Junk Science

Michael Crichton published a novel, State of Fear, which uses an eco-terrorism story to illustrate the way so many people are duped by junk science.

This book is about global warming, and the desperation of radical environmentalists to either make lots of money or influence government policy. They resort to eco-terrorism in an attempt to influence the masses.

The underlying message from Crichton is a sort of 'buyer beware', especially in the sense of buying junk science that is designed to make money and influence politics.

Global Warming is the top issue these days. Crichton uses real data from actual climate studies to show that the hype of the global warming issue comes from those who hope to profit from it, through wealth or political power. A fascinating proof of his point came from Columbia University, which actually changed their data after he published links to their climate studies in an attempt to make the data seem to support the global warming idea more dramatically.

From the link I provided above, you'll notice that he uses Eugenics as one of the more egregious examples of popular junk science. If you don't know who Margaret Sanger is, she happens to be the founder of Planned Parenthood. She formed that organization primarily as part of her Eugenics crusade. I'm not sure that the goals of that organization have changed all that much.

So many theories and "discoveries" from junk science continue to be pressed forward as matters of faith, not of disciplined use of the scientific method.

Such as homosexuality. How many take it on faith that gays are born that way? It started because the gay rights people consistently and loudly proclaim it as truth. So scientific research takes place that seems to support their contention. Does it, really?

For example, there has been no specific genetic marker for homosexuality. In fact, studies you've probably never heard about actually show the most likely factors that lead to homosexuality are environmental and experiential. Gays are more likely to have suffered sexual abuse as children, are more likely to have been raised in a single-parent home, influence of peer groups, etc.

But those studies get vilified and buried. Why? Because the topic isn't about science, but about popular cultural norms.

Likewise, anyone who dares study things like the differences between males and females is marginalized and made a pariah.

Even macro evolution - you know, the chart showing an amoeba morphing into a fish then an amphibian then a mammal then a monkey then a human - after all these years, there hasn't been a single discovery of a transitional species in the fossil record. But that doesn't matter, because the dogmatic faith in this evolutionary theory is the equivalent to those who believe just as fervently that all was created by God.

Beware of those who cite science in the pursuit of funds or political power. Al Gore, for example. Al's apocalyptic film about global warming has been ripped even by scientists who support the global warming theory as containing gross exaggerations, mischaracterizations, and even outright lies.

So which is true about Al Gore? Is he just a naive pawn of the radical environmental movement, or is he cynically and knowingly exploiting the issue to carve out his niche for another Presidential campaign. It has to be one or the other, so regardless of which is true, is this the kind of person we want as President?

Science is important, because at its best it helps us understand ourselves and the world better, and develop advances from cures to disease to technologies that improve all our lives. But at worst, it can be used to fool the masses into horrible and even inhumane governmental abuses.

So we all need to be careful about jumping on board the latest media-promoted fads without making the attempt to become informed about where the studies came from, who funded them, and whether they adhered to the standards of scientific method.