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.
... 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!!!!
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!”
Yeah, I get it: According to Left Progressives — who are trying to rescind all evidentiary human history and common sense in order to advance their own preferred splendid plans for supposed "Human Betterment" — people who do not agree with their "findings" are unreconstructibly "bad people."
But the sheer hypocrisy there is they do not acknowledge any basis for morality itself....
Notwithstanding, they do this anyway because they also believe that if they can morally tarnish anybody who disagrees with them, they are relieved from having to engage/address any dissent to their preferred "science." Which let it be clearly indicated is quite unscientific in recent times, since it seems to have been hooked up in support of a relentlessly unscientific point of view.
"We" are "haters of science" because we do not accept Darwinian evolution and anthropogenic climate change as "finished" science. Yet I — a lover of science — think there is no such thing as finished science. If "science" were ever to be "finished," then I daresay a whole lot of people would instantly become unemployed.
In similar vein, they accuse any person who disagrees with their "scientific findings" as a "hater of science."
Speaking for myself, I do not "hate" science. Rather, I love it so much that I can't stand to see it "reduced" and "co-opted" by what are substantially political operatives who have no respect for science or its glorious history. These are the very same people who think that a word like "marriage" can be endlessly redefined, ad infinitum, depending on "public opinion."
And such folks want to be IN CONTROL of public opinion....