Playing the Indian Card

Friday, April 07, 2017

Science Denial

It's really not that complicated.

It is fashionable these days on the left bank of the river to claim that those on the right are “science deniers.”

Which I deny.

This is an odd charge coming from the pot.

It is based, it seems on the fact that folks on the right tend not to accept the concept of global warming as popularly framed: a need for governments to act urgently to stop the planet from warming. Yet it is fraudulent to call this an attack on science. Nobody who opposes the climate change agenda denies science. Their objection is that the science does not justify the panic—that, in sum, the position of the left is unscientific.

It is at least some people on the left, on the other hand, who have indeed dismissed science itself. When you argue relativism, and cultural relativism, that is a denial of science, for science is a part of culture and is therefore relative. Its claims to truth, like all claims to truth, must be false and purely relative. Science, to the postmodernists, is a “social construct.” To the feminists, it is a “tool of the patriarchy,” maliciously designed not to work for women. Nobody on the right is making such claims. Nobody on the right has entered Time’s “post-truth” society. It is only on the left.

And in detail:

The left in general denies that human life begins at conception, and insists that a human embryo is “just a clump of cells.” This is scientifically nonsense. The science is clear; a human life begins at conception. From that point on, you have a genetically distinct human being, with all the programming present to become whatever he or she will become. And he is not going to turn into a cancer or a kangaroo.

Which means, not incidentally, that human beings are not programmed by Microsoft.

The left denies that average IQ can differ by sex or race. It objects to anyone even hinting at this as “racism.” Affirmative action programs are based on a denial of this fact. But of course, as a scientific fact, it can and does. That you do not want it to cannot change the science, here or anywhere else. Caucasians are smarter on average than Africans, East Asians are smarter than Caucasians. Jews are smarter than other Caucasians. And the Katzes are smarter than other Jews. Except maybe the Liebermans. A pure meritocracy is going to mean men, Jews, Asians, and Caucasians dominate at the higher levels. Anything else is unjust to individuals and to races, and against the common good.

The problem in this instance is that, because the left wants to deny the existence of God, they cannot accept the real doctrine of human equality. It means that God created all men as equal in moral value, equal in his eyes. They have to pretend that “equality” is a scientific issue, or they feel that it does not exist.

So they falsify science to suit their politics.

Feminism is guilty of ignoring the real differences between men and women in insisting that they have a right to do all the same jobs in equal numbers. Some of these differences are physical, and so plain to science. Men are taller on average than women, and this can be a legitimate job requirement. Men are physically stronger than women. Women have physical advantages too, but it does not come up, because nobody protests if women dominate a profession. Relaxing requirements so that more women can be soldiers, or police, or fire fighters, is not equity. It is science denial, fair to no one, and a danger to the general public.

The left denies science when they insist that gender is independent of sex. The science is clear: if you have an X and a Y chromosome in the 23rd pair, you are a man. If you have an X and an X, you are a woman. The left denies this, and denies the right of anyone else to say or believe this, and holds that you can be whatever sex you want to be, regardless of any physical evidence. Not just that men can be women if they want, and women can be men: New York City now officially recognizes 31 genders. Australia recognizes 33. Facebook allows for 58.

Ladies and gentlemen, if I might be so bold: gender is a grammatical concept, and really cannot change your dangly bits. English, happily, has not just two, but three genders for your use: he, she, or it.

It’s your choice.

Go for it.

No comments: