Einstein famously said, “…politics is more difficult than physics”. Science should deal in the realm of truth. A scientist’s observation, hypotheses, experiments, analysis, and ultimate theory development all aim towards the revelation and proof of truth.
Let’s start by agreeing that scientists can certainly support politics in various ways! Scientists, after all, should be able to provide valuable expertise and evidence-based research that can inform policy decisions so that policies can be founded in reality, not just whim. But isn’t this where all of it goes awry? The problem, of course, is the biases of politicians and where their policies originate… because let’s be honest: fake science is often the source. But science is supposed to be unbiased, right? Except when the mask slips.
Take, for example, a recent position taken by the Scientific American magazine. For the second time in its 179-year history they chose to endorse a political candidate saying: “We feel a responsibility to share what we know about how this election could shape the future of the U.S. Science, health, education, and the environment. Our editors evaluated Vice president Harris’s record and policy positions and compared them with former President Donald Trumps, and the contrast is clear.”
By the way: They said that this was only the second time in nearly 180 years they had endorsed a candidate…. Their first endorsement? Biden in 2020. Their second just happened to be Harris in 2024. Are we seeing a pattern here? So, the editor made their political opinions clear regarding the choice of presidential candidates. The irony here of this coming from a publication called Scientific American is too good to pass up.
Let’s just run through four areas of policy that are not just unscientific, but actually anti-science that Kamala Harris pushed as a part of her failed platform: 1. Human biology recognizes the unique life of male and female genders. In fact, male and female genders are evidenced across all mammals. Yet, Harris spoke at her city’s third annual Trans March, where she was honored as having “championed transgender rights.” Which is clearly in opposition to scientific biology. Even her Vice-Presidential candidate, Tim Walz, implemented a Minnesota state policy of putting feminine hygiene products in men’s restrooms.
2. Reproduction is essential for the long-term survival of any species, but Harris’ policies support the sterilization of minors through puberty blockers and radical surgeries (funded by you and me, the taxpayer, no less). And they penalize people for speaking out against this insanity– calling them “anti-trans” and hateful. If all of her party’s policies were implemented, humankind will eventually die out for lack of reproduction.
3. Self-inflicted extinction is anti-science. While political opinions may vary, science demonstrates that unique human life begins at conception, as human cells begin to reproduce immediately after fertilization. However, Harris’s platform supported expanding abortion access to full-term, perfectly viable children who could live independently of the mother.
4. The implementation of petroleum as a generator of energy has completely changed the face of the globe over the last 100 years. That is a scientific fact.
It has raised the standard of living in every country on earth by leaps and bounds. And it’s clear that gas and oil engines have been built upon scientific and technological breakthroughs that have been accrued since the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution. But this past failed campaign was completely on board for Agenda 2030, and its goal to transition away from so-called fossil fuels, focusing on things like solar, hydropower, wind power and other “green” sources of energy – which, it’s a noble thing to strive to diversify energy sources! But here’s the thing with this strategy. Its lack of connection to reality is truly astounding. In fact, it’s so anti-science that it could send us back to the dark ages.
Petroleum is a consistent source of energy, one which we have access to in abundance, while “green” power sources are inconsistent and inefficient. Maybe surprising to some, but the amount of wildlife killed by things like large windmills is staggering (and the irony is that these windmills have to be produced by factories using coal and petroleum).
So, let’s pull back the curtain on all of this. Here’s the Wizard of Oz for you, hiding in plain sight. None of these policies have anything to do with science. It is merely policy charading as science! The sad truth is that scientists that allow themselves to be hijacked by these delusions are truly only in it for prestige and money and sell their souls and their scientific integrity.
Scientific American has left the realm of science for the second time in a few years, and has turned its back on facts, truth, and the American people. Clearly, the American public has had enough. Even the editor’s colleagues have had enough. Amidst widespread backlash, the editor has stepped down which is good for real science, but that doesn’t mean that Scientific American has ceased to support radical anti-science positions.
Let’s keep the new editors responsible. Make sure that everyone you know sees and shares this message. And the sad thing is, that God’s Word already gave us the basis for scientific truth, but it’s been rejected and replaced with pseudo-science. Let’s get back to sanity. Let’s get back to real science. Let’s get back to truth.
I’m David Rives,
Truly, the heavens declare the glory of God.