call Scientism and their claim of the abuse of science by the Liberals and leftists for political or social goals?<<
Perhaps no as a sociological phenomenon, but if they are going to hold science up as the source of evil, they need to hold it up in its entirety. The “but especially Darwinism (whatever the heck that is, since there is no such thing in science)” is just sophistry.
If you fear science and say it is being used for evil purposes (unprecedented!) then be honest and list ALL scientists not the ones you can’t understand.
>>3. Any clam that “life developed due to ‘mindless’ processes” is impossible to make based on real science, and is therefore almost entirely based on ideology!!!!<<
Good thing no one made such a claim. I can infer from your post you really don’t understand science, though.
I think your ideas about the Discovery Institute are bizarre and way off base.
I don’t think they are attacking science.
I think your idea that they fear science is bizarre.
The idea of Scientism is not that science is evil but that it is misused for purposes other than science and in ways that do not follow from the scientific findings.
You seem to be purposely conflating criticism of the misuse of science for sociology-political purposes with fear of science.
“If you fear science and say it is being used for evil purposes (unprecedented!) then be honest and list ALL scientists not the ones you can’t understand.”
This makes no sense at all unless one want to give up rationality. If we followed your line of reasoning we would have to reject all science because we reject Lamarck or Lysenko or even Al Gore.
This disregard for humans reflects a reductionist form of Darwinian theory. Christopher Manes, one of the early leaders of the environmentalist group Earth First!, explains:
Taken seriously, evolution means there is no basis for seeing humans as more advanced or developed than any other species. Homo sapiens is not the goal of evolution, for as near as we can tell evolution has no telos—it simply unfolds, life-form after life-form. Elephants are no more developed than toadstools, fish are no less advanced than birds, cabbages have as much ecological status as kings. Darwin invited humanity to face the fact that the observation of nature has revealed not one scrap of evidence that humankind is superior or special, or even particularly more interesting than, say, lichen.A similar Darwinian worldview inspired ecoterrorist James Lee, who in 2010 took staff of the Discovery Channel hostage. Lee called on the Discovery Channel to “talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains until they get it!” Lee’s stated goal was to save “what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!”
“Why choose Darwin as the whipping boy for science? Better to choose Marie Curie or Newton or Nobel or even Einstein.”
Because Darwinian theory is primarily about interpreting history. Science is much more limited in explanatory power when it comes to history because, without a time machine, we simply cannot know all of the facts. We cannot observe them directly. Science also has NO TRUE predictive power when it comes to history. Sure, claims are made about what science will supposedly discover about various historical clues, but this is very different from being able to predict outcomes of controlled experimentation.
Darwinism also mixes real science with speculation that is not testable or falsifiable, like the idea that there could be a universal common ancestor. That idea does not represent a law or theory, just a historical event. And without a time machine, there is no way to test it, and nothing could ever disprove it. So it is not science.
“Why choose Darwin as the whipping boy for science? Better to choose Marie Curie or Newton or Nobel or even Einstein.”
Because Darwinian theory is primarily about interpreting history. Science is much more limited in explanatory power when it comes to history because, without a time machine, we simply cannot know all of the facts. We cannot observe them directly. Science also has NO TRUE predictive power when it comes to history. Sure, claims are made about what science will supposedly discover about various historical clues, but this is very different from being able to predict outcomes of controlled experimentation.
Darwinism also mixes real science with speculation that is not testable or falsifiable, like the idea that there could be a universal common ancestor. That idea does not represent a law or theory, just a historical event. And without a time machine, there is no way to test it, and nothing could ever disprove it. So the speculation of a universal common ancestor is not science.
“Why choose Darwin as the whipping boy for science? Better to choose Marie Curie or Newton or Nobel or even Einstein.”
Because Darwinian theory is primarily about interpreting history. Science is much more limited in explanatory power when it comes to history because, without a time machine, we simply cannot know all of the facts. We cannot observe them directly. Science also has NO TRUE predictive power when it comes to history. Sure, claims are made about what science will supposedly discover about various historical clues, but this is very different from being able to predict outcomes of controlled experimentation.
Darwinism also mixes real science with speculation that is not testable or falsifiable, like the idea that there could be a universal common ancestor. That idea does not represent a law or theory, just a historical event. And without a time machine, there is no way to test it, and nothing could ever disprove it. So the speculation of a universal common ancestor is not science.
And most Black people support this President because they are as radical as he is on every issue. What do they do in their "churches" . . . study Origin of the Species and watch "gay" porn?
I'm sure the "indigenous pipples" all over the world are mad at white people for destroying their ancient materialist scientific knowledge and telling them the sun was magic.
>> I have seen no mention of Darwin in any article — using science in general is just abusing science in general.
“Darwin Day” is used. It is because Darwin’s birthday seems to be the equivalent of Christmas in the new religion of Scientism. It is used by the adherents to celebrate their fight against heretics and blasphemers.
Science is good, like all tools used by mankind are good. Science is bad the exact same way. Just like hammers, guns, electricity, computers, or any other thing we make use of. We are bad or good, not the tools.
>> The “but especially Darwinism (whatever the heck that is, since there is no such thing in science)” is just sophistry.
You sound like a worshipper. Like the Muslims, you accuse the heretics of misnaming your God, when the supposed misnomer is used among the priesthood freely, but initiates are told to punish the unbelievers with accusations that they besmirch the divine.
When you do an online search on the journal “Nature”, you get 376 articles mentioning “Darwinism”.
http://search.nature.com/search/?sp_a=sp1001702d&sp_t=advanced&sp_x_1=ujournal&sp-p=all&sp
Online search of “Science” journal, 44 hits.
http://www.sciencemag.org/search.dtl
Online search of “PubMed” journal, 193 hits.
http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed
Why do you spout neoMarxist untruths on a conservative website?
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.
