Do facts have a liberal bias, or is science a political conspiracy?

Question

I don't think either one is true, but I have been seeing many people disputing science with weird, paranoid conspiracy theories. For example, one guy posted that evolution is a "fraud played on Americans".

I always thought that science (biology is a science, and so is meteorology) was the honest interpretation of the data at hand. Why is there so much distrust in science and data? Is it easier to dismiss if you don't think you need to make any effort to understand it?

Yes, bad squirrel - I know exactly how they are. Always twisting their moustaches

iraqisax,
I take issue with your characterization of evolution. It is based on sound science and the scientific method. There is no faith involved.

I see "the government" as an impediment to the teaching of evolution, not a proponent.

Answer 1

For one thing, they don't even understand what science is. The don't understand the scientific method. They get their information from their inner circle. They have built a straw man in their minds.

Answer 2

Facts do not have a liberal bias, but biased liberals can selectively use facts (and even manufacture facts) to make their case.

As regards science, it certainly is not a political conspiracy, but political conspirators have prostituted science to "prove" their beliefs.

The Nazis employed scientist to provide proof of the inferiority of certain "races". Its no secret that their are scientists who are for sale.

A scientist can assemble enough facts to prove the case for global warming. All he has to do is to ignore the facts that point to global cooling, the fact that the climate has moved through warm and cool periods, and the fact that many of the locations that have reported temperatures for over a hundred years, used to be in rural areas. Today, some of these sites are in industrial or urban areas.

Scientists, know that if their research is in accord with political correctness, they are more likely to get a grant from the federal government, or a teaching position from a prestigous university.

Evolution is the best example of this. Evolution is vitally important to many people. Evolution was taught in the schools by the Nazis, as well as the Communists. Why is this?

Evolution is just an explanation for creation without a Creator. It is a naturalistic explanation for the diversity, but it is hardly scientific. Evolution is such a bizarre theory that nobody would have ever taken it seriously, other than the need to provide a rational, naturalistic explanation for creation.

Creation by a Creator, and evolution by natural forces generate two totally different world views. The creationist knows that he or she is accountable for his or her actions. The evolutionist beliefs in survival of the fittest, that he or she is just another animal.

Why is our own government such a proponent of evolution? Why is it taught in the schools as science? It is not science, it is belief without proof. It is based on faith. Because scientist tell us something, it is not necessarily science. If it is not a product of the Scientific Method, it is pure speculation. And as I said, scientist can be bought, and a lot more are afraid to challenge conventional wisdom. There are some scientists who publicly reject evolution, but the number is small.

Why would our government promote evolution? Why does our government try to stifle any public display of religion? The answer is in the Declaration of Independence: ..."All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights....". The idea that we get our rights from GOD, and that no legitimate government can take them away, is not very popular with our current politicians. The Founders said this truth was self evident. Nobody had to tell you, it was obvious. Our politicians today reject this truth. If God is not the source of our rights, who is, them? Think about it.

Answer 3

It certainly is possible to use science (or, more appropriately, "science") for political purposes.

And it's definitely possible to misinterpret data. But that just follows the old British journalism rule, "Cockup before conspiracy".

I'm always impressed at the reasons cited why a very large and diverse group of people would be involved in a lockstep conspiracy. Could it be... SATAN?

Answer 4

There are facts and there are interpretations of facts. Interpretations can certainly have a bias. For example, It is a fact that there are plenty of "missing links" in the fossil records of the appearance of different species. One interpretation is that each species appeared intact as is. Another is that the links haven't been found. Still another is that some evolutionary steps were one-time major mutations. How do we settle the disparity? A cage fight?

Answer 5

Well, the A-Bomb we certainly a Political and Scientific conspriacy. I mean even VP Truman didn't know about it.

If AMERICA WAS TOLD, would AMERICA have BACKED IT!

So, the BLAME for IRAN and NORTH KOREA and COMMUNIST CHINA and PAKISTAN and INDIA falls TOTALLY on the shoulders of American Politicians and scientists!

Religion had NOTHING to do with this one, or if it did it was the Jewish religion that wanted Hilter disposed of.

Instead of thinking about CAN WE MAKE THE A-BOMB they should have been thinking about SHOULD WE MAKE IT!

What's next on the agenda. Airborn genetically mutated AIDS virus grown in a lab!

Make a nice deterrent weapon, wouldn't it!

Answer 6

Only extreme religionist freaks have a problem with science and their views count for nothing.

Answer 7

Tik, Facts are just that, FACTS. It's how we INTERPRET those facts that gets tricky.
Everyone is biased, that includes the scientists you revere so highly.

Answer 8

Global warming too...

I've seen those PhD climatologists plotting.

You know how they are.

Answer 9

It threatens their beliefs