February 22, 2017

Secular Science Industry Getting More Nutty

In "Blind Bias in the Secular Science Industry", we saw that those organizations are not aloof and impartial in the slightest, and have a distinct leftist bias. For that matter, I'll borrow a line I heard: they're so left wing, they fly in circles. We're used to secularists in the science industry and their sycophant press opposing biblical creation science and using devious as well as distinctly unscientific methods. Now they're getting downright nutty — but then, we've seen quite a few leftists becoming totally unhinged from hatred, haven't we?

The secular science industry and media are increasingly biased toward leftist politics, but are getting downright nutty.
Credit: Freeimages / Jason Antony
At this writing, Donald Trump has just completed the first month as the American President, with 23 left to go. I'm not his biggest fan, but from what I've seen so far, he may end up doing a very good job; I'm cautiously optimistic. Before the inauguration and in that first month, people were acting like he's going to destroy their civil rights and become a dictator. The secularists were even worried that they would lose money ("scientific integrity" is the code word). Despite reason and the American Psychiatric Association, some nutty psychologists were "analyzing" Trump — as if you can analyze a public figure that you've never met and has not been in office for very long! Unethical dolts.

Another example of unethical behavior from supposed professionals is that a new "medical theory" for Trump's "bizarre behavior" is due to neurosyphilis. The New Republic floated this hit piece and made it sound like serious, unbiased health professionals have examined Donald Trump. No, it's leftists and sore losers whining. That, and the psychological "diagnosis" nonsense mentioned above are not examples scientific integrity, old son, they're leftist politicking, plain and simple.

Let's ride a different trail for a while, shall we? Here's an excerpt from the Murray Leinster'sw 1963 story, "Med Ship Man":

Calhoun reread the briefing. Maya was one of four planets in this general area whose life systems seemed to have had a common origin, suggesting that the Arrhenius theory of space-traveling spores was true in some limited sense. A genus of ground-cover plants with motile stems and leaves and cannibalistic tendencies was considered strong evidence of common origin.
The story assumes evolution happened on other planets, and presents a panspermia version of abiogenesis. I had to suspend my disbelief and accept those fictional realities, and the story was rather good. But ETs, abiogensis, and spores-to-space traveler evolution belong in science fiction.

Are secular scientists sane? They are determined to find any kind of evidence for evolution so they can deny the Creator, and since aiogenesis did not happen here, it must have happened way up yonder. Even the so-called building blocks of life. You can just imagine the cry, "We found amino acids on other planets, so life must have evolved out there. There is no God. We're saved!" Nutty. Searches for ET are really going off the rails.

The preceding paragraphs are leading up to something. (That's what preceding paragraphs do, you see.) I'd be much obliged if you'd read this article that has many examples of nuttiness in the secular science industry, "Questioning the Sanity of Big Science and Big Media".

Subscribe in a reader