Science Media Still Overwhelmingly Leftist

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 12-5-18 | David F. Coppedge

[fishtank]

Science Media Still Overwhelmingly Leftist

December 5, 2018 | David F. Coppedge

Try to find a conservative point of view in the following secular news stories. We found one in the long list.

Last week, we illustrated the disease of misconduct and unreliability in Big Science. And yet Big Science and Big Media continue their onslaught against Christian values, conservative politics, and Donald Trump. Here’s a rapid-fire list to prove it; these titanic conglomerates are juggernauts of leftism, not pure-hearted seekers of truth. They stray far outside their domain of natural knowledge into politics, ethics, and philosophy. Can anyone find any article in the major journals or secular science media that support conservative views? The following examples are not 100% wrong in everything they say, but they display an overwhelming bias against conservative ideas and a strong undertone of leftist ideas. There is one article supporting religious values in the list. See if you can find it.

[fishtank]

[\/\/ayne]

A lot of people thought that it would be impossible to have such a huge consensus of scientists and universities suppressing information and creating science hoaxes; therefor evolution theory must be valid.

Then came Global Warming.

[freedumb2003]

I love how you made your name be mixed font....

That being said, when measured against proper objective scientific criteria, TToE meets all of them. It is not a consensus, it is science. The fact people who know REAL science make up the vast majority of scientists who understand that is not a consensus (which has no meaning in science).

AGW OTOH meets exactly zero criteria for a Scientific Theory. In fact, it meets exactly zero criteria for a Scientific HYPOTHESIS — it cannot even be stated as a proper H0.

AGW is the perfect example of science on its head. politicians decided on the desired outcome, THEN fund studies to meet that outcome. By definition, the studies’ outcome will follow the money.

There is a big difference. Do not conflate the two.

[Moonman62]

BioLogos invites the church and the world
to see the harmony between science and biblical faith
as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.

https://biologos.org/

[rjsimmon]

That being said, when measured against proper objective scientific criteria, TToE meets all of them.

Horse hockey. TToE meets none of the objective criteria for the scientific method. Namely, Observable, Testable, Repeatable. NOTHING in evolution has ever been observed nor can it be repeatable since the process is not testable.

[freedumb2003]

>>Horse hockey. TToE meets none of the objective criteria for the scientific method. Namely, Observable, Testable, Repeatable. NOTHING in evolution has ever been observed nor can it be repeatable since the process is not testable.<<

You are factually wrong. Just as a hint — look up immunology to see just how wrong you are.

I am not going to refight the CREVO wars here. I just want you to know there is a difference and TToE does not depend on consensus.

I also want lurkers to know there are people here — one of which is NOT you else you would not have made your post — who know real science.

Have a blessed day.

[rjsimmon]

I do know real science which is precisely why I posted contrary to yours. Evolution is little more than wishful thinking. I do agree that science and consensus have nothing to do with one another but my argument still stands. Evolution has never been observed, nor is it testable and therefore, unrepeatable.

[politicianslie]

Then came Global Warming.

Anyone who can read a graph can see that this NOAA doc shows two temperature lines:

BLUE = Actual Temperatures

RED = ADJUSTED TEMPERATURES

The BLUE line shows there are temperature variations from year to year BUT the warmest temperatures were back in the 1930's, not in recedt decades as the PRESSTITUES and "scientists" repeat 24/7.

So where do these geniuses get the story that recent years are the warmest on record? That's easy, the "scientists" adjust recorded tempertures first DOWNWARD to account for LOWER CO2 levels and then UP to account for even higher CO2 levels.

Notice how ADJUSTED and MEASURED tempertures approximately are equal around 2000.

Only a true idiot would believe these con artists. Yes, the political rank are full of idiots. Tell the public that the sky is pink and at least 50% of them will buy that lie too.

[\/\/ayne]

We’ll have to disagree on that. I’ve noticed that evolution debates all start from the very beginning and last a couple of hours. Then the next one starts from the beginning. It would be great if they could decide something, log it and move on from there so each debate took us further. Start with all the evolution hoaxes so we don’t have to start out each time revisiting them. Include that millions of fossils are smuggled out of China and thrown willy-nilly into the mix by evolution scientists trying to make a name for themselves. There is a ton more we could debate but frankly, I’ve debated enough on that so we can just disagree on TToE.

[HighSierra5]

It’s hard to watch any nature and science shows cause they always wind their way back to global warming. I’m still waiting for the reports of alligators and palm trees in Minnesota.

[YogicCowboy]

All media are overwhelmingly leftist.

First, leftists inherently are collectivist, and seek to make all others like them by exploiting everything as propaganda.

Second, media attracts personalities that are more likely hedonistic and secular, rather than scientific or philosophical (more jock than nerd).

Thus all scientific criteria take a back seat to promulgating leftist ideology.

This, by the bye, is in part why Peer Review is a joke: the wilfully blinded extolling the blind.