In the Name of ‘Science’
"When men stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing. They believe in anything."
That’s what G.K. Chesterton told us a long time ago, and I’m getting a new appreciation of what he meant.
Whether it’s the idea that carbon dioxide produced by man is heating up the planet to dangerous new levels or the notion that something never observed — macroevolution — should be taught as unquestioned scientific doctrine to every schoolchild, people without faith in God are putting their faith elsewhere.
Some of them are putting their faith in science. But good science shouldn’t and doesn’t require faith. Because good science requires proof. If you can’t demonstrate it and you can’t test it, it’s not science.
Now, some will counter: "Farah, you can’t see gravity and no one is quite certain why it works."
Quite right. I didn’t say you have to see something or know precisely how it works for it to be science. Gravity is demonstrated for us every single minute of every single day. That’s why we accept it as a principle of physics, even though we can’t see it and don’t comprehend it entirely.
I’m noticing a concerted effort by politicians to misuse "science" to make public policy. There’s a great example in the latest issue of The Scientist. I predict, based on this article and other trends I see, that we are about to witness a tsunami of "science" being used to make public policy.
In this article, we are told, for instance, that expanded government funding of embryonic stem cell research will make the U.S. more economically competitive. Is this a scientific fact? No. It is speculation. It is a theory. In fact, it’s really a public relations strategy for promoting government funding of embryonic stem cell research, which will accomplish only one thing for certain: ensuring that those who like to experiment with unborn human life will have jobs.
Nevertheless, this is a hot topic in a science journal. Could it be that science is being corrupted by politics and its reliance on the coercive redistribution of wealth by government? I think that is precisely what is happening.
Look what the authors of this article have to say about the evolution debate: "The Discovery Institute, through careful crafting and targeting of their message, created a public perception wedge, casting intelligent design as the ‘middle way,’ the scientific compromise between teaching ‘atheistic evolution’ and constitutionally unacceptable biblical doctrine."
"Constitutionally unacceptable biblical doctrine"? That’s a phrase that would be unfamiliar to those who carefully crafted our Constitution. Those who wrote it and ratified it certainly did not see any conflict between the Bible and the Constitution. It would have been unthinkable to them — most of them being Christians who used the Bible as their guidepost to life, the source of most meaningful knowledge and wisdom.
The idea that teaching creationism right out of Genesis could ever be unconstitutional is absurd.
No. 1: It hardly is establishing a state religion, which is what the First Amendment prohibits Congress from doing. Genesis is a book revered by both Christians and Jews. So which religion would be promoted by its teaching?
No. 2: Congress and the federal government have no constitutional role in education.
No. 3: The authors of the Constitution, and most of those who ratified it, believed in the Creation.
What I have just related to you are facts. It’s real political science. It’s not gobbledygook formulated by people trying to legislate through courts or change the hearts and minds of Americans by hijacking the country’s educational system and brainwashing its youth.
Watch for this; I guarantee you will see more of it: "Science" will be used increasingly as justification for making your life miserable and using your own wealth to subvert your most cherished ideals and values.