Liberals love to claim that conservatives, and in particular Christians, are anti-science. In fact, many articles and books have been written on the subject. For example:
- “GOP is an anti-science party of nuts.”
- “The National Circus: Will the Anti-Science Wing Tear the GOP Apart?”
- “The ‘anti-science party.’”
- “GOP Senators Parrot Anti-Science Talking Points At Climate Hearing.”
- “Republicans Against Science.”
- “’Science Denier’ Ben Carson Denies GOP Is The Anti-Science Party.”
There are Chris Mooney’s books The Republican War on Science and The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality.
The argument is, if something does not measure up scientifically, it should be rejected.
Most of the anti-science charge relates to man-made global warming now called “climate change” since the “there-is-no-longer-any-debate-about-global-warming” claim has fizzled. Research on this subject will show that scientists were convinced in the 1970s that global cooling was inevitable, and if you denied it you were – you guessed it – anti-science.
By the way, the field of science is not the objective discipline that many people make it out to be as Horace Freeland Judson points out in his book The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science. Also take a look at Climate Confusion (Roy W. Spencer) and Big Fat Liars: How Politicians, Corporations, and the Media Use Science and Statistics to Manipulate the Public (Morris E. Chafetz).
To oppose abortion is not anti-science. Describing an unborn baby as a “blob of tissue” is.
To believe in Intelligent Design is not anti-science. Even atheist and well respected physicist Stephen Hawking admitted while speaking to students at the University of Cambridge that “he believed that ‘some form of intelligence’ was actually behind the creation of the Universe.” He later wrote that “‘Intelligent design’ doesn’t in any way prove that God exists, but only that a ‘God-like force’ played a role in the creation of our Universe, approximately 13.8 billion years ago.”
A “God-like force”? Does he mean a non-corporeal intelligence that “surrounds us and penetrates us and binds the galaxy together” like in Star Wars? Is Hawking now anti-science?
Now we come to same-sex sexuality and marriage. If a person believes in the scientific fields of biology and anatomy, he knows that same-sex sexuality is biologically and anatomically untenable. No matter how many times two men or two women engage with one another in a sexual way no reproduction is possible. The sexual equipment of homosexuals, while adequate in heterosexual relationships, is never adequate in same-sex relationships.
By the way, the claim that homosexuality is innate does not have science on its side as this article from World Magazine points out:
“Yet there is no conclusive evidence that anyone is ‘born gay,’ or that sexual orientation is unchangeable. Even if genes did play a role in disposing some people toward same-sex attraction, genes do not dictate behavior or preferences, as biochemist Neil Whitehead has explained. Even the Royal College of Psychiatrists in London stated in March , ‘It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person’s life.’ Surveys show that adolescents who identify as homosexual often end up identifying exclusively as heterosexual later in life.”
Evolution is all about perpetuating and advancing the species. Homosexuality does not accomplish this necessary evolutionary requirement, making it anti-evolution and thus anti-science since we are told that evolution is the basis of modern-day science.
Same-sex sexuality offers medical feedback that any scientist can evaluate. Why did Elton John establish the Elton John AIDS Foundation to help fight the disease? What is it about homosexuality that AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases are disproportionately high when compared to the general population?
“Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been increasing among gay and bisexual men, with recent increases in syphilis being documented across the country. In 2012, men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 75% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. MSM often are diagnosed with other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections.”
Homosexuals use condoms to avoid disease not pregnancy. In any other case the medical profession would be telling patients to stop a behavior that brings on disease.
One would think that the medical science of these statistics would lead homosexuals and those who support the mainstreaming of the behavior to conclude that there’s something unscientific about the behavior. What is the science behind cigarette smoking and overeating that leads scientists to disapprove of them? Why not apply it to same-sex sexuality?
If liberals want to be consistent about their anti-science rhetoric then they should oppose same-sex sexuality.