December 8, 2015 | David F. Coppedge

The Science Axis of Evil


Take any behavior that the Bible condemns, and you will find a scientist saying it’s not so bad—maybe even good. Failing to find bad consequences in their research, they assume that engaging in certain evil deeds can be justifiable in some contexts. In other cases, they rationalize behaviors traditionally considered evil, thinking that humans are mere products of evolutionary heredity or environment.

In their misguided belief that science can be morally neutral, they become Satan’s tools to corrupt society. Here are some recent examples.

Polygamy: After homosexual activists gained national acceptance beyond their wildest dreams, conservatives worried that other sexually deviant groups, like polygamists, would push the envelope. “That will never happen,” defenders in the mainstream media reassured the worry warts. Well, check out this paper in PNAS: “No evidence that polygynous marriage is a harmful cultural practice in northern Tanzania.” The rationalization is that if nobody gets hurt, it must be OK.  Why, it’s even good in some situations:

These results support models of polygyny based on female choice and suggest that, in some contexts, prohibiting polygyny could be costly for women and children by restricting marital options. Our study highlights the dangers of naive analyses of aggregated population data and the importance of considering locally realizable alternatives and context dependency when considering the health implications of cultural practices.

Satan could hardly have said it better. It follows his pattern when he tempted Eve; “you will not surely die,” he said; “your eyes will be opened.” Now he tempts moderns wanting multiple partners with the tool of evolutionary psychology. If it can be good in Tanzania, why not in France or America?

Sadly, there are no science reporters expressing outrage or even doubt at this suggestion. Instead, they regurgitate “whatever science says” uncritically. PhysOrg reports, “Study suggests not all polygynous marriage is harmful to women or children.” Science Daily notes that even the UN Human Rights Committee decries the practice, along with other women’s rights organizations. Yet its headline reads, “Often decried, polygyny may sometimes have advantages.” And how, exactly, did the anthropologists at UC Davis justify that conclusion? Feminists, prepare to cringe:

These findings support evolutionary anthropological accounts of marriage indicating that polygyny can be in a woman’s strategic interest when women depend on men for resources.

Shacking up: The institution of traditional marriage is already in such shambles that attempts to restore its honor would take years. Leave it to scientists to help the rubble bounce with another nuclear family blast. Ohio State gives Science Daily this license for licentiousness:  “Live together or get married? Study finds similar emotional benefits. Second unions also offer mental health boost.” They’re not only saying it’s OK; they’re actually encouraging it! Their study shows women doing just fine in cohabitation, and men actually experiencing “a drop in emotional distress” when they skip marriage and shack up. But of course! It’s stressful being responsible. Yielding to temptation is always the easier way. Listen to them preach:



What a concept: I can do whatever I feel like, if it gives me “emotional health.” Science has put its imprimatur on a subjective, nebulous, selfish feeling as a human’s overarching value in life. “Scientist” Kamp Dash, acting like a Priestess of the Church of Scientism, gives it her blessing. Stepping beyond objective research into outright advocacy, she says, “It’s not commonly known that couples can get emotional benefits from moving in together without being married. That’s something we should be talking about.

Pastors out of a job: “Should Families Going Through Divorce Have Court-Ordered Psychiatrists?” opens an Op-Ed on Live Science. With evident sincerely, divorce attorney David Mejias describes the gut-wrenching trauma divorce has on children, and considers what should be done about it. He thinks court-ordered psychiatrists would help. That may or may not work in specific cases, but what’s instructive about this article is that pastors or Bible counselors are completely ignored as an option. Society now has a new priesthood of authorized counselors: secular psychiatrists. Many of them are evolutionists, eschewing the Ten Commandments as having any authority whatsoever. They even propose to analyze “the science of giving” (Live Science), claiming that charity evolved, too—thus stripping it of its very soul. Although Mejia is a lawyer, he was granted a pulpit at Live “Science” as if his views are superior to those of Biblical counselors. Well, do secular psychiatrists and psychologists have a better empirical track record? See how well they’re doing in these previous entries: 5/10/13 and 3/20/14.

Anti-choice: Regardless of how the reader feels about HPV vaccine, this headline in Nature must sound disturbing to lovers of individual liberty and personal responsibility: “The world must accept that the HPV vaccine is safe.” Why? Because “the science” says so. So much for a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body—or a man’s or child’s right, too. “The HPV vaccine carries unique challenges,” Heidi Ledford says. “Because the first thing it prevents is sexual transmission of HPV, use of the vaccine evokes moral judgements around sexual behaviour.” Well, those unscientific reactionaries who believe in morality just need to get with the program. “Some parents are anxious that the vaccine will make their daughters more promiscuous, even though multiple studies have found no such effect.” The world “must accept” what “the science” says. All will be assimilated. And how do we know that they “found no such effect”? Because scientists are always objective truth-tellers, never influenced by politics, peer pressure or funding. Scientists, we know, have an evolved trait called “research integrity” that just emerges in their physical brains (see PhysOrg).

Go ahead, butcher babies for science: Breathes there a soul that was not appalled by CMP’s videos of Planned Parenthood officials selling baby body parts? (8/02/15) The answer is: yes. It’s the editors of Nature, the world’s leading Big Science journal, pretending to tell “The truth about fetal tissue research”. They could not deny the videos, but started their report by touting all the supposed benefits to science.

Goldstein agreed to speak to Nature, he says, because “somebody has to speak up responsibly”. He stressed that he and his colleagues think hard about the ethics of their work. “We are not happy about how the material became available, but we would not be willing to see it wasted and just thrown away.”

By creating a market for fetal tissue, scientists are accomplices to Planned Parenthood’s evil deeds. Goldstein might as well have used the same argument for human experimentation in Nazi Germany using the same rationale: “not happy about how the material became available… but… not willing to see it wasted”. The article goes on to repeat Planned Parenthood talking points in response to the outrage raised by the videos, worrying that the controversy might reduce the flow of baby body parts for “science”. This response is not unique to Nature (see 9/27/15, 9/20/15, 7/18/15). Finally, six months after the first video came out, Congress has crafted a bill to defund Planned Parenthood (but just for one year), knowing that the President who boasts about his support for Big Science and everything its consensus demands will undoubtedly veto it. See Family Research Council news about the bill.

Update 12/10/15: Nature’s editors came out swinging to defend Planned Parenthood, scaring the Big Science community into thinking that fetal tissue research is “under threat” from Republicans who are making “repeated, inaccurate and inflammatory accusations.” Yet can those charges face up to the actual words on camera made by key Planned Parenthood officials exposed by CMP? Nature‘s editors worry that defunding Planned Parenthood would affect Big Science somehow. But that amounts to tacit admission that scientists are profiting from taxpayer funds for abortion. Otherwise, why would they care where Planned Parenthood’s money is coming from? If they argue that funding for sale of baby body parts is such a small “line item” for Planned Parenthood, why are they concerned about taxpayer funds at all? If abortion were so profitable or self-sustaining, it would seem government could keep completely out of it. Notice their complaint is not about women’s access to other health care services, but to scientists’ access to fetal tissue—the products of Planned Parenthood’s most controversial service.

Nature shares the authors’ grave concerns, and joins the AAMC [Association of American Medical Colleges] in calling on US lawmakers to reject proposals that restrict access to fetal tissue.

What Nature appears afraid of is more than just restrictions on fetal tissue research, but direct funding from the government for it—an even more horrific possibility. This suggests that the government is not only funding Planned Parenthood to conduct abortions, but is sending money to Big Science institutions that they are using to purchase the baby parts from Planned Parenthood. This possibility calls for some serious investigation, as it is supposed to be illegal to use aborted babies for “research”. Nature’s schizophrenic editors think the morality of abortion can be separated from research on its products. If that excuse didn’t work at the Nuremburg trials, it has no place in the modern debate.

Scientific terrorism: The intrusion of scientism into society is no better illustrated than this piece in Nature: “Terrorism science: 5 insights into jihad in Europe.” Declan Butler treats this horrific subject involving good vs. evil as a matter that can be analyzed in a test tube.

A mixture of sociologists, political scientists, anthropologists and psychologists, such researchers are drawing on information generated by police, judicial inquiries and the media, and, in some cases, on interviews. They also study factors at play in prisons and socially-deprived areas. Some of their insights are summarized here.

Of course, the first finding is that “religion is not the trigger.” Naturally. It can’t be deliberate choice, or some other mindful cause stemming from intelligence and free will. No; it must be due to resentment, frustration and other aspects of poor emotional health, caused by low education and unemployment. With predictable political correctness, Butler warns against stigmatizing Islam. By implication, “terrorism science” is a scientific subject that should be analyzed by the recognized prophets of modern culture, the scientists. Of course, in any scientific analysis, there will always be a few outliers on the data spreadsheet. Osama Ben Laden was extremely wealthy, and the latest San Bernardino mass killer had a good paying job with co-workers who treated him respectfully, a wife and a 6-month old child. Their vicious hatred of Israel, devotion to their mosque and the Koran, and their pledge of allegiance to ISIS must have just been extraneous factors, unconnected to their actions, shooting 14 of his coworkers in cold blood at a Christmas party and building dozens of pipe bombs in their apartment.

Conservatism in the test tube: Two recent papers illustrate the propensity of liberal scientists to treat their opponents as lab rats. “Conservatives negatively evaluate counter-stereotypical people to maintain a sense of certainty,” psychologists writing in PNAS conclude. In a similar vein, psychologists from Aarhus University chime, “Republicans prefer politicians with deep voices.” (Science Daily). Time to bring in the predictable authority, Charles Darwin, and follow their master’s method, the just-so story divination trance:

Laustsen and Petersen’s research proceeds from the observations that in order to understand the behavior of modern humans, you need to look into the evolutionary history that has shaped the psychology producing this behavior. In prehistoric times when the ancestors of modern humans were roaming the East-African savannah in small groups, it made sense to support the strongest members of the tribe when confronted with danger. Psychological mechanisms which 30,000 years ago saved our ancestors from being devoured by saber-toothed tigers and other fierce animals continue to be at work today, explaining, among other things, why people vote as they do along the left-right continuum.

“There are evolutionarily important reasons for the structure of our psychology. Our ancestors had to make a decision about which leader to follow, and it was crucial for their survival and reproduction that they picked the right one. As a species we are pre-programmed to think in a certain way about who we would like to be in charge. This affects choices that we make even today,” said Petersen.

Two remarkable observations can be drawn from these examples. One is that the authors exhibit the Yoda Complex, not seeing themselves as products of evolutionary pre-programming. (That would, of course, undermine their own reasoning.) The other is that Big Science media outlets almost never print articles by conservatives analyzing liberals. One would think objective science would predict equal outcomes. There must be some reason for the asymmetry; perhaps it’s hidden in the dark matter.

Secular science has completely lost its way. It has no moral compass left. It is floating on fumes from its Christian past, blown by the wind, like a hot air balloon with its burner shut off. If Islamic terrorists show up at an AAAS conference on evolutionary psychology some day, they won’t care a wooden shekel about scientific “insights” into the roots of their evolved behavior. The leaders of the Big Science institutions of power had better hope a Christian conservative with a concealed-carry permit is somewhere nearby. And if they survive, they should breathe a bit of thanks that they were not aborted for the sake of “science”.


(Visited 55 times, 1 visits today)


  • SirWilhelm says:

    ““At one time marriage may have been seen as the only way for young couples to get the social support and companionship that is important for emotional health,” Kamp Dush said.” That’s a modern concept that has nothing to do with the real, ancient, reason for marriage, which is to legitimize the children conceived within the marriage, and to try and ensure the parents, particularly the biological father, would support the children. It’s an ancient problem for society, when fathers abandon their children and their mothers, leaving the mothers to fend for themselves, unless society steps in with assistance, what modern society calls welfare. Bastard used to be a word that carried a huge stigma for those that bore it. Today, it’s merely a mild insult, at worst, because society is willing to bear the burden of fatherless children to the point of bankruptcy. Also, it’s no wonder today’s children are confused about their genders. Either parent can raise a child alone, on welfare, or child support. What a country! What a world!

Leave a Reply
