Politics of science

The politics of science is distinguished from science itself, by virtue of the emphasis on the numbers of scientists or scientific bodies which favor a particular scientific theory, rather than whether the theory can be shown to be consistent with the facts.

The result is often politicized science (or atheistic junk science) which clings to outmoded ideas despite the appearance of better ones, as well as adopting new ideas despite lack of proof. Such junk science then being used in support of liberal public policy. Examples of such junk science influencing public and educational policy are evolution, relativity, global warming and much of cosmology and geology based on a time frame which predates creation. Consequently the rigid disciplne and logic of creation science is gaining in importance, enabling intelligent people to distinguish real science from atheistic secular politicized science.

The history of science is replete with examples in which the liberal scientific establishment resisted new theories and Biblical scientific foreknowledge which turned out centuries or decades later to be true. See, for example, the germ theory of disease.

Further examples of junk science embraced by liberals are the racist theory of Eugenics, used to support forced sterilization of "defectives", as well as prolonged race segregation and discrimination and global warming theories which are being used to promote a massive redistribution of wealth and/or a severe rationing of energy consumption (see Kyoto Protocol).

The bottom line, for a scientific theory, is of course not whether it advances the liberal agenda but whether it is true (see scientific method).