Culture Intelligent Design Science

Science Magazine gets pitched headlong into the political mud wrestle, along with Scientific American

Okay, the editor said it: “there is no apolitical science.” We are not now dealing in the world of accusations but of admissions. He is admitting that opposition to “creationism,” however they define it is political. Fine. We all knew that but we did not have it in writing before. Getting things put in writing is a genuine help.

Culture Intelligent Design Science

Scientific American breaks with 175-year tradition, endorses Joe Biden for US President

They can break with tradition in this way if they want, of course. But then they will no longer be able to say that their science is not tainted with (drenched in?) politics. Which is why, no matter what the crisis, no one did it in the past. The outcome, no matter who wins the U.S. election, will be reduced public trust in science. Scientific American could well find itself down there with “media” generally, in terms of public trust.

Aesthetics, art, beauty and mind agit-prop, opinion manipulation and well-poisoning games Defending our Civilization Governance & control vs anarchy UD Newswatch highlights

Netflix goes over the moral cliff (or is it “conspiracism”?) . . .

A pic to ponder, first: In the aftermath of Mr Weinstein, Mr Epstein, Ms Maxwell and others (see here, the MeToo movement and how it helped set up the Kavanaugh hearings accusations), as well as the questions hovering over Prince Andrew of Windsor and others, many have begun to believe there is a lurking network Read More…