Lots of people with time on their hands claim we are anti-science (just like some claim that atheist mathematician Peter Woit and anti-ID biology prof blogger PZ Myers are “creationists” (here and here).
So it’s interesting to hear the “anti-science” label applied to NPR (National Public Radio) in the United States.
Here, at Forbes:
There are numerous other ways in which NPR and its affiliates reveal their biases–which are manifested not only by political favoritism but also by a kind of back-to-Nature, New Age-y fundamentalism that embraces environmental myths and hyperbole and is systematically antagonistic to certain sectors of science and technology. The “Living on Earth” program, in particular, seems to reflect reporting from a parallel universe devoid of balance or objectivity in which every radical environmental anxiety and prejudice is accepted uncritically.
The nationally syndicated Diane Rehm show, whose selection of guests is a veritable showcase for systematic bias, is consistently anti-science and anti-technology while it promotes big and paternalistic government and pillories the Right. Rehm views representatives of self-interested, anti-industry, radical NGOs as offering worthy and objective expertise while genuinely disinterested academics or industry-affiliated scientists are treated as shills and hucksters.
Rehm and others at NPR seem to have it in for genetic engineering in particular.
Author Henry I. Miller doesn’t think they should be getting public (or private) funds.
Of course, being “anti-science” means being against the official religion, so it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Follow UD News at Twitter!