Science has No More Place in the Left than that Bible in Bill Clinton’s Arm
October 27th, 2006 Desty Nova Posted in News |
LET’S GET THIS STRAIGHT.
We at DarwinCentral are solidly pro-science.
Now, the left wants you to think that socialism and science go hand-in-hand. This is NOT true.
Here’s a prime example of a left wing group using science as a poorly disguised veneer to cover their agenda.
Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets’ worth of natural resources every year by 2050 on current trends, the WWF conservation group said on Tuesday.
What flapdoodle! Even if the data were true (and I would not touch it with a ten-foot pole, coming from a group that obviously profits from guilt tripping), a properly run free market combined with scientific advancements would likely solve the problem in the long term. An Earth of 50 years ago would be hard pressed to support 6 billion people, but that is obviously not the case today, thanks in part to scientist Norman Borlaug whom Penn and Teller labelled as the greatest human in all history for preventing a billion people from starving.
To reiterate: The Left Hijacks Science, not the other way around. Bill Clinton carried a big Bible around with him and went to church every week, so does that mean the Bible is liberalism? NO! Similarly, leftists have no business wearing science on their sleeve, and DarwinCentral’s mission is to take it back.
Addendum: For those of us too frugal to get the ShowTime channel, brand new Penn and Teller episodes are now available on Amazon.com Unbox downloads. In this author’s opinion, they do not always show the whole story and may sometimes sacrifice quality debunking time for ranting, but they never fail to be entertaining.
November 12th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
I would be glad if the substance of the post is true. However, to my disappointment, I found that clicking on the links in your article did not lead to scientific studies disproving the WWF Living Planet report.
As it stands, your post consists of what looks like a scientific report, being taken apart by 1) an attack on the credibility/motives of the source of the report and 2) an unsupported assertion that THE Economic System would solve all of the problems that would ( or would not ) arise.
This may be a way to conduct an argument; but it is not the way science should be done.
Regards
P.S.
I’m not from your part of the world; feel free not to put this post up on your comments page.
P.P.S
But it is a world we all share.