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.
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.
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.
I am scratching my head trying to figure out what this has to do with ‘science’ – Political Science maybe?
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Quiz – Evolution or Intelligent Design (jlue.wordpress.com)
- Theory of Evolution is Anti-Science (dakotavoice.com)
- Stand for Science: Confront Homeopathy (scienceblogs.com)