Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Liberalsí War on Science (not the real one)
Scientific American ^ | January 21, 2013 | Michael Shermer

Posted on 03/05/2013 5:37:01 PM PST by Olog-hai

Believe it or not—and I suspect most readers will not—there’s a liberal war on science. Say what?

We are well aware of the Republican war on science from the eponymous 2006 book (Basic Books) by Chris Mooney, and I have castigated conservatives myself in my 2006 book Why Darwin Matters (Henry Holt) for their erroneous belief that the theory of evolution leads to a breakdown of morality. …

The left’s war on science begins with the stats cited above: 41 percent of Democrats are young Earth creationists, and 19 percent doubt that Earth is getting warmer. These numbers do not exactly bolster the common belief that liberals are the people of the science book. In addition, consider “cognitive creationists”—whom I define as those who accept the theory of evolution for the human body but not the brain. …

(Excerpt) Read more at scientificamerican.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Religion; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: antichristian; atheistsupremacist; globalwarmingscare; junkscience; michaelshermer; skepticultist; skepticultists; truebeliever
Oh boy.
1 posted on 03/05/2013 5:37:06 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Just WOW!


2 posted on 03/05/2013 5:43:13 PM PST by rocksblues
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Michael Shermer screams out to the world that he is a moron.


3 posted on 03/05/2013 5:48:16 PM PST by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
Science is good. Scientism not so much. The difference being seen early by CS Lewis as chronicled in this video
4 posted on 03/05/2013 5:52:43 PM PST by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rocksblues

Scientific American is far left, as demonstrated by their endless hype on global warming and worship of green energy.
But the fact that even they bring up the nature loving nuts hysteria on GMO is amazing.
I just wish they’d gone ahead and endorsed Golden Rice in the article.


5 posted on 03/05/2013 6:37:40 PM PST by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
I started reading SA in my early teens (they were pro-nuclear power then). Subscribed to SA in my late teens.

Then in my twenties I dropped my SA subscription when they went anti-nuclear.

I finally stopped reading SA entirely in the 90s when they went anti-gun. I knew they had been totally overrun by Liberalism at that point. There reliability as a science magazine had been totally destroyed.

6 posted on 03/05/2013 8:14:39 PM PST by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Scientific American is of course just a name and not a description. It could just as easily be called Lyshenko’s Folly.


7 posted on 03/06/2013 4:33:17 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson