Get ready for another march, Washington!
This coming April, our nation’s capital will serve as the home for the first ever “March for Science.” Purportedly, the idea spawned from a message board post in a Reddit thread just over one week ago, after a user discovered that all references to climate change have been deleted from the White House website. In the two weeks since, the organization has formed a Twitter page, attracted over 315,000 followers, and begun to plan the logistics surrounding the upcoming event.
Nothing about this movement is “grassroots,” and I will prove it to you in my next post. For the time being, however, we need to wrap our arms around this upcoming demonstration.
What is the March for Science? Similar to many churches, the organization initially highlighted its statement of beliefs on its official website:
There are certain things that we accept as facts with no alternatives. The Earth is becoming warmer due to human action. The diversity of life arose by evolution. Politicians who devalue expertise risk making decisions that do not reflect reality and must be held accountable. An American government that ignores science to pursue ideological agendas endangers the world.
Organizers contend that the march will be open to “anyone who values empirical science.”
The one item curiously omitted from these six hastily-contrived sentences was the essential foundation of science, the scientific method. Had this have only been mentioned, perhaps the organizers would have seen the inherent flaw in their mission statement.
Empirical science would never ask an individual to accept “certain things as facts with no alternatives.” This is scientific heresy. Skepticism is at the very heart of the scientific method!
Less than 50 years ago, scientists compelled Americans to believe that the earth was becoming cooler due to human action. Much like today, the academic community scoffed at those holding a dissenting opinion.
In 1970, University of California Professor Kenneth Watt warned that the global mean temperature would fall so drastically that an ice age would threaten the earth by the year 2000. Prophecies such as these were given prominent media coverage by the likes of Time, Life, National Geographic, and plenty of other conventional news outlets.
This was settled science…until it wasn’t.
The tides turned in the 1980s, highlighted by a New York Times editorial presenting “scientific” expectations for global warming to melt the polar ice caps, flood coastal areas, and raise the level of the seas. The article explained how federal climate “experts” suggested that the greenhouse effect could cause New York City weather to mirror that of Daytona Beach within a century.
In 2013, a group of 74 intellectuals chartered a scientific expedition to Antarctica to prove how global warming is melting the polar ice caps. As many unscientific ignoramuses (translation: “you and me”) could have guessed, the ship became stranded in the Antarctic ice. Without a trace of irony, the expedition team subsequently released a statement that “we’re stuck in our own experiment.”
When scientific results do not align with the originally constructed hypothesis, the scientific method commands the scientist to formulate a new hypothesis.
However, when scientific results do not align with the originally constructed hypothesis, the March for Science mandates the scientist to accept the original hypothesis as a fact with no alternatives.
The March for Science rejects the scientific method.
Could this be the reason why the site was immediately revamped shortly after its launch? This initial mission statement was completely scrubbed. In its place now rests a simple self-registration form for users to enroll for the march closest to their home.
Consider the concept of evolution. There is no fossilized evidence anywhere in the world that confirms the ability of one species to evolve into a completely different species. Where is the evidence demonstrating how a cow evolved into a horse or a fish into a tiger?
Additionally, why is the outspoken confirmation of evolutionary theory racist? During a basketball game this past May, Oklahoma City Thunder center Steven Adams referred to his Golden State Warrior opponents as “quick little monkeys.” Why was he so openly ridiculed for publicly professing his understanding of evolutionary science?
Does this mean that while we are positively certain that “the diversity of life rose by evolution,” we are also positively certain that apes, monkeys, and orangutans had nothing to do with the evolution of certain races of humanity? Would Adams have been criticized for referring to his opponents as “quick little tigers?”
The March for Science rejects evolutionary science.
If the science community rejects the scientific method and evolutionary science, do they at least accept biological science?
At the turn of the 20th century, American genetic researchers discovered chromosomal differences between the two genders in a number of independent studies. These scientists identified that males possessed the XY chromosome, while females featured the XX chromosome.
No research has emerged to threaten the validity of this chromosomal understanding of gender. In fact, two distinguished scientists from Johns Hopkins University published a 144-page report in August 2016 with the following conclusion:
“The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings — the idea that people are “born that way” — is not supported by scientific evidence.”
In other words, no empirical scientific research has emerged to threaten the Biblical view of gender outlined in the book of Genesis: God created them both male and female.
Does the science community embrace or reject these scientific conclusions?
Representing the field of academia, the University of California features a current application for admission containing six different options for a candidate’s gender. Think of that: a state university formally rejecting biological science…on its application for admission into the College of Biological Sciences!
The March for Science rejects biological science.
When thousands of demonstrators line the streets to disingenuously “March for Science,” they will hardly be uniting to confirm the longstanding truths presented by the scientific community. Rather, they will march in lockstep to the unhallowed atheistic dogma initially submitted by the Nazi German Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels:
“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle.”
This will not be a march for the objective explanations of empirical science in any way, shape, or form. It will be a march in support of the subjective and manipulative propensities of political science theory.
The ideological left is in the process of organizing a March for Political Science.
We would be wise to recognize the difference.
I will graciously cede one point to the forthcoming community of political science demonstrators. They are absolutely correct that an American government that ignores science to pursue ideological agendas endangers the world.