Are you a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad ‘Anti-Science’ person?


Have you heard of Anti-science web-sites?

I first heard of the term “Anti-science” as used by evolutionists to describe creationists or those who accept Intelligent Design.  According to the accepted use, you are anti-science if you do not believe in evolution as the binding force of all biological research and/or evolution as the explanation for the origin of mankind and/or life as we know it. It may be used to describe anyone who doesn’t accept an “accepted” theory and is usually used in a derogatory manner.

I am not certain when the term was coined, but once used it spread rapidly and is now used to describe almost anyone with whom the ‘elite’ disagree. To be a member of the ‘elite’, one must accept certain premises, evolution being the most important, but it is gradually broadening in scope to include left-wing social/political ideology,  man-made global warming, and now it seems that those who see or advertise herbal supplements or subscribe to homeopath remedies are included

My attention was recently drawn to the above website to which I linked. Brian Dunning considers himself expert enough to  choose from all the tens of thousands of web-sites and label ten as the Top 10 Worst ‘Anti-Science’ Websites. The psychology he is using interested me, so I decided to look at each site and perhaps discover the real reason each was included.

(10) Huffington Post

The first site mentioned (10) was the Huffington Post, which of course isn’t a ‘science’ web-site. Most liberals are very pleased with Huffpost. Still, it is included. The complaint is that as Dunning describes:

HuffPo aggressively promotes worthless alternative medicine such as homeopathy, detoxification, and the thoroughly debunked vaccine-autism link.

Here is an example of what Huffington Post published to offend ‘science’: Homeopathic Arnica to the Rescue .

The article reminded me of something I had forgotten.  Homeopathic medications are under FDA regulations.

A bit of an odd situation has arisen because although homeopathic medicines are FDA approved and regulated, they have not been widely embraced by mainstream medicine and, as a result, there is a lack of information and many misconceptions regarding the nature and use of homeopathic products.

Upon examination we find that the author of the article gives the ‘down’ side of homeopathic medications or remedies:

Homeopathic medicines are diluted to such a degree that skeptics claim the small doses are merely placebos. They argue that, in theory, it is impossible for them to have any therapeutic effect because it cannot be explained how they work.

The article gives references and guidelines for administering the product discussed in the article.

My suggestion is that it is well written and was never intended to be a ‘scientific’ article but rather an informative article about an alternative to conventional prescription drugs.

It is unclear why Huffington Post was selected from among the many sites that offer homeopathic remedies. Perhaps it was selected simply to give conservatives a ‘feeling’ that the author isn’t prejudiced as he includes liberal sites in his “10 Worst List.” This way they may be more open to his opinions.

(9) Conservapedia

The second site that Brian Dunning attacked was Conservapedia. Here Dunnings gives a reason for its inclusion:

That it is intended specifically as a science resource for homeschooled children, who don’t have the benefit of an accredited science teacher, is its main reason for making this list.

His reason isn’t surprising. It has to do with evolution and those who not only believe the Bible but also that the earth is much younger than it would have to be for the evolution ‘story’ to be true. It bothers many that there are questions being asked that are not answered by evolution or today’s scientists. It seems to anger evolutionists that many people, some of them scientists, want these, along with other questions about evolution, brought up and discussed in classrooms. When government schools decided to forbid this, those parents who could afford to do so, chose home schooling or private schooling for their children.

Would Dunnings prefer the information given on Conservapedia be censored?

Scientists who do not believe that in the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter) prefer that the information on sites such as Conservapedia not be available.

Explore Conservapedia and decide for yourself about the web-site.

(8) Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo is a fun site that tells the reader up front what it is all about and certainly should not be included in a list of harmful web-sites. If it causes harm, I am not sure what that harm would be. Dunnings tells us why he included it, which seems very strange. If this is his criteria, I could send him a list of liberal sites that will not include conservative comments. Why do they not qualify for the 10 Worst list?

Cryptomundo’s forum moderators have something of a notorious reputation for editing comments posted by site visitors, and for deleting comments that express skeptical points of view.

(7) 911 Truth.Org

I am scratching my head trying to figure out what this has to do with ‘science’ – Political Science maybe?

(6) Mercola.com

This web-site is very interesting. It is put up by Dr. Mercola with this information:

And so, my qualifications: first and foremost, I am an osteopathic physician, also known as a DO. DOs are licensed physicians who, similar to MDs, can prescribe medication and perform surgery in all 50 states. DOs and MDs have similar training requiring four years of study in the basic and clinical sciences, and the successful completion of licensing exams. But DOs bring something extra to the practice of medicine. Osteopathic physicians practice a “whole person” approach, treating the entire person rather than just symptoms. Focusing on preventive health care, DOs help patients develop attitudes and lifestyles that don’t just fight illness, but help prevent it, too.

His practice is for the most part homeopathic. He has the disclaimers there for all to see:

* These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your physician before using this product.

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked. The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional.

He is probably required by law to post these disclaimers. While I can see how a family member of someone who chooses this over conventional care and then does not survive might be very angry with Dr. Mercola, I am not sure that this qualifies him for a spot in the top-ten. I would think the top ten should be reserved for someone who misrepresents himself or his products. If that can be proven to be the case, then possibly he belongs there. All products carry a disclaimer, however.  Perhaps if Brian Dunnings had explained his reasoning better, I could understand better, but it seems that he placed this site on the list because Dunnings is against homeopathic remedies.

(5.) Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis is an informative site. It is a Christian web-site and placed on the web to offer resources to Christians and anyone who is interested in learning more about Creation. Their material helps those students who attend public schools to come to terms with what they are being taught in school in light of what the Bible teaches. Mr. Dunnings, not being a Christian, probably does not understand how students who know the Lord and who understand the Word of God may have struggles with some of the ideology being taught in public schools today.

Answers in Genesis have as their goal:

To support the church in fulfilling its commission

They give as their Missions statement:

  • We proclaim the absolute truth and authority of the Bible with boldness.
  • We relate the relevance of a literal Genesis to the church and the world today with creativity.
  • We obey God’s call to deliver the message of the gospel, individually and collectively.

For reasons unknown to me, those who do not believe the Bible do not want this material made available. The reason they give is that it is “anti-science”.

My answer to Mr. Dunnings and others is this. When I was in public schools, we studied Greek and Roman mythology. We learned about Buddhism and Hinduism. None of these teachings were a threat to me or to what I knew to be truth. Ideas should never be considered a threat to modern ‘science’ and a group of people silenced due to that fear.

Answers in Genesis have ca 200 scientists, many with PHDs, who accept creation as the origins of life. This information has been withheld from many students who believe that all educated scientists have ruled out creation and/or Intelligence that brought about the design of the universe.

This web-site should be included in the 10 best science web-sites because it gives information that conventional scientists know, but will not share.

(4.)  Australian Vaccination Network

Here again is the question of whether material should be made available or should it not be made available.

The Australian Vaccination Network (AVN), a citizen group advocating parental choice in whether children should be vaccinated, has come under an extraordinary attack by advocates of vaccination. Controversies over vaccination involve both disagreements about scientific matters, such as the effectiveness of vaccination to prevent disease, and clashes of values, including compulsion versus free choice.

More and more in our society scientists believe they know best about what is right for citizens. They need a strong military style government to enforce these ‘values’. It really boils down to a matter of choice. Should parents have the right to read and decide what they think is best or should a strong government decide for them? Debating Vaccination

When I watch the ads giving the names and numbers of lawyers to call if your loved one has died due to a drug, procedure, or injection (which are becoming more and more frequent in our massive, entangled federal system), I come down on the side of individual information and freedom.

3. Prison Planet / InfoWars

Here, again, I ask: What has any of this to do with ‘science’?

(2.) Age of Autism

If modern science had something concrete to offer in the cause and treatment of autism that would stop the dramatic rise of the number of incidences and the devastating effects of this condition, I would be much more inclined to agree with Dunnings on this one.

(1.) Natural News

If I had to pick one of the ten with which I agree that the site is harmful, it would be this one. While a couple of the conspiracy theories on the site are plausible, the site goes beyond the pale.  I suppose it has enough ‘science’ to legitimately be included in an ‘anti-science’ list.

Advertisements

About jlue

I am a grandmother of seven and I like to garden, read, study the Bible, and spend time with family. I am not very politically active, but very interested in who is elected to lead our country.
This entry was posted in Christianity, Climate Change, Creation (Evidences), Education, Our World Today, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Are you a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad ‘Anti-Science’ person?

  1. Ben Hoffman says:

    Ooooo, you study a fictional book written 2,000 years ago. Aren’t you special. 🙂

    Like

    • jlue says:

      🙂 Yes, according to 1 Peter 2:9

      Like

      • fred says:

        Oh, so it makes you “special” to believe in an ancient work of fiction because that same ancient work of fiction says so?

        Ever hear the term “circular resoning”?

        Like

      • jlue says:

        That was rather tongue-in-cheek, Ben, and it would be circular reasoning, but you are the one who brought up me being special. 🙂
        I am 100% convinced the Bible isn’t fiction.

        Like

  2. Pingback: Are you a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad ‘Anti-Science’ person? | Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

  3. Human Ape says:

    “if you do not believe in evolution”

    Nobody “believes” in evolution. The word “believe” is for religious fantasies, not basic scientific facts that have massive powerful evidence from molecular biology, genetics, and many other branches of science. Biologists “accept” the established truth of evolution. They don’t have to “believe” it because of the massive evidence for it, evidence your Christian fantasies will never have. You deny the evidence but you don’t even know what you’re denying. You have no idea what’s been going on in molecular biology. You haven’t a clue. You know nothing but you think you know more than all the world’s biologists.

    Mr. Bible thumper, your “there are questions being asked” are being asked by Dr. Carl Wieland who is the Managing Director of Creation Ministries International.

    Wieland is the director of Magic Ministries. Like you, he believes in magic.

    I have questions about your fairy’s magical powers. What kind of magic wand does it use? When it created creatures out of nothing, did it say abracadabra or hocus pocus or what?

    Wieland wrote about his “15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.”

    Biologists are called “biologists”, not “evolutionists”.

    The problem for Wieland and his gullible customers is scientists have answered those questions and even a small brained Christian can use google to find the answers.

    I haven’t all day to spend with willfully ignorant people so I will choose just one question and save you the few minutes it would take you to look it up yourself if you weren’t so lazy.

    “Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?”

    Natural selection is one of the most important mechanisms of evolution and it most certainly does explain the diversity of life. It’s a stupid question that would only be asked by someone who is unable to understand what natural selection is, and who is too lazy to study science.

    Natural selection is the non-random selection of favorable genes. Creatures who have what it takes to become parents pass their superior genes to the next generation. Harmful mutations disappear from the population because those creatures drop dead before they reproduce. An example is when the small population of our ancestors almost went extinct during an African drought. The predatory apes who lived then were more likely to pass on their genes if they had a small increase in brain size. The fossil evidence that you science deniers deny or more likely don’t know about shows a gradual increase in brain size. That’s natural selection, a mechanism that has been working every minute for almost four billion years.

    Another thing you science deniers don’t understand is the fossil evidence, while important because fossils help scientists understand the details of the history of life, is not necessary to prove the truth of evolution. There is much more powerful evidence than fossils, and that comes from what scientists can see with their own eyes when they compare DNA sequences of different living species. You have no idea how much scientific evidence you have to deny to throw out evolution and believe in your dead Jeebus.

    The world’s biologists would laugh at your Liar for the Dead Jeebus if they had ever heard of him. Of course your favorite moron doesn’t really care about scientists or science. He just has to satisfy his cowardly gullible customers who are willing to believe in any supernatural bull**** if it makes them feel good, even if their fantasies require throwing out more than 150 years of scientific progress.

    Since I wasted so much time writing what should be obvious to any educated grammar school student, and since you’re only one person and you won’t understand any of it, I’m going to put this comment on my blog with a link to this thread. So you might get some more visitors.

    Have a nice day, Mr. Bible thumper.

    darwinkilledgod dot blogspot dot com

    Like

    • jlue says:

      Dear darwin,
      It is Mrs. not Mr. Here is a link to the questions.

      Dr Carl Wieland has also authored numerous articles in both Creation magazine and the associated in-depth journal, TJ. Although his formal qualifications are in medicine and surgery, Carl has not practised in the medical profession since 1986. He is a past president of the Christian Medical Fellowship of South Australia.

      While I realize by your tone that I offended you, that wasn’t my intention. I get irritated with the “anti-science” rhetoric and I suppose that is why I posted the blog. I do believe the Bible and worship the God of the Bible. I know there is evidence of change over time, but that evolution cannot account for the origin of matter and life as we know it.

      Like

  4. Human Ape says:

    Correction: Ms. Bible thumper, not Mr. Bible thumper.

    If I knew you were a grandma I wouldn’t have bothered you.

    Like

  5. Jeff says:

    jlue,

    You can always take heart in the fact that people such as the “experts” responding to you in debunking anything and everything they don’t agree with, are so threatened by Christianity on a whole, and Jesus in particular. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be so vehement in their responses. There is actually hope for those so affected; it’s the apathetic who are lost.

    Keep up the good work, and God bless you…

    Like

    • jlue says:

      Hello Paolosilv, Are you enjoying the holidays? Thank you for sharing the site.

      For my readers I would like to point out something that I noticed. Recently I was riduculed as a person who believes in “magic” because I believe in creation. On the site you sent, within the dialogue there is this:

      CLIFF TABIN: What’s incredible about this timing, from a scientific perspective, is we’re going to be able to understand that diversity. And that just adds to the excitement. It doesn’t demystify it, it makes it all the more magical.

      I don’t think either is magic, not creation, and not ‘change over time’. There is change over time. I have never denied that. If God in His infinite wisdom had not created life to change over time we would all be dead now. Disease would have probably eliminated life as we know it long ago. If not, antibiotics and insecticides would have eliminated so many forms of life that life could not have continued as we know it. I can remember science classes in the fifties teaching that if insects were killed by insecticides that could wipe out the entire bird population. Change over time actually prevents what man sees as impending doom from happening.

      Darwin was a scientist who discovered certain things about creation. His followers have made serious errors in attempting to use the discoveries to prove that there is no Creator. If they could or would simply look at the discoveries as discoveries and not attempt to prove a preconceived notion, how much more could be learned from his work? He made mistakes. We all do. Notice this line on the site you shared:

      It began with a startling revelation.***** All the different birds he had collected actually were variations of a single type.

      Genesis 1:24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind:

      There is absolutely no contradiction here. The biggest error scientists make and have made is their decision to disprove the God of Creation. In doing so, they have harmed their own cause. Creationists have felt compelled to “fight back” and I really don’t think we would need to fight at all if our children were not being told that there is no possibility of a Creator. This is where the harm is being done. Children are impressionable and it takes a long time for them to see what is plain to most rational adults. Some never take the time to learn the truth.

      Like

  6. Jesse says:

    I am sorry but in terms of a fair reason based debate you are well over your head. Faith by it’s very definition is a belief despite or in spite of evidence, if you claim to have faith then you have no position better than “because I say so”. If you cannot come up with something better than a bunch of people who agree with you as evidence than maybe you should take up a new hobby.

    Like

    • jlue says:

      Hi Jesse, I suppose it depends upon which definition you choose as to what the very definition of faith is.

      Did you read the post? The question posed is what determines whether or not a ‘group’ of people have a right to speak out without being labeled as ‘anti-science’ or if they are against science when they disagree with a conclusion drawn by a ‘group’ of scientists.

      What you seem to be arguing is what many others also seem to think today, ie, if a person has *faith then he is ‘anti-science’ and his work is to be discounted. I hope I am wrong and that isn’t what you mean.

      *belief and trust in and loyalty to God

      This would exclude many excellent scientists from the field.

      Like

Comments are closed.