Liberals Spew More Anti-Science

Who said the following?

“We will restore science to its rightful place.”

If you said former (how good that sounds) Pres. Barack Obama, you would be right. He made this declaration during his 2009 Inaugural Address.

What’s happened since then related to science in addition to trying to force us to accept that a woman can become a man and a man a woman?

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: The President’s Beef with Stormy Daniels SOMEHOW Got Dumber

The latest anti-science screed comes from Moira Weigel in her article “How the Ultrasound Pushed the Idea that a Fetus is a Person” published in The Atlantic Monthly. Science in the form of an ultrasound machine is the bane of the modern-day abortion movement in the same way the high-powered microscope has put a Titanic-sized hole in the theory of evolution. In Darwin’s day, the inner workings of a cell were a mystery. Cells were considered to be more like blobs rather than intricate biological machines with many moving parts. Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box (1996) and the theory of irreducible complexity challenged the ability of the non-entity “chance” and excruciatingly slow evolutionary development could result in the complexity of today’s living organisms. This says nothing about explaining how inanimate matter self-organized and developed into living organisms with informational DNA to guide development.

Like the courts often do in cases when ideological science is called into question by actual competing scientific theories and arguments, they step in and become the final arbiter of challenges to abortion, gender, and evolution. For example, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge John E. Jones III ruled in a 139-page decision that Intelligent Design (ID) is not science but religion. How does an evolved meat machine like Judge Jones know this? How can Judge Jones trust his evolved brain or any brain?

While courts have systematically ruled against challenges to evolutionary theory, they haven’t been able to stop debates in areas where governments have no control. The debate rages on, and the courts can’t stop the free exchange of ideas. Unfortunately, our educational system is controlled by government and government bureaucracies that censor competing theories.

In a similar way, the abortion industry fears what is going on with advances in technology like sonograms and 3-D and 4-D imaging. Abortion advocates like Weigel see the threat so she tries to minimize the effect of what is really going on in a woman womb. Weigel maintains that women aren’t really seeing what the technology is revealing. Those who proposed the germ theory of disease were also attacked for proposing the nonsense that microscopic organisms ever could cause disease. Michelle Malkin captures the absurdity of Weigel’s argument because it doesn’t line up with her preconceptions:

“Next in the anti-science Atlantic’s investigative series: How X-rays pushed the idea that humans have skeletons! How microscopes pushed the idea that microorganisms exist! How electroencephalograms pushed the idea that human brains send electrical impulses! A deep dive by the intrepid Weigel into the world of ‘imaginary’ bones, bacteria and beta waves will no doubt yield a Pulitzer nomination if not a Nobel Prize.”

Weigel was so desperate to dismiss what technology is showing that she made some biological blunders hoping no one would notice. Liberals usually don’t check another liberal’s work if it supports the liberal status quo position. Well, some people did notice and The Atlanta Monthly had to add some corrections to her original article. Here are two of the big ones:

This article originally stated that there is ‘no heart to speak of’ in a six-week-old fetus. By that point in a pregnancy, a heart has already begun to form. We regret the error.

“This article originally stated that the doctors claimed fetuses had no reflexive responses to medical instruments at 12 weeks. We regret the error.”

Weigel should read Gosnell: The Untold Story of America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer and Blackout: The Gosnell Grand Jury Report the Media Does Not Want You to Read and delve into Planned Parenthood’s baby parts scandal. Harvesting body parts does not take place at either four or six weeks’ gestation.

She also might want to look at Ana Maria Dumitru’s article “Science, Embryonic Autonomy, and the Question of When Life Begins.” Dumitru is a fifth-year MD/PhD candidate at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College. Here’s the concluding paragraph of her article:

“So let’s stop deflecting. It’s time to own up to the truth. Sciofence has already affirmed what we have long since suspected: we can call them fertilized eggs, zygotes, morulas, blastocysts, products of conception, embryos, or fetuses, but that doesn’t change reality. And that reality is this: they are autonomous humans from the very beginning.”

There is so much wrong with Weigel’s article that it would take several articles to unwind all the absurdities. Her goal from the beginning was to try to convince herself that an unborn baby is not really a baby and to claim otherwise is to “inconvenience” women by “slowing down their access to care while belittling their ability to make decisions about their own bodies.”

Killing an unborn baby is not “care,” and a baby is not a woman’s body. The thing of it is, long before the invention of the sonogram technology and 3D and 4D imaging, pregnant women knew they were carrying a baby. It took secular science and the courts to convince them otherwise.

The same type of rational obstruction has taken place in the areas of gender and sex as Angelo M. Codevilla shows with this excerpt from his essay “The Rise of Political Correctness”:

“Consider our ruling class’s very latest demand: Americans must agree that someone with a penis can be a woman, while someone else with a vagina can be a man. Complying with such arbitrariness is beyond human capacity. In Orwell’s 1984, as noted, Big Brother’s agent demanded that Winston acknowledge seeing five fingers while he was holding up four. But that is small stuff next to what the U.S. ruling class is demanding of a free people. Because courts and agencies just impose their diktats, without bothering to try to persuade, millions of precisely the kind of citizens who prize stability have become willing to take a wrecking ball to what little remains of the American republic, not caring so much what happens next.”

If people can be convinced that a woman can become man and a man a woman, there’s nothing people can’t be convinced of.


Gary DeMar

Gary DeMar was raised in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and Reformed Theological Seminary (1979). He has served as researcher and writer at the Christian Worldview ministry American Vision since 1980 and President since 1984. Today he serves as Senior Fellow at American Vision where he lectures, researches, and writes on various worldview issues. Gary is the author of 30 books on a variety of topics – from "America’s Christian History" and "God and Government" to "Thinking Straight in a Crooked World" to "Last Days Madness." Gary has been interviewed by Time magazine, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, the BBC, and Sean Hannity. He has done numerous radio and television interviews, including the “Bible Answer Man,” hosted by Hank Hanegraaff and “Today’s Issues” with Tim Wildmon and Marvin Sanders. Newspaper interviews with Gary have appeared in the Washington Times, Toledo (Ohio) Blade, the Sacramento Bee, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Marietta Daily Journal, San Francisco Chronicle, The Orlando Sentinel, and the Chicago Tribune.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.