Though I don't think it's a particularly wise or self-aware accusation for them to make, the progressive left continues to make political hay out of smearing conservatives as "anti-science."
Most people who are not fervent congregants of the church of progressivism, and who have been conscious over the last several years, probably can't help but roll their eyes at the insult.
After all, this is a movement that denies the humanity of human babies in the womb. This is a movement that promotes the notion that men can have periods. This is a movement that demanded school closures and face masks on toddlers during the Covid nightmare.
Given such realities, it seems to defy common sense how and why the Left would even want to bring up the topic of science, no less accuse others of denying it. And yet…
I'm smart enough to realize that this is agitprop. It's propaganda that is far more focused on pushing a political narrative than it is defending the sanctity of science. With the willful assistance of their allies, progressives have hijacked the name of science to offer undeserved and unearned credibility to their policy and ideological preferences. Having natural law as real and binding, the Left has awkwardly substituted science - a field of study predicated upon challenging long-established dicta with new theories, new ideas, new experiments, then collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data and evidence - for absolute, metaphysical truth.
The consequence has been the deification of some presupposed "Scientific Consensus" that we are all to believe has final authority on matters well beyond the boundaries of scientific inquiry. As the Covid debacle and climate change scam have proven, that's a terrible way to run a society.
But as someone who actually enjoys science and is fascinated by God's created universe, I think it's important to point out how disastrous this all is for the discipline itself. Science is about concocting theories, running experiments, collecting data, and then offering interpretations of that data. It's not about ironclad answers that demand imposition through authoritative, government means.
If a giant barge-like object of petrified wood was suddenly discovered under a melting glacier on Turkey's Mount Ararat, I might be inclined to shout that, "science has proven Noah's Ark and the authority of Scripture." But that isn't quite right. "Science" revealed an object, ran tests on it, produced results, and then from that point, flawed people produced and exchanged their interpretations of the find. And our interpretations often have far more to do with our preconceived ideas, biases, and preferences than they do some rigid allegiance to the sacredness of the scientific method.
Not only that, but the Left's relentless appeals to "scientific consensus" is embarrassing. Remember, it used to be scientific consensus that the earth was flat, that the sun orbited the earth, hand washing was unnecessary, and that disease was caused by bad blood and could only be solved through leeches and bloodletting.
(Not to mention the circular, insular, boys club approach to who gets to be considered a legitimate scientist.)
It's the perfect con, and progressive secularists have used it to perfection for years. Take the ongoing scientific humiliation of Darwinian evolution. It is 2023 and there are still people with advanced degrees who have convinced themselves that this miraculously and intricately designed universe is the product of cosmic chance and random mutation. It's beyond crazy. It's outlandish foolishness.
And yet they've created an entire affirmation apparatus for the lie. If a molecular biologist pipes up and points out that it doesn't matter how many billions of years you keep adding to your tale, abiogenesis - that is the spontaneous generation of living matter from dead matter - is hilariously anti-intellectual, what happens? He is immediately drummed out of the club, stripped of his "scientific" credentials, and ignored. Then, when the media runs its next story on the "confidence level scientists have in Darwinian evolution," he doesn't get counted since he's a known "quack."
It's such a racket, and the facepalm-worthy premise that you share a common ancestor with a fern is but one example. What happened to Nobel laureate Dr. John Clauser is another. What happened to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and his efforts to speak out against Covid lockdowns is another. And the list will continue growing until we all realize that "scientific consensus" is a false appeal to authority utilized exclusively by the political left to advance their agenda.
That agenda is more often than not at odds with scientific data.
